4 Jun 2025法庭線#6870
Allegedly falsely claimed bombs had been planted at central government offices and elsewhere; 35-year-old man charged with four counts of bomb hoax, remanded pending hearing
警方國安處周一（2 日）以國安法下「串謀恐怖活動」罪拘捕 1 男 4 女，指他們今年 4 月底至 5 月中，多次經電話、電郵和即時通訊軟件向警方發放虛假訊息，聲稱會引爆在中央駐港機構和啟德體育園內的炸彈，並發放宣揚「台灣獨立」和「香港獨立」的訊息。被捕 4 名女子獲准保釋候查，35 歲男子則被控 4 項《公安條例》下「炸彈嚇詐行為」罪。
案件周三（4 日）於觀塘裁判法院提堂。被告暫毋須答辯，案件押後 7 月 29 日於西九龍裁判法院再訊，待警方進一步調查，包括是否有涉及其他控罪的言論。署理主任裁判官梁嘉琪拒絕被告保釋申請，被告將於 6 月 12 日進行保釋覆核。
The Police National Security Department arrested one man and four women on Monday (2 June) on suspicion of conspiracy to commit terrorist activities under the National Security Law. They were accused of repeatedly sending false information to police by telephone, email and instant messaging between late April and mid-May this year, claiming that bombs would be detonated at central government offices in Hong Kong and Kai Tak Sports Park, and disseminating messages advocating “Taiwan independence” and “Hong Kong independence”. The four women were released on bail pending investigation, while the 35-year-old man was charged with four counts of bomb hoax under the Public Order Ordinance.
The case was brought before Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts on Wednesday (4 June). The defendant was not required to enter a plea at this stage. The case was adjourned to 29 July at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts pending further police investigation, including whether the statements involved other offences. Acting Chief Magistrate LEUNG Ka-kie refused the defendant’s bail application. The defendant will undergo a bail review on 12 June.
3 Jun 2025法庭線#6860
Anti-terrorism second case | First defendant denies knowing unit was used to make explosives, disagrees that Tseung Kwan O bombing was ready
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（3 日）於高院踏入第 110 天審訊。
首被告何卓為繼續作供。控方展示宏創方閉路電視片段、TG 群組對話，顯示次被告離開 503 室後，在群組問及哪裡有「黑火藥」，控方指，所有群組成員及不在其中的第七被告，均知道該單位「係儲存、製造、試爆爆炸品嘅地方」。何不同意。
控方亦展示將軍澳爆炸案的計劃圖，指當時已「準備就緒」，群組成員已購買變裝用品、運送炸彈的行李箱，又準備了假車牌、電路板，爆炸地點則為尚德停車場，若警方沒在 3 月 7 日拘捕 7 名被告，爆炸案就會發生。何不同意。審訊周五續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “92 Fortune Sticks” 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 110th day on Tuesday (the 3rd).
The first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai continued giving evidence. The prosecution presented CCTV footage from Wang Cheong Fang and Telegram group chats showing that, after the second defendant left Room 503, he asked in the group where “black powder” could be found. The prosecution said that all the group members, as well as the seventh defendant who was not in the group, knew that the unit was a place for storing, manufacturing and test-detonating explosives. Ho disagreed.
The prosecution also presented a plan for the Tseung Kwan O bombing, saying that preparations were then “ready”: group members had bought disguises and a suitcase for transporting the bomb, and had also prepared false number plates and circuit boards. The bombing location was Sheung Tak car park. The prosecution said that if police had not arrested the seven defendants on March 7, the bombing would have taken place. Ho disagreed. The trial will continue on Friday.
2 Jun 2025法庭線#6854
Terrorism case No. 2｜First defendant says “one shot decides victory or defeat” on Telegram; tells court petrol bombs were only meant to “scare people”, not hurt anyone
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（2 日）於高院踏入第 109 天審訊。
控方引述首被告何卓為曾在群組內發出的將軍澳 Google Map 位置，並有內容指「決定一發定勝負」、「但會好重料」，可見當時何已清楚指出放炸彈位置。何否認，並稱當時只是打算投汽油彈，但沒有計劃要擊中警察。
控方亦指，當時有人在另一群組稱「下面班友既然咁鍾意 cap 光環，我 prefer set（炸彈）個邊」，完全漠視會否傷及他人。何解釋，當時理解眾人打算將汽油彈投向博取知名度的人，令到「背景有火」、「有畫面」，惟強調眾人早有共識，沒有打算傷及其他人，純粹「嚇吓鬼咁嘅意思」。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Lots” 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 109th day on Monday (the 2nd).
