15 Oct 2025法庭線#7427
721 white-shirted man convicted; application for leave to appeal wounding conviction rejected same day
元朗 721「白衣人」鄧嘉民經審訊後，被裁定暴動及串謀有意圖傷人罪成，被判囚 4 年 1 個月。他就傷人罪提出定罪上訴，案件周三（15 日）處理許可聆訊，上訴庭法官薛偉成即日駁回，押後至周五（17 日）頒下書面判詞。
上訴方指，即使鄧「預見」木棍或藤條會導致人嚴重受傷，亦不代表他有特定意圖傷人，不足以定罪。法官指，白衣人當天作出攻擊行為，鄧作為其中一員涉及在暴動內，質疑是否沒證據證明鄧有參與傷人協議。
721 至今逾 6 年，至今 21 人暴動等罪成，當中 13 人為白衣人，其餘 8 人為非白衣人。警方今年 7 月回覆的數字顯示，已連續兩年未有新的拘捕或檢控。
Tang Ka-man, a “white-shirted man” involved in the Yuen Long 721 incident, was found guilty after trial of rioting and conspiracy to wound with intent, and sentenced to four years and one month in prison. He applied to appeal against his conviction for the wounding offence. The Court of Appeal’s leave hearing took place on Wednesday (15th), and judge Kevin Paul Zervos dismissed the application the same day. The handing down of written reasons was adjourned until Friday (17th).
The appeal argued that even if Tang had “foreseen” that wooden sticks or rattan would cause serious injury, this did not mean he had a specific intent to wound and was insufficient for a conviction. The judge said the white-shirted men had carried out attacks that day and Tang, as one of them, was involved in the riot, questioning whether it could be said that there was no evidence proving Tang had participated in an agreement to wound.
More than six years after 721, 21 people have so far been convicted of rioting and other offences. Of them, 13 were white-shirted men and the remaining eight were not. Figures provided by police in July showed that there had been no new arrests or prosecutions for two consecutive years.
14 Oct 2025法庭線#7421
Assistant Solicitor Convicted of Helping Owen Chow Send Complaint Letter Without Authorisation; High Court Refuses Certificate for Appeal to Final Court
2023 年 5 月，因「47 人案」還押的鄒家成，被指未經授權下，透過律師寄出予申訴專員公署的投訴信，投訴懲教署損毀及拒絕其親友送入的兩本佛學書籍。鄒與一名女律師被裁定「將未經授權的物品攜離監獄」罪成，鄒判囚 3 日，律師罰款 1,800 元。
兩人不服提定罪上訴被駁回，鄒則獲改判罰款 1,800 元。涉案律師申請上訴至終院許可證明書，周二（14 日）在高等法院即日被駁回。司法機構網頁顯示，涉案律師已直接向終院再申請上訴許可，暫未排期聆訊。
In May 2023, Owen Chow Ka-shing, who was remanded in custody over the “47-person case”, was accused of sending, through a lawyer and without authorisation, a complaint letter to The Ombudsman alleging that the Correctional Services Department had damaged two Buddhist books and refused to accept them when they were sent in by his friends and relatives. Chow and a female lawyer were convicted of “taking unauthorised articles out of a prison”. Chow was sentenced to three days’ imprisonment, while the lawyer was fined HK$1,800.
Their appeals against conviction were dismissed, while Chow’s sentence was varied to an HK$1,800 fine. The lawyer involved applied for a certificate granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, but the application was dismissed immediately at the High Court on Tuesday (14th). The Judiciary’s website shows that the lawyer has directly applied to the Court of Final Appeal again for leave to appeal; no hearing date has yet been set.
