29 Apr 2025法庭線#6739
Anti-terrorism case No. 2 | First defendant says he cooperated with police’s account during video interview after being told he could get bail, believing officer “wanted this answer”
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（29 日）於高院踏入第 96 天審訊。
首被告何卓為供稱，警方曾游說他，指若他配合調查，可考慮給予「警署擔保」。故他為獲得保釋，在會面時「配合警員說法」，稱在 503 室聞到臭雞蛋味，及假稱看到「山雞」（被指次被告李嘉濱）混合不明粉末，作為換取保釋的「籌碼」，「我相信 13024 （警員梁家俊）想要呢個答案。」
他庭上稱，其實只在 503 室見過一個裝有粉末的玻璃瓶，故推算「一定有人將啲粉倒埋一齊。」錄影會面中，何曾問警員「講咗我係咪有機會保釋到？」他庭上表示，是提醒警方與他之間的交易。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train compartment. The Telegram channel “92 Signatures” 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 96th day on Tuesday (29th).
The first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai testified that police had persuaded him by saying that if he cooperated with the investigation, they could consider granting him “police bail”. He therefore “cooperated with the officers’ account” during the interview in order to obtain bail, saying that he had smelled rotten eggs in Room 503 and falsely claiming to have seen “Mountain Chicken” (alleged second defendant Lee Ka-ban) mixing unidentified powder. He described this as his “bargaining chip” for securing bail, saying, “I believe 13024 (police officer John Peter Ka Chun Leong) wanted this answer.”
He told the court that he had in fact only seen a glass bottle containing powder in Room 503, and therefore inferred that “someone must have poured the powders together”. During the video-recorded interview, he asked the officer, “If I’ve said this, do I have a chance of getting bail?” He said in court that this was a reminder to police of the deal between them.
28 Apr 2025獨媒#6736
Trans man Tse Henry Edward seeks judicial review to overturn new ID gender policy, alleging privacy infringement and discrimination
終審法院前年裁定，入境處要求跨性別人士須完成完整性別重置手術，才能更改身分證性別的政策違憲。入境處去年4月初修訂政策，未完成完整性別重置手術的人士，若果已移除乳房，或移除陽具和睪丸的話，須作出法定聲明，包括承諾會繼續接受荷爾蒙治療、在當局要求下提交血液測試報告以檢查荷爾蒙水平，以及若果通訊地址和電話有任何更改，須在30日內通知人事登記處，方可申請更改身分證性別。其中一名勝訴的跨性別人士、香港跨性別平權協會主席謝浩霖上周四（24日）入稟高院提請司法覆核，質疑新政策損害他的私隱權及構成性別歧視。他亦質疑本港缺乏法律上認可性別轉換的途徑，意味他的男性身份具不確定性，違反《香港人權法案》第14條所保障的私隱權和私生活權利。謝要求法庭裁定新政策違憲及下令撤銷。
The Court of Final Appeal ruled two years ago that the Immigration Department’s policy requiring transgender people to undergo complete gender reassignment surgery before changing the gender marker on their identity cards was unconstitutional. In early April last year, the department revised the policy. People who have not undergone complete gender reassignment surgery may apply to change the gender marker on their identity cards if they have removed their breasts, or their penis and testicles, but must make a statutory declaration undertaking to continue hormone treatment, submit blood-test reports to check hormone levels when requested by the authorities, and notify the Registration of Persons Office within 30 days of any change to their correspondence address or telephone number. Tse Henry Edward, one of the transgender people who won the case and chair of the Hong Kong Transgender Equality Association, filed an application for judicial review in the High Court last Thursday (the 24th), challenging the new policy as infringing his right to privacy and constituting sex discrimination. He also argued that Hong Kong lacks a legally recognised route for gender transition, meaning that his male identity remains uncertain, in breach of the right to privacy and private life protected by Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. He asked the court to rule that the new policy was unconstitutional and order its withdrawal.