The prosecution referred to a Google Maps location in Tseung Kwan O sent by the first defendant, Ho Cheuk Wai, in a group, along with messages saying “one shot decides victory or defeat” and “but it will be very heavy stuff”. It said this showed that Ho had clearly indicated the location where the bomb was to be placed. Ho denied this, saying he had only intended to throw petrol bombs and had not planned to hit police officers.
The prosecution also said that someone in another group had written: “Since the guys below like capturing halos so much, I prefer to set the (bomb) over there,” showing complete disregard for whether anyone else would be injured. Ho explained that he understood the others had intended to throw petrol bombs at people seeking publicity, so that there would be “fire in the background” and “something to show”. He stressed, however, that everyone had already agreed not to hurt anyone else, and that it was purely “just to scare people, so to speak”.
30 May 2025法庭線#6843
Second anti-terrorism case | First defendant denies discussing bomb plot, conspiring to transport explosives and masterminding Tseung Kwan O bombing
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（30 日）於高院踏入第 108 天審訊。
控方展示首被告何卓為與第七被告，在明愛醫院爆炸案翌日的 TG 對話，當時他稱「無聊可能去粉嶺或者天水圍釣下魚」、「而家我睇緊地圖點樣搞高鐵」，控方指他以釣魚名義去為另一爆炸案「踩線」、設置汽油彈。何卓為不同意。
控方亦先後播放羅湖爆炸案當日，宏創方及荔枝角道的閉路電視片段，指何卓為和第三被告有共同計劃，一起將爆炸品運送到公廁內，以便其他人接收。何不同意。他亦否認是將軍澳爆炸案的主謀或曾向他人發出指示。審訊下周一續。
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” 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. The trial at the High Court entered its 108th day on Friday (30th).
The prosecution showed a Telegram conversation between first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai and the seventh defendant on the day after the Caritas Medical Centre bombing. At the time, he said, “I’m bored; I might go fishing in Fanling or Tin Shui Wai,” and “I’m looking at the map now to see how to deal with the high-speed rail.” The prosecution said he used fishing as a pretext to scout the site of another bombing and plant petrol bombs. Ho Cheuk Wai disagreed.
The prosecution also played CCTV footage from the day of the Lo Wu bombing, showing Wang Chong Fong and Lai Chi Kok Road. It said Ho Cheuk Wai and the third defendant had a joint plan to transport the explosives together to a public toilet for collection by others. Ho disagreed. He also denied masterminding the Tseung Kwan O bombing or giving instructions to others. The trial will continue on Monday next week.
29 May 2025法庭線#6840
Anti-terrorism case No. 2｜First defendant denies being man in explosives-testing video; believes other two defendants took part in bombing case
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（29 日）於高院踏入第 107 天審訊。
控方播放懷疑測試爆炸品的片段，片中男子在廁板上點燃橙色粉末後冒煙，期間有男聲稱「得得得」，亦有笑聲傳出。首被告何卓為指，不記得片中的男聲和笑聲屬誰，惟肯定聲音不是自己，而片中人都不是自己，又指當日是由名為「華御結」的人測試爆炸品。
控方另展示涉案 TG 群組在明愛醫院爆炸案當天的訊息，顯示何稱「不如入去點着佢算」、「會唔會因為接收太遠」，控方指何參與該案，何不同意，又稱估計次被告和第三被告有參與。案件周五續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train carriage. The Telegram channel “92 Divination Sticks” 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 107th day on Thursday (29th).
The prosecution played a video believed to show explosives being tested. In the video, a man ignites orange powder on a toilet lid and smoke emerges. A male voice says, “Okay, okay, okay,” and laughter is also heard. The first defendant, Ho Cheuk Wai, said he did not remember whose voice and laughter they were, but was certain the voice was not his and that the person in the video was not him. He also said that the explosives had been tested that day by a person named “Wah Yuet-kit”.