14 Oct 2025法庭線#7422
Three jailed for 18 to 27 months over HK$4.73m fraud involving 100% guaranteed loans
4 名男女涉提供虛假資料，透過中小企百分百擔保貸款計劃，詐騙銀行批出逾 473 萬元貸款，被警方國安處起訴串謀欺詐、洗黑錢等 4 罪。其中被告張昊揚早前在「光城者案」認罪，在本案獲撤控。另兩名被告認罪，餘下一人受審後串謀詐騙罪成，周二（14 日）於區域法院被判囚 18 至 27 個月。
暫委法官溫紹明指，本案詐騙行為有計劃及預備，所涉金額不低。但首兩名被告於本案中並無獲利，均被主謀利用犯案，第三被告則收取金錢後犯案，罪責不同。另外，案中女被告以證人身分作供，部分證供成為另一被告的定罪基礎，獲 50% 刑期扣減。
Four people allegedly provided false information to obtain more than HK$4.73 million in loans from banks through the SME 100% Guarantee Loan Scheme. They were prosecuted by the Police National Security Department on four charges, including conspiracy to defraud and money laundering. Defendant Cheung Ho-yeung had earlier pleaded guilty in the “Returning Valiant case” and had the charges in this case withdrawn. Two other defendants pleaded guilty, while the remaining defendant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud after trial. The three defendants were sentenced to between 18 and 27 months’ imprisonment at the District Court on Tuesday (14th). Deputy District Judge Wan Siu-ming said the fraud involved planning and preparation and that the amount involved was substantial. However, the first two defendants had not profited from the scheme and had both been used by the mastermind to commit the offences, whereas the third defendant had committed the offence in return for payment, making their levels of culpability different.
The female defendant also testified as a prosecution witness, and part of her evidence formed the basis for the conviction of another defendant. She therefore received a 50% reduction in sentence.
13 Oct 2025Yahoo#7417
Chan Tong-kai’s Taiwan Surrender Plan Nears ‘No Way Forward’; Koon Ho-ming Says Life Is Worse Than Prison and at a Standstill
觸發香港政府修訂《逃犯條例》的台灣殺人案，疑犯陳同佳在香港因洗黑錢罪名被判囚，他出獄至今已接近 6 年。一直跟進陳同佳情況的管浩鳴牧師，接受報章專訪表示，陳同佳赴台自首一事已接近「無得搞」，非常視乎台方的立場，稱暫未看到出路。管浩鳴過去曾說陳同佳居於深山清靜地方，他形容陳的情況「仲慘過坐監」，並回應外界質疑陳同佳「打機渡日」，稱他「人生完全停滯」，就如在大海隨水漂流的物體。
The Taiwan murder case that prompted the Hong Kong Government to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance involved suspect Chan Tong-kai, who was sentenced to prison in Hong Kong for money laundering and has been out of prison for nearly six years. Reverend Koon Ho-ming, who has continued to follow Chan’s situation, said in a newspaper interview that Chan’s plan to travel to Taiwan to surrender himself was nearing “no way forward” and depended heavily on the Taiwan side’s position, adding that he had not yet seen a way out. Koon previously said Chan was living in a quiet, remote mountainous area. He described Chan’s situation as “even worse than being in prison” and, responding to criticism that Chan was “playing video games to pass the time”, said that his “life had completely come to a standstill”, like an object drifting with the current in the open sea.
10 Oct 2025法庭線#7411
Lo Kin-hei acquitted of unlawful assembly; Court of Appeal orders Department of Justice to pay full costs after losing appeal
2019 年 11 月 18 日，市民發起到尖沙咀「營救」理大內示威者，多人被捕。時任民主黨主席羅健熙受審後，原審被裁定非法集結罪不成立。律政司不服提上訴，今年 3 月被上訴庭駁回，維持無罪裁決，並在周五（10 日）下令律政司須向羅健熙支付全數訟費。
判詞提到，律政司一方認為，雖然上訴庭裁定原審裁決並非有悖常理，但上訴不是完全沒有道理，又引案例稱，上訴方只有一個上訴理由獲法庭接納，故答辯人只能獲一半訟費。羅健熙一方則指，上訴理由多寡及成功率，並非定奪訟費的關鍵因素，應視乎有否浪費法庭時間。
上訴庭指，本案與其他案例的根本分別，是律政司上訴理由「其實無一成立」，而原審法官誤讀有關「共同目的」的案例屬犯錯，但這錯誤與羅的無罪裁決無關，不認為「已脫身」的羅，要為這錯誤付出代價。判詞指，律政司希望糾正原審錯誤可以理解，但不能指望羅分擔訟費。
On 18 November 2019, members of the public organised a move to Tsim Sha Tsui to “rescue” protesters inside Polytechnic University, and many people were arrested. Lo Kin-hei, then chairperson of the Democratic Party, was tried and found not guilty of unlawful assembly at trial. The Department of Justice appealed against the decision. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in March this year, which upheld the acquittal, and on Friday (10th) ordered the Department of Justice to pay Lo his full costs.
The judgment said the Department of Justice argued that, although the Court of Appeal had ruled that the trial decision was not irrational, the appeal was not entirely without merit. It cited a case in which the court held that where only one ground of appeal was accepted, the respondent could receive only half of the costs. Lo’s side argued that the number of grounds of appeal and the success rate were not decisive factors in determining costs; the question should be whether court time had been wasted.