28 Apr 2025獨媒#6737
Restaurant concert allegation: Wan Min-an pleads guilty to unlicensed place of entertainment offence, fined $3,500
歌手阮民安被指網上發表煽動言論及訛稱賣曲奇為暴動少女籌款，前年承認洗黑錢及煽動罪，被判囚26個月。他服刑完畢後，再被指於2023年12月30日，在鰂魚涌一間樓上餐廳舉辦音樂會，遭票控無牌娛樂場所罪。案件今（28日）於東區裁判法院提堂。阮承認控罪，罰款3,500元。阮在庭外表示，當晚只是舉辦一個不收費的私人聚會，卻被當局指稱是售票的音樂會、需要申領牌照，「啫係我覺得好荒謬好荒謬」，並形容是次案件是他在香港娛樂事業的「close file」。他稱打算在英國定居及照顧子女，並會在海外發展。
Singer Wan Min-an was accused of posting seditious remarks online and falsely claiming that cookie sales were raising funds for a girl involved in the riots. He admitted to money laundering and sedition the year before last and was sentenced to 26 months in prison. After completing his sentence, he was accused of holding a concert on 30 December 2023 at an upstairs restaurant in Quarry Bay and was charged by summons with operating an unlicensed place of entertainment. The case was heard at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts today (28th). Wan pleaded guilty and was fined $3,500. Outside court, Wan said he had only held a free private gathering that night, but the authorities claimed it was a ticketed concert requiring a licence. “I just think it’s absurd, absurd,” he said, describing the case as his “close file” on his entertainment career in Hong Kong. He said he planned to settle in the United Kingdom, look after his children and develop his career overseas.
28 Apr 2025法庭線#6738
Terrorism case two | First defendant says he was hooded, punched and kicked in the groin by O Division officers after refusing to give phone passcode
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（28 日）於高院踏入第 95 天審訊。首被告何卓為續供稱被捕後被帶往警署的情況。
何稱，他拒絕透露手機密碼後，被 O 記警員以黑色頭套蒙頭，其上半身隨即被人拳打 10 多秒。何指，自己隨口說出一組數字，其後有警員指「密碼唔啱」。何又指，有警署警長向他稱「玩嘢呀嘛，同我再打」，然後感到有人用拳頭「一下壓我個頭撞落前面張檯」，撞到其左眼眉近額的位置。
何續稱，有人拉開其頭套後，有警員用右腳「好大力踩落我下體度」，並稱「我承受唔到個痛楚，所以我將個密碼講咗出嚟」，案件周二續。
Explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train compartment in early 2020. 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 95th day on Monday (28th). The first defendant, Ho Cheuk Wai, continued giving evidence about what happened after his arrest and during his detention at a police station.
Ho said that after he refused to disclose his phone passcode, an O Division officer covered his head with a black hood, after which he was punched in the upper body for more than 10 seconds. Ho said he casually gave a sequence of numbers, and an officer then said, “The passcode is wrong.” Ho also said a police sergeant told him, “You’re fooling around, aren’t you? Hit me again,” after which he felt someone use a fist to “press my head down and smash it into the table in front of me”, hitting the area near his left eyebrow and forehead.
Ho continued that after someone pulled off his hood, an officer used his right foot to “stomp very hard on my groin” and said, “I couldn’t bear the pain, so I told them the passcode.” The case continues on Tuesday.
