24 Jul 2025法庭線#7092
Anti-terrorism second case | Defence says first defendant was not involved in bombings, fabricated messages from the “public domain” to woo women
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周四（24 日）於高院踏入第 142 天審訊。
代表首被告何卓為的大律師繼續陳詞，指何沒有參與明愛醫院及羅湖站的爆炸案，控方指控何，在他租借的單位內製造炸彈的說法，背後沒有證據支持。辯方續指，控方用來指控何製作炸彈的 Telegram 訊息，只是何從公海獲取資訊，從而編造事件「認叻」去「追女仔」。
至於控方指控何，有份在羅湖站爆炸案前，將炸彈運出他租借的單位，到深水埗一處公園，留給一位陌生人。辯方指，何當時是為了到公園附近買酒，而有關將軍澳爆炸案的 TG 訊息，都是由其中學師弟「阿旦」發送。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train compartment. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Fortune Sticks” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, while one remaining defendant was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 142nd day on Thursday (24th).
The barrister representing first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai continued closing submissions, saying Ho had not participated in the bombing incidents at Caritas Medical Centre and Lo Wu station. The defence said there was no evidence supporting the prosecution’s allegation that Ho had made bombs at a unit he rented. It further submitted that the Telegram messages relied on by the prosecution to accuse Ho of making bombs merely contained information Ho had obtained from the public domain, which he used to fabricate accounts of the incidents to show off and woo women.
As for the prosecution’s allegation that Ho had helped transport a bomb from the unit he rented to a park in Sham Shui Po before the Lo Wu station bombing and left it there for a stranger, the defence said he had gone to the park to buy alcohol. It also said that the Telegram messages concerning the Tseung Kwan O bombing were sent by his junior schoolmate “Ah Dan”.
23 Jul 2025獨媒#7076
Public toilet regulations barring transgender men in transition from male toilets unconstitutional, High Court rules; judge declines to redraw gender boundaries
一名代號為K的跨性別男子因未完成性別重置手術，身份證仍顯示為「女性」，但獲發「廁所紙」，惟按《公廁(行為及舉止)規例》第7及10條，他仍被禁止進入男性公廁。K提出司法覆核，質疑有關條例違憲，並要求法庭擴闊規例中對「男性」及「女性」的定義，讓跨性別人士在性別過渡期間，可按其性別認同使用公廁。高院法官高浩文今（23日）頒下判決，裁定有關條例以及基於一個人出生時的生理性別來劃分界線，是對跨性別人士的私隱及平等權利構成過份及不必要的侵擾，並裁定條例違反《基本法》第25條、《香港人權法》第1(1)條、22條所保障的平等權，以及第14條所保障的私隱權。不過，法官拒絕應K的要求擴闊條例中「男性」和「女性」的法律定義至正在過渡期的跨性別人士，因為相關問題更適合由立法機關來處理。
A transgender man identified as K had not completed gender reassignment surgery and his identity card still stated that he was female, although he had been issued a “toilet paper”. However, under sections 7 and 10 of the Public Toilets (Conduct and Behaviour) Regulations, he remained prohibited from entering male public toilets. K sought a judicial review, challenging the constitutionality of the regulations and asking the court to broaden the definitions of “male” and “female” in the regulations so that transgender people could use public toilets according to their gender identity during gender transition. In a judgment handed down today (23rd), High Court Judge Anderson Chow ruled that the regulations, and drawing the distinction according to a person’s biological sex at birth, constituted excessive and unnecessary interference with transgender people’s rights to privacy and equality. He also ruled that the regulations violated the right to equality protected by Article 25 of the Basic Law and sections 1(1) and 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, as well as the right to privacy protected by section 14. However, the judge rejected K’s request to broaden the legal definitions of “male” and “female” in the regulations to include transgender people undergoing transition, saying the issue was more appropriately dealt with by the legislature.