The prosecution also presented messages from the Telegram group involved on the day of the Caritas Medical Centre bombing. They showed Ho saying, “Why not go in and light it?” and “Could it be because the receiver is too far away?” The prosecution said Ho had participated in the case. Ho disagreed and said he believed the second and third defendants had taken part. The case will continue on Friday.
27 May 2025法庭線#6834
Anti-terrorism trial: Prosecution cites voice message and CCTV footage to rebut first defendant’s earlier testimony, accuses him of reconstructing evidence
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（27 日）於高院踏入第 106 天審訊。
首被告何卓為早前供稱，一部涉案的 Samsung 手機在羅湖站爆炸案發生當天，是由他人持有，控方引 TG 語音訊息，指男聲是何，手機一直是他持有。何不同意。何另供稱於 2020 年 3 月 5 日下午離開宏創坊，至翌日凌晨才返回。控方播 CCTV 片段，顯示他當晚與次被告返回單位。
何庭上投訴，稱這是他 5 年來首次看到該些呈堂截圖，控方反駁稱「一早畀晒你哋」。何同意辯方收到片段，但稱他從沒看過，又指證供錯誤是因控方提供錯誤文件。控方則指首被告是「重組作證供」，何不同意。案件周三續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Fortune Sticks” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining defendant was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 106th day at the High Court on Tuesday (27th).
The first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai had earlier testified that a Samsung mobile phone linked to the Lo Wu station explosion was in another person’s possession on the day of the incident. The prosecution played a Telegram voice message, saying the male voice was Ho’s and that the phone had remained in his possession. Ho disagreed. Ho also testified that he left Wang Cheong on the afternoon of 5 March 2020 and did not return until the early hours of the following day. The prosecution played CCTV footage showing him returning to the unit with the second defendant that night.
Ho complained in court that this was the first time in five years he had seen the screenshots tendered in evidence. The prosecution responded: “We gave them all to you long ago.” Ho agreed that the defence had received the footage, but said he had never seen it. He also said errors in his testimony were caused by the prosecution providing incorrect documents. The prosecution said the first defendant was “reconstructing his testimony”, which Ho disputed. The case continues on Wednesday.
27 May 2025法庭線#6835
So Tsun-fung admits inciting blank voting, receives suspended sentence; High Court refuses certificate for appeal to Court of Final Appeal
前中大學生會會長蘇浚鋒，被指 2021 年在網上轉載前立法會議員許智峯倡選舉投白票帖文，被廉署起訴違反《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》。辯方爭議控罪合憲性，而裁判官裁定合憲後，蘇改為認罪，判囚兩個月、緩刑 18 個月。
蘇以案件呈述方式提上訴，爭議控罪不合理限制言論自由，被高院法官駁回，蘇周二（27 日）向高院申請上訴至終審法院證明書，再被駁回。據了解，蘇一方已直接向終院申請上訴許可。
Former CUHK Students’ Union president So Tsun-fung was accused of reposting online a post by former Legislative Council member Hui Chi-fung in 2021 urging people to cast blank votes in the election. The ICAC charged So Tsun-fung with violating the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. After the magistrate ruled that the charge was constitutional, the defence changed the plea to guilty. So was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.
So appealed by way of case stated, arguing that the charge unreasonably restricted freedom of speech. A High Court judge dismissed the appeal. On Tuesday (the 27th), So applied to the High Court for a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, but the application was again dismissed. It is understood that So’s side has directly applied to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal.
26 May 2025法庭線#6826
Anti-terrorism Case 2 | First defendant calls himself a “crane by the pond” under questioning; commented in Telegram group and stopped members from “self-detonating”
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（26 日）於高院踏入第 105 天審訊。
首被告何卓為在控方盤問下承認，曾在涉案 TG 群組給予意見，又指即使覺得身邊人與爆炸案有關，亦不敢貿然退出群組，「必然會被認為係鬼」。控方又指，何在群組針對「封關」一事，稱「我哋戰略上係成功」；何庭上形容是「塘邊鶴」評論，不同意屬鼓勵他人。
控方另引述訊息，指有人提及市區單位爆炸，而何提及「自爆本身好危險」。何解釋，是想阻止成員「自爆」。案件周二續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train carriage. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Fortune Sticks” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining defendant was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 105th day on Monday (the 26th).