25 Apr 2025法庭線#6724
Tai Hang Sai Estate resident in her 80s loses judicial review; son considers appeal after written judgment; corporation welcomes ruling
石硤尾大坑西邨清拆重建，85 歲租戶不滿興建與管理該邨的「平民屋宇」的安置安排，提出司法覆核，周五（25 日）在高院聆訊，法官即日駁回，押後至 6 月底前頒判詞（見另稿）。10 多名大坑西邨居民開庭前冒雨持橫額請願，被警方指涉公眾集會，記下資料才放行。
敗訴租戶的兒子稱，母親年紀大，未了解判決，自己則會考慮上訴，惟有待判詞再議。他另提及，母親一年前已因安全問題遷出大坑西邨，搬家後「唔係好慣」，她沒有簽署退租協議。
居民權益關注組主席歐陽潔珍說，居民緊張「平屋」能否在 5 年後，即 2029 年前完成重建，以及屆時「平屋」會否准許他們回遷。留守邨內的居民周德榮認為判決不合理，質疑「平屋」是否有權要求居民遷出，以及未做到妥善安置。
「平屋」表示歡迎裁決，指裁決掃除重建計劃的不確定性，另批評個別人士與「租霸」無異，會繼續以法律程序收回單位。
The redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate in Shek Kip Mei is proceeding. An 85-year-old tenant dissatisfied with the rehousing arrangements offered by the Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation, which built and manages the estate, filed for judicial review. The High Court heard the case on Friday (25th) and dismissed it immediately, adjourning the issuance of its written judgment until before the end of June (see separate report). More than 10 Tai Hang Sai Estate residents petitioned outside the court before the hearing in the rain, holding banners. Police said they were involved in a public assembly, recorded their details and then allowed them to leave.
The son of the tenant who lost the case said his mother was elderly and had not yet understood the judgment. He said he would consider an appeal, but would discuss the matter again after the written judgment was issued. He added that his mother had moved out of Tai Hang Sai Estate a year earlier because of safety concerns and had “not really got used to it” after moving. She had not signed a tenancy termination agreement.
Au Yeung Kit-chun, chairwoman of the Residents’ Rights Concern Group, said residents were worried about whether the Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation could complete the redevelopment in five years, before 2029, and whether it would allow them to move back at that time. Resident Tak Weng Chau, who remains in the estate, said the judgment was unreasonable, questioning whether the corporation had the right to require residents to move out and whether it had made proper rehousing arrangements.
The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation said it welcomed the ruling, saying it had removed uncertainty surrounding the redevelopment plan. It also criticised certain individuals as being no different from “rent squatters” and said it would continue using legal procedures to recover possession of the units.
25 Apr 2025法庭線#6725
Man alleges police assault in station caused brain haemorrhage, sues for damages; bid to bar destruction of CCTV footage and disclose police information rejected
一名市民上周三（16 日）入稟控告警務處長，指本月赴旺角警署報案室，投訴警員不禮貌時，反遭警員稱要以刑事恐嚇罪拘捕，又拍打其後腦。男子送院後證實腦出血，民事入稟索償，要求警務處賠償 120 萬元。
案件周五（25 日）在區域法院再訊，男子指本案涉刑事罪行，因此申請禁制令，禁止警方銷毀警署閉路電視片段，又要求警方披露警員資料、閉路電視片段，另透露有意提出私人刑事檢控。
法官梁國安駁回原告申請，指「法庭唔可以強制政府做乜、唔做乜，法庭冇咁嘅權力」。官又指，在本案未定下爭議點時，原告便要求披露資料，是「虛無飄渺」，「唔可以咁漁翁撒網，攞晒警員個人資料」。官又提到，案件應以「人身傷亡」而非一般民事訴訟立案。官押後案件，待原告考慮是否繼續提控，或會否其他方式另立案件等。
A man filed a claim against the Commissioner of Police last Wednesday (16), alleging that when he went to the report room at Mong Kok Police Station this month to complain about an officer’s rudeness, the officer instead said he would arrest him for criminal intimidation and struck the back of his head. He was later taken to hospital, where he was found to have suffered a brain haemorrhage. He is seeking 1.2 million in compensation from the police force.
The case came back before the District Court on Friday (25). The man said the case involved a criminal offence and applied for an injunction to prohibit the police from destroying the police station’s closed-circuit television footage. He also sought disclosure of information about the officers and the CCTV footage, and indicated that he intended to bring a private prosecution.