23 Jul 2025法庭線#7078
Cheng Ka-yu Privately Prosecutes Former Employer Wall Street Journal; Employer Expected to Plead Not Guilty and Challenge Chain of Evidence for Phone Conversation
香港記者協會主席鄭嘉如去年當選後不足一個月，便遭《華爾街日報》（WSJ）以「職位重組」為由解僱。鄭認為自己是因參與工會而遭解僱，私人檢控僱主兩項「阻止僱員參與工會」有關控罪。案件周三（23 日）在東區裁判法院再訊，僱主一方擬不認罪。另外，鄭一方提及，僱主方表示將爭議草擬承認事實中，有關電話對話的證物鏈。
署理主任裁判官張志偉將案件押後至 12 月 18 日，進行 4 天英文審訊；另於 11 月 7 日再提訊，屆時將正式答辯。
Less than a month after Hong Kong Journalists Association chairperson Cheng Ka-yu was elected last year, she was dismissed by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the grounds of “position restructuring”. Cheng believes she was dismissed because of her participation in a trade union and has privately prosecuted her employer on two charges related to “preventing employees from participating in a trade union”. The case was mentioned again at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on Wednesday (23rd), where the employer’s side indicated that it intended to plead not guilty. Cheng’s side also said that the employer had indicated it would challenge the chain of evidence concerning a telephone conversation in the draft agreed facts.
Acting Principal Magistrate Chi Wai (1965) Cheung adjourned the case to 18 December for a four-day trial in English. It will be mentioned again on 7 November, when the defendant will formally enter a plea.
23 Jul 2025法庭線#7084
Second terrorism case | First defendant’s defence closes, jury urged to “be wary of yourselves” and not be swayed by other defendants’ “bad things”
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周三（23 日）於高院踏入第 141 天審訊。辯方由首被告何卓為一方首先結案。
辯方先提醒陪審員要「警惕自己……唔好俾潛意識影響」，不要以其他被告的口供中，提到何的「壞話」部分作指證。辯方表示，何租借的宏創方 503 室，單位不設鎖，有大量人出入，警方在內檢取的爆炸品原料，何未必完全知情。
而何在明愛醫院爆炸案後，已想脫離示威者的圈子，並搬離 503 室。辯方亦指，何在被捕後，身體出現傷勢，有機會在警署內被打，他並非自願交出手機密碼，要求陪審員「睇唔到」何在警員記事冊上，確認交出手機的招認。
Explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR Lo Wu-bound train carriage in early 2020, after which the Telegram channel “92 Signatures” claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the anti-terrorism law, while one other person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 141st day on Wednesday (23rd). The defence for the first defendant, Ho Cheuk Wai, was the first to close its case.
The defence first reminded the jurors to “be wary of yourselves … and not let your subconscious influence you”, and not to treat as evidence the parts of other defendants’ statements that mentioned “bad things” about Ho. The defence said the unit Ho rented, Room 503 at Wang Cheong Fong, had no lock and was accessed by many people. Ho might not have been fully aware of the explosive-making materials seized there by police.
The defence also said that after the explosion at Caritas Medical Centre, Ho had wanted to leave the group of protesters and moved out of Room 503. It further said that Ho had suffered injuries after his arrest and might have been assaulted at the police station. He had not voluntarily provided his phone password, and the jury was asked to “not see” Ho’s admission in police officers’ notebooks confirming that he had handed over his phone.
22 Jul 2025法庭線#7074
Tai Hang Sai Estate resident appeals conviction and fine over alleged loudspeaker placement, denies putting it there
去年 6 月，六旬大坑西邨居民被指在邨內梯間擺放擴音器，播放居民對重建大坑西邨的不滿及訴求，被票控一項「擴音器造成的噪音煩擾」罪，經審訊後被裁定罪成，罰款 1,500 元。
居民不服定罪提上訴，周二（22 日）在高等法院審理。他親自陳詞指，擴音器是由街坊「夾錢」購買，他僅是聯絡人、擁有者，質疑原審混淆擺放者及擁有者。他否認擺放擴音器，「百分百唔係我擺喺度，唔係我製造噪音」。法官押後裁決。
In June last year, a Tai Hang Sai Estate resident in his sixties was alleged to have placed a loudspeaker in a staircase in the estate to broadcast residents’ grievances and demands over the redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate. He was summonsed on one charge of “noise nuisance caused by a loudspeaker”, convicted after trial and fined HK$1,500.
The resident, who disputes the conviction, appealed. The appeal was heard in the High Court on Tuesday (22). Representing himself, he said the loudspeaker had been bought with money pooled by residents, and that he was only the contact person and owner. He alleged that the trial court had confused the person who placed the loudspeaker with its owner. He denied placing it there, saying: “It was 100 per cent not me who put it there, and I did not create the noise.” The judge adjourned the decision.