Under questioning by the prosecution, first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai admitted giving opinions in the Telegram group involved in the case. He also said that even if he thought people around him were connected to the bombing case, he did not dare to leave the group hastily because he would “inevitably be regarded as a mole”. The prosecution also said that Ho had commented in the group on the “border closure”, saying, “Strategically, we have succeeded.” In court, Ho described this as a “crane by the pond” comment and disagreed that it encouraged others.
The prosecution also cited messages in which someone mentioned an explosion at an urban flat, while Ho said that “self-detonation itself is very dangerous”. Ho explained that he had wanted to stop group members from “self-detonating”. The case continues on Tuesday.
26 May 2025法庭線#6829
Second terrorism case | First defendant calls himself “a crane by the pond” under questioning; comments in TG group and sought to stop members from “blowing themselves up”
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（26 日）於高院踏入第 105 天審訊。
首被告何卓為在控方盤問下承認，曾在涉案 TG 群組給予意見，又指即使覺得身邊人與爆炸案有關，亦不敢貿然退出群組，「必然會被認為係鬼」。控方又指，何在群組針對「封關」一事，稱「我哋戰略上係成功」；何庭上形容是「塘邊鶴」評論，不同意屬鼓勵他人。
控方另引述訊息，指有人提及市區單位爆炸，而何提及「自爆本身好危險」。何解釋，是想阻止成員「自爆」。案件周二續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train carriage. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Lots” subsequently 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 105th day on Monday (26th).
The first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai admitted under questioning by the prosecution that he had given opinions in the Telegram group linked to the case. He also said that even if he thought people around him were connected to the bomb cases, he would not have dared to leave the group rashly because he would “certainly be regarded as a mole”. The prosecution also said that, in discussing the “border closure” in the group, Ho had said, “Strategically, we have succeeded.” Ho described the comment in court as that of “a crane by the pond” and disagreed that it amounted to encouraging others.
The prosecution also cited a message in which someone mentioned an explosion at an urban flat, while Ho said that “blowing oneself up is dangerous in itself”. Ho explained that he had intended to stop members from “blowing themselves up”. The case continues on Tuesday.
22 May 2025法庭線#6818
11.18 Yau Ma Tei | Five convicted of rioting jailed for 5 years; appeal says trial court failed to consider rehabilitation and youth, dismissed by appeal court same day
2019 年 11 月，警方圍堵理工大學內的示威者，213 人涉在油麻地「圍魏救趙」被控暴動。其中 5 人經審訊後定罪、判囚 5 年，提出定罪及判刑上訴，上訴庭周四（22 日）即日駁回，將於 6 個月內頒布判詞。
上訴方指，原審判刑沒考慮，被告等候裁決期間上教會等更生情況，官質疑「一邊堅持唔認罪，一邊又話我更生緊，冇意思㗎？」又指判刑有一籃子因素考慮，「唔係祈吓禱、去吓教堂、做吓義工」。
上訴方另指原審沒就年輕減刑。官指暴動罪嚴重，「唔畀（減刑）自然係道理，畀係認罪（及年輕）有可能支持到佢一時衝動，係額外酌情、扣減，兩者冇任何矛盾」。
In November 2019, police surrounded protesters inside the Polytechnic University. A total of 213 people were charged with rioting in connection with the “rescue Wei from Zhao” operation in Yau Ma Tei. Five were convicted after trial and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. They appealed against both their convictions and sentences, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on Thursday (22nd) on the same day. It will hand down its judgment within six months.
The appellants argued that the trial court had failed to consider their rehabilitation during the period when they were awaiting the verdict, including attending church. A judge questioned: “On the one hand, you insist on pleading not guilty, and on the other hand you say you’re undergoing rehabilitation—isn’t that meaningless?” The judge also said sentencing involved a range of factors: “It’s not simply a matter of praying, going to church and doing volunteer work.”
The appellants also argued that the trial court had failed to apply a reduction for youth. The judge said rioting was a serious offence: “Naturally, there is a reason not to grant [a reduction]. Granting one means that the guilty plea [and youth] may support the view that the person acted on an impulse; it is an additional discretionary reduction. The two are not contradictory at all.”
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