Judge Leung Kwok-on dismissed the plaintiff’s application, saying: “The court cannot force the government to do this or that, or not do this or that; the court does not have such power.” The judge also said that the plaintiff’s request for disclosure before the issues in dispute had been defined was “vague” and that he “cannot cast the net like a fisherman and take all the officers’ personal information”. The judge further said the case should be commenced as a personal injury claim rather than as an ordinary civil action. The case was adjourned to allow the plaintiff to consider whether to continue the proceedings or bring a separate case in another manner.
25 Apr 2025法庭線#6728
Anti-terrorism second case | First defendant says he asked after arrest whether it was for fare evasion; officer said before police ride: “Playing with bombs, right?”
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（25 日）於高院踏入第 94 天審訊。
首被告何卓為供稱，他在青衣站被捕後的情況。他指曾向警員提問「係咪嗰啲逃票、查票拉我」，「佢（警員）話咁小事就唔會拉你啦，但佢又唔講咩事，所以嗰陣時我都唔知發生咩事」。何稱，警員搜出其身上物品後稱「吓得呢啲嘢咋？」何回覆「你想有啲咩喺度呀？」
何又指，警員從沒告知他截停、拘捕原因，亦沒警員宣布拘捕或對他作出警誡。另他提及，上警車前，其中一名警員對他說「玩炸彈呀嘛，一陣有排慢慢同你玩。」何稱「當時我回應佢，咩炸彈呀？咩事呀？跟住佢就話返去警署先講啦」。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 “九十二籤” 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 94th day on Friday (25th).
The first defendant, Ho Cheuk Wai, testified about what happened after he was arrested at Tsing Yi Station. He said he asked police whether he had been arrested over fare evasion or ticket inspection: “Is it those fare evasion or ticket inspection arrests?” The officer replied, “They wouldn’t arrest you over such a small matter,” but did not say what it was about, so he did not know what was happening at the time. He said that after police searched his belongings, an officer remarked, “Huh, that’s all you’ve got?” He replied, “What did you want to find here?”
He also said that police never told him why he had been stopped or arrested, and that no officer announced his arrest or cautioned him. He further said that before he got into the police vehicle, one officer told him, “Playing with bombs, right? We’ll have plenty of time to play with you slowly later.” He said he replied, “What bombs? What’s going on?” The officer then said they would talk about it after returning to the police station. The case will continue on Monday.
24 Apr 2025法庭線#6722
7.14 Sha Tin | HKU graduate accused of biting off sergeant’s finger settles damages claim for $280,000
2019 年 7 月 14 日，沙田新城巿廣場衝突中，港大畢業生杜啟華被指咬斷警長的無名指，2021 年被裁定擾亂公眾秩序、襲警等 4 罪罪成，判囚 5 年半，早前上訴被駁回。
遭咬斷手指的警長梁啟業，2022 年向杜啟華提出民事索償，案件周四（24 日）在高等法院處理，聆案官指訴訟雙方達成和解，杜將向警長賠償 28 萬元。
杜啟華亦遭另一名在事件中手指受傷的總警司索償，根據司法機構網頁，該案排期 5 月 12 日在區域法院開審。
During clashes at New Town Plaza in Sha Tin on 14 July 2019, HKU graduate To Kai Wa was accused of biting off a sergeant’s ring finger. In 2021, To Kai Wa was convicted of four offences, including disorderly conduct in a public place and assaulting a police officer, and sentenced to five and a half years in prison. An earlier appeal was dismissed.
Sergeant Leung Kai-yip, whose finger was bitten off, filed a civil damages claim against To Kai Wa in 2022. The case was dealt with at the High Court on Thursday (24th), where the master said the parties had reached a settlement. To Kai Wa will pay the sergeant $280,000 in compensation.
To Kai Wa is also being sued by another superintendent whose finger was injured in the incident. According to the Judiciary’s website, that case is scheduled to go to trial at the District Court on 12 May.