22 Jul 2025法庭線#7075
Second Anti-terrorism Case | Prosecution Completes 11 Days of Closing Submissions: First Five Defendants Were All Masterminds; Two Were Implicated and One Was Not Involved in the Conspiracy
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周二（22 日）於高院踏入第 140 天審訊。
控方結案反駁第一被告何卓為供稱，部分涉案的 TG 訊息並非由他本人發出的說法，指沒有證供支持。控方另指，何卓為與第七被告何培欣之間的通訊，足以證明何培欣對爆炸案知情，並有主動參與串謀。
控方完成連續 11 天的結案陳詞，總結指第一至第五被告均是「主謀」角色，負責放炸彈、製作炸彈遙控裝置等（見內文表），而第六、七被告則是被牽涉其中，第八被告則不涉及串謀。案件周三續，辯方由何卓為一方率先結案。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train carriage. The Telegram channel “九十二籤” later claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, while one other person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 140th day on Tuesday (22nd).
In its closing submissions, the prosecution rebutted first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai’s claim that some of the Telegram messages involved in the case had not been sent by him, saying there was no evidence to support it. The prosecution also said communications between Ho Cheuk Wai and seventh defendant Ho Pui-yan were sufficient to prove that Ho Pui-yan knew about the bombing case and had actively participated in the conspiracy.
After completing 11 consecutive days of closing submissions, the prosecution summarised that the first to fifth defendants had all played “mastermind” roles, responsible for placing bombs and making bomb remote-control devices, among other things (see table in the full article). The sixth and seventh defendants were implicated, while the eighth defendant was not involved in the conspiracy. The case continues on Wednesday, with the defence team for Ho Cheuk Wai scheduled to make the first closing submissions.
21 Jul 2025法庭線#7069
721 Six Years On｜No New Arrests or Prosecutions for Two Consecutive Years; 21 Convicted of Rioting and Other Offences—What Did They Do That Night?
元朗 721 襲擊踏入六周年，至今 22 人被控暴動、有意圖傷人等，當中 21 人罪成，被判囚 2 年 1 個月至 7 年。
《法庭線》從判詞、庭上內容整理罪成 21 人的案情。就 13 名白衣人，有 10 人在元朗站大堂襲擊，8 人曾在月台現身、擲物等，另 3 人則在英龍圍襲擊；至於 8 名非白衣人，林卓廷等 7 人被指在站大堂閘機內叫喊、射水、擲物等，另一非白衣人的犯案地點則在 J 出口擲物。
事發至今 6 年，事發影像拍攝到大批白衣人聚集，部分人涉持武器、襲擊。警方最新回覆，至今拘捕 69 人、檢控 22 人，數字與 2023 年 7 月時相同，顯示已連續兩年未有新的拘捕或檢控。
As the Yuen Long 721 attack enters its sixth anniversary, 22 people have so far been charged with rioting, wounding with intent and other offences. Of these, 21 were convicted and sentenced to between two years and one month and seven years’ imprisonment.
The Witness has compiled the case details of the 21 convicted people from court judgments and proceedings. Of the 13 white-shirted people, 10 attacked others in the concourse of Yuen Long Station, while eight appeared on the platform and threw objects, among other acts. The remaining three attacked others at Ying Lung Wai. Of the eight non-white-shirted people, Lam Cheuk-ting and six others were accused of shouting, spraying water and throwing objects inside the fare gates in the station concourse. The other non-white-shirted person was accused of throwing objects at Exit J.
Six years after the incident, footage captured a large group of white-shirted people gathering, with some allegedly carrying weapons and attacking others. In its latest response, the police said 69 people had been arrested and 22 prosecuted. The figures are the same as those reported in July 2023, indicating that there have been no new arrests or prosecutions for two consecutive years.
21 Jul 2025法庭線#7070
Second anti-terrorism case | Prosecution continues closing submissions: Ho Cheuk Wai voluntarily gave a statement; alleged injuries from police beating inconsistent with medical report
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周一（21 日）於高院踏入第 139 天審訊。
控方完成就第八被告周皓文的結案陳詞，指周手機內的 TG 訊息，加上警方在他家中檢取的爆炸品原料，可以證明周有製作炸彈的企圖。控方亦開始就第一被告何卓為的案情作結案陳詞。
早前何供稱，被捕後遭警員「打、嚇、氹」，控方反駁何在錄影會面前已見律師兩次，期間沒有投訴，他是自願錄口供，並與爆炸案及其他被告撇清關係。而何卓為在庭上供稱遭毆打造成的傷勢，亦與醫療報告不符。審訊周二續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “九十二籤” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 139th day on Monday (the 21st).