The Court of Appeal said the fundamental difference between this case and the other cases was that “none of the grounds of appeal [brought by the Department of Justice] actually succeeded”. The trial judge had erred in misreading cases concerning “common purpose”, but that error was unrelated to Lo’s acquittal. The court did not consider that Lo, who had been acquitted, should have to pay for the error. The judgment said the Department of Justice’s wish to correct the trial court’s error was understandable, but it could not expect Lo to share the costs.
10 Oct 2025法庭線#7412
Terrorism second case | Psychological reports say three defendants dissatisfied with police and government; Ho Cheuk Wai poses threat to public safety; judge to sentence on Oct. 27
反恐條例第二案首 7 名被告，被陪審團裁定《反恐條例》主控罪全部不成立，其中 3 人交替控罪成立，面對最高判監 20 年的刑罰。案件周五（10 日）在高等法院處理求情，法官陳仲衡押後 10 月 27 日判刑。
控方引述 3 被告心理報告，皆提及對警隊、政府不滿；亦引案例指判刑時需判斷被告對公眾安全的危害。報告指，首被告何卓為重犯機會高，對公眾安全的危害「不容忽視」。何一方則呈求情信指可證其品格「係咪真係壞成咁」，又指他還押期間行為良好。
張家俊一方指張最多是協助角色，負責製造炸彈的搖控。李嘉濱一方則依賴書面陳詞。多名被告申請取回電子裝置、現金及衣物，控方反對，指案件有機會上訴，而物品與案有關。兩名無罪被告另申請訟費，官押後頒下書面裁決。
The first seven defendants in the second case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance were found by a jury not guilty of all the principal charges under the ordinance. Three were convicted of alternative charges and face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The case was heard in the High Court on Friday (10th) for mitigation. Judge Chan Chung-hang adjourned sentencing until Oct. 27.
The prosecution cited psychological reports on the three defendants, all of which mentioned dissatisfaction with the police force and the government. It also cited case law stating that, when sentencing, the court must assess the danger the defendants pose to public safety. The report said the first defendant, Ho Cheuk Wai, had a high risk of reoffending and that the danger posed to public safety was “not to be ignored”. The side of Ho submitted letters of mitigation asking whether they could show that his character was “really that bad”, and said he had behaved well while remanded in custody.
The side of Christopher Ka Tsun Cheung said Cheung had at most played an assisting role, being responsible for making the remote control for the bomb. The side of Lee Ka-ban relied on written submissions. Several defendants applied to retrieve electronic devices, cash and clothing. The prosecution objected, saying the case might be appealed and that the items were related to the case. The two acquitted defendants also applied for costs. The judge reserved a written decision.
10 Oct 2025法庭線#7413
10.13 Tseung Kwan O｜4 accused of “taking matters into their own hands” against plainclothes police officer; Department of Justice seeks HK$197,000 in employees’ compensation
2019 年 10 月 13 日，一名便衣警在將軍澳尚德邨被示威者「私了」，6 人事後被控暴動及非法禁錮等罪，其中 5 人被判囚、案發時 13 歲少年則被判入教導所。律政司代表警務處處長於周四（9 日）入稟區域法院，向其中 4 人索取僱員補償 19.7 萬元。
4 名被告為劉文全、吳婉菁、雷藝佳及案發時 13 歲少年。入稟狀指，政府一名僱員於 2019 年 10 月 13 日工作期間，因為上述 4 人而受傷。律政司代表警務處處長，向 4 人申索僱員補償 19.7 萬元，連同利息及訟費。
On 13 October 2019, a plainclothes police officer was attacked by protesters at Sheung Tak Estate in Tseung Kwan O. Six people were subsequently charged with offences including rioting and unlawful imprisonment. Five were sentenced to imprisonment, while a boy who was 13 at the time of the incident was sent to a training centre. Representing the Commissioner of Police, the Department of Justice filed a claim in the District Court on Thursday (9th) seeking HK$197,000 in employees’ compensation from four of them.
The four defendants are Lau Man-chuen, Ng Yuen-ching, Lui Ngai-kai and the boy who was 13 at the time of the incident. The writ states that a government employee was injured while working on 13 October 2019 because of the four defendants. Representing the Commissioner of Police, the Department of Justice is seeking HK$197,000 in employees’ compensation from the four, together with interest and legal costs.