24 Apr 2025法庭線#6723
Second Terrorism Case | Telegram message mentions need to transport it to TKO a day early; first defendant says secondary-school classmate did not tell him
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 93 天審訊，辯方續就何卓為手機的 Telegram 群組訊息提問。
辯方引訊息，指「William Wallace」發訊稱「另外同你哋講少少野 有需要早一日運去tko」（即將軍澳）、「因為出面幾隊都吹風話玩嘢」、 「咁樣當日運嘅話好易中RB」。何卓為供稱，假裝其身分發言的中學同學「阿蛋」，並無告知他會運甚麼去將軍澳。另外「William Wallace」曾發訊指「我可以放或護衛組」。
何庭上稱，屆時會與「阿蛋」到場，並指「阿蛋」曾稱「橫掂嗰日都一定有人去掉汽油彈」，故指他們可參與汽油彈小隊，其他人亦會看到他在場，可算是參與護衛。案件周五續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train carriage, and the Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Divinations” later 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. On Thursday (24th), the trial entered its 93rd day at the High Court, with the defence continuing to question witnesses about Telegram group messages on Ho Cheuk Wai’s phone.
The defence referred to messages in which “William Wallace” wrote: “Also telling you a little something else: there is a need to transport it to tko a day early” (meaning Tseung Kwan O); “because several teams outside have been saying they want to do something”; and “if it is transported on the day, it will be very easy to get caught by RB”. Ho Cheuk Wai testified that his secondary-school classmate “Ah Dan”, who had been pretending to be him when speaking, did not tell him what would be transported to Tseung Kwan O. “William Wallace” also once sent a message saying: “I can be in the throwing or guard team.”
He said in court that he would attend with “Ah Dan”, and that “Ah Dan” had said: “In any event, someone will definitely go and throw petrol bombs that day.” He therefore said they could take part in the petrol-bomb team, while others would also see him there, which could count as taking part in the guard team. The case continues on Friday.
23 Apr 2025法庭線#6721
Second Anti-terrorism Case | First Defendant Says Secondary-school Classmate Impersonated Him in Group; Messages Including “Putting Down Cakes” Not Sent by Him
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 92 天審訊，辯方續就何卓為手機的 Telegram 群組訊息提問。
庭上訊息可見，「William Wallace」曾在群組發訊稱，「同以前一樣放蛋糕 聽日我會睇下你哋想報咩位 就係咁」、 「我哋會公布計劃到時你哋跟計劃就可以」、「依家玩兩個」、「有無人想放」。何卓為供稱，「William Wallace」為其中學同學「阿蛋」假裝他發言，「阿蛋」沒向他提及會幫手計劃。
另「William Wallace」發訊提及，「我同西瓜想玩到成盆花咁大…」，何供稱，沒有向「阿蛋」作出上述指示，又認為「阿蛋」是「扮到做吓嘢」，「可能佢都想幫我做吓嘢、搲吓啲租金資助」。案件周四續。
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. On Wednesday (23rd), the trial at the High Court entered its 92nd day, with the defence continuing to question Ho Cheuk Wai about Telegram group messages on his phone.
Messages shown in court included posts by “William Wallace” saying, “Put down cakes as before. Tomorrow I’ll see which locations you want to report. That’s it”; “We’ll announce the plan, and you can just follow it then”; “Let’s do two now”; and “Does anyone want to put one down?” Ho Cheuk Wai testified that “William Wallace” was his secondary-school classmate “Ah Dan” pretending to post as him, and that “Ah Dan” had not told him he would help plan it.
In another message, “William Wallace” wrote, “Sai Gwa and I want to make it as big as a whole flowerpot …” Ho Cheuk Wai testified that he had not given “Ah Dan” the above instructions, and believed that “Ah Dan” was “pretending to do something”, adding that “perhaps he also wanted to help me do something and scrape together some rental assistance”. The case continues on Thursday.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