The prosecution completed its closing submissions on the case against the eighth defendant, Chow Ho-man, saying messages on Chow’s Telegram account, together with explosive-making materials seized from his home by police, proved that Chow intended to make bombs. The prosecution also began its closing submissions on the case against the first defendant, Ho Cheuk Wai.
Ho previously testified that after his arrest, police officers “beat, threatened and coaxed” him. The prosecution argued that Ho had met a lawyer twice before the video-recorded interview and had made no complaint during that period, and that he had given his statement voluntarily while distancing himself from the bombing case and the other defendants. The injuries that Ho Cheuk Wai testified in court had been caused by beatings were also inconsistent with the medical report. The trial will continue on Tuesday.
18 Jul 2025法庭線#7056
Second Anti-Terrorism Case | Prosecution Says Fourth Defendant Made Bomb Remote-Control Device; Explosives Materials Show Eighth Defendant’s Intent
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周五（18 日）於高院踏入第 138 天審訊。
控方繼續就第四被告張家俊作結案陳詞，指張製造涉案炸彈遙控裝置，有重要角色。至於辯方爭議警員在張家、公司檢取的電子儀器屬於「大隻仔」或同事「Rachel」，控方反駁其說法只是張用來掩飾，實際上「大隻仔」並不存在。
控方亦開始就第八被告周皓文作結案陳詞，指警方在周的房間搜出大量爆炸品原料，雖然沒有被製作成炸彈，但可以證明周有製造炸彈的意圖。案件下周一續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Divinations” later claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining person was charged with attempting to manufacture explosives. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 138th day on Friday (18th). The prosecution continued its closing submissions in relation to the fourth defendant, Cheung Ka-chun, alleging that he had manufactured remote-control devices for the bombs and had played an important role in the case. The defence disputed that electronic equipment seized by police from Cheung’s home and workplace belonged to a person referred to as “Big Guy” or to a colleague named “Rachel”. The prosecution countered that this explanation was merely a cover story used by Cheung and that “Big Guy” did not in fact exist.
The prosecution also began its closing submissions in relation to the eighth defendant, Chow Ho-man, arguing that police had found a large quantity of explosive-making materials in his room. Although the materials had not yet been assembled into bombs, the prosecution submitted that they demonstrated Chow’s intention to manufacture bombs.
17 Jul 2025法庭線#7055
Second Terrorism Case | Prosecution in closing submissions rebuts fourth defendant’s claim of being beaten by police, says he lied throughout testimony
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖站港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周四（17 日）於高院踏入第 137 天審訊。
控方完成對第五被告楊怡斯案情的陳詞，指在楊家中搜出衣物、八達通紀錄、楊的外貌特徵、其他被告手機內的 TG 訊息、閉路電視片段、警員證供，足以證明楊參與羅湖站爆炸案、串謀參與將軍澳尚德邨停車場未發生的爆炸案。
控方開始就第四被告張家俊的案情陳詞，反駁張所稱遭到警員毆打，指張是「一路作供、一路說謊」，又指按張說詞，他凌晨時分被打，但向醫生稱早上 7 時胸口才開始痛，質疑「會唔會傷成咁，7 點先痛？」案件周五續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu Station. The Telegram channel “九十二籤” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial entered its 137th day at the High Court on Thursday (17th).
The prosecution completed its submissions on the case against the fifth defendant Yeung Yee-sze, saying clothing and Octopus records found at Yeung’s home, Yeung’s physical characteristics, TG messages on other defendants’ phones, CCTV footage and police testimony were sufficient to prove that Yeung participated in the Lo Wu Station bombing case and conspired to participate in a bombing at the car park of Sheung Tak Estate, Tseung Kwan O, that did not take place.
The prosecution began its submissions on the case against the fourth defendant Christopher Ka Tsun Cheung, rebutting Cheung’s claim that he had been assaulted by police. It said Cheung was “testifying while lying”, and noted that under Cheung’s account he was beaten in the early hours, but told a doctor that his chest only began to hurt at 7 a.m., asking: “Could an injury be that serious and only start hurting at 7?” The case continues on Friday.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