10 Oct 2025法庭線#7416
12 Hong Kong people | QUINN Moon admits making and possessing explosives and is jailed for 61 months; sentence appeal filed last year withdrawn, DOJ says
「12 港人」之一的喬映瑜，2022 年 8 月服完內地刑期後被押返香港，隨即被捕，其後承認製造及管有爆炸品、妨礙司法公正 3 罪，2024 年 1 月在區域法院被判囚 61 個月，她提出刑罰上訴。
律政司周五（10 日）回覆《法庭線》，指喬已通知上訴庭放棄其刑罰上訴許可申請，法庭遂根據法例規定駁回有關申請。翻查資料，隨着喬映瑜撤回上訴，「12 港人」案大多數被告的案件均已審結，僅餘李宇軒牽涉的黎智英國安案仍待處理。
QUINN Moon, one of the “12 Hong Kong people”, was sent back to Hong Kong after completing a mainland sentence in August 2022 and was arrested immediately. QUINN Moon subsequently pleaded guilty to three charges: making and possessing explosives, and perverting the course of justice. In January 2024, the District Court sentenced QUINN Moon to 61 months’ imprisonment, and QUINN Moon filed an appeal against the sentence.
The Department of Justice told The Witness on Friday (10th) that QUINN Moon had notified the Court of Appeal of the withdrawal of the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, and the court consequently dismissed the application in accordance with the law. According to records, following QUINN Moon’s withdrawal of the appeal, the cases involving most of the defendants in the “12 Hong Kong people” case have been concluded. Only the national security case involving Lee Yuet-yan and Jimmy Lai remains to be dealt with.
9 Oct 2025集誌社#7407
Hong Kong Parliament case | National security police offer HK$200,000 reward for wanted Ha Hoi-chun; elder brother taken in to assist investigation
香港議會案，再有一名被國安警通緝者的親友，被國安警帶走助查。今年 60 歲的夏海俊，被指涉嫌「顛覆國家政權罪」，七月被懸紅 20 萬元通緝，及後被列為「指明潛逃者」，其兄長今日（9日）被國安警帶走助查，早前離開將軍澳警署。
In the Hong Kong Parliament case, a relative of another person wanted by the national security police has been taken away to assist an investigation. Sixty-year-old Ha Hoi-chun is suspected of the offence of subversion of state power and was wanted in July after a HK$200,000 reward was offered. He was subsequently listed as a “specified absconder”. His elder brother was taken away by national security police today (the 9th) to assist an investigation and had earlier left Tseung Kwan O Police Station.
9 Oct 2025集誌社#7409
Guo Fengyi’s Father Denies Attempting to Deal with Absconder’s Property; Court Finds Case to Answer, Hearing Resumes on 10.16; Defendant Will Not Testify
遭警方國安處通緝的「香港民主委員會」執行總監郭鳳儀，其 68 歲父親郭賢生被指企圖處理女兒的保單，被起訴「23 條」下企圖處理潛逃者財產罪。案件周四（9 日）在西九龍裁判法院踏入第 2 日審訊。
友邦服務部主管供稱，公司系統會在涉案保單受保人年滿 18 歲當日，自動把他轉為保單持有人，毋須提出申請。辯方指，被告亦有為兩名兒子購買同類保險，並曾於長子成年後，替他申請意外索償，並更改保單繳費方式，均獲友邦受理，可見如沒提出申請，保單持有人不會自動更改。主管回應指，有機會是公司系統或內部錯誤。
官裁定案件表證成立（詳見 101 文章），辯方指被告不會作供，但會傳召一名證人，案件押後至下周四（16 日）續審。
The 68-year-old father of Guo Fengyi, executive director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, who is wanted by the police’s national security department, Kwok Yin-sang has been charged under “Article 23” with attempting to deal with an absconder’s property. The case entered its second day of trial at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Thursday (the 9th).
A supervisor from AIA’s services department testified that the company’s system automatically changes the insured person to the policyholder on the day they turn 18, without an application being required. The defence said the defendant had also bought similar insurance policies for his two sons and, after the elder son came of age, had applied for an accident claim on his behalf and changed the policy’s payment method, with both requests accepted by AIA. This showed that the policyholder would not change automatically without an application, the defence argued. The supervisor responded that this could have been due to an error in the company’s system or internally.
The court ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case (see Article 101 for details). The defence said the defendant would not testify but would call one witness. The case was adjourned to next Thursday (the 16th) for continuation.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
