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#7054
47 Democrats Case Appeal | Defence Challenges Sentencing Tiers, Excessive Starting Points and Devastating Overall Terms; Judgment to Be Handed Down Within 9 Months
民主派初選案周四（17 日）展開第四日上訴聆訊，雙方完成刑罰上訴陳詞。高院首席法官潘兆初稱將在 9 個月內頒下判決。早前出獄的岑子杰到庭旁聽；散庭時，梁國雄、林卓廷向旁聽揮手，楊雪盈則露齒笑。
被告方爭議刑罰分級、量刑起點過高，指梁國雄、林卓廷、黃碧雲不應被裁定為「積極參加者」，其中，大狀沈士文力陳，林、黃沒有公開支持謀劃、「幾乎保持沉默」，兩人面對的 7 年量刑起點，有如指他們的角色等同同案更激進的被告，原審實屬錯誤。
被告方又爭議減刑因素，如陳志全、何啟明任公職多年，應獲更多減刑；鄭達鴻一方指，其量刑起點應與同屬公民黨的譚文豪有別；鄒家成、黃子悅另涉暴動案，代表大狀指原審分期執行判刑，對兩人是沉重打擊、毀滅性。
The fourth day of the appeal hearing in the democrats’ primary election case began on Thursday (the 17th), with both sides completing their submissions on the sentencing appeals. Chief High Court Judge Poon Siu-chu said the judgment would be handed down within nine months. Chan Tsz-kit, who was released from prison earlier, attended the hearing. At the end of the hearing, Leung Kwok-hung and Lam Cheuk-ting waved to those in the public gallery, while Yeung Suet-ying smiled broadly.
The defence challenged the sentencing tiers and the starting points, which it said were too high, arguing that Leung Kwok-hung, Lam Cheuk-ting and Wong Pik-wan should not have been classified as “active participants”. In particular, counsel Erik Ignatius Sze Man Shum argued forcefully that Lam and Wong had not publicly supported the plotting and had “remained almost silent”. The seven-year starting points imposed on them effectively treated their roles as equivalent to those of more radical defendants in the same case, which was an error by the trial court.
The defence also challenged the mitigating factors, arguing that Chan Chi-chuen and Ho Kai-ming, who had held public office for many years, should have received greater reductions. Cheng Tat-hung’s side said his starting point should differ from that of fellow Civic Party member Jeremy Tam Man-ho. Chow Ka-shing and Prince Wong Ji-yuet were also involved in a separate riot case; their counsel said that the trial court’s ordering of the sentences to be served consecutively was a heavy blow and devastating for the two men.
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.
16 Jul 2025法庭線#7048
Second Terrorism Case | Judge Reads Juror’s Letter Expressing Disappointment over Repeated Adjournments; Prosecution Says It Can Expedite
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，周三（16 日）於高院踏入第 136 天審訊。
法官陳仲衡開庭時讀出由一名陪審員的信，提到審訊一再延期令人失望。官下令，控辯加快進度，並確認審訊完成的日期。控方稱可加快進行，並繼續作結案陳詞，引次被告李嘉濱的錄影供詞與手機內容，反駁辯方指稱警員曾與李「預演」錄口供及干擾手機的說法。
控方亦開始就第五被告作結案陳詞，指涉案閉路電視片段的女子，衣著、面型都與她相符。審訊周四續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR carriage at Lo Wu Station. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Lots” later claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the anti-terrorism law, while the remaining person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 136th day on Wednesday (the 16th). The judge, Chan Chung-hang, read out a letter from a juror at the start of proceedings, saying that the repeated adjournments had caused disappointment. The judge ordered the prosecution and defence to speed up the proceedings and confirm the date on which the trial would be completed. The prosecution said it could expedite matters and continued its closing submissions, citing the videotaped statement and mobile-phone contents of the second defendant Lee Ka-ban to rebut the defence’s claims that police had “rehearsed” recording a statement with Lee and interfered with the phone. The prosecution also began closing submissions concerning the fifth defendant, saying that the woman in the CCTV footage in question matched her in clothing and facial shape. The trial will continue on Thursday.
16 Jul 2025法庭線#7049
Six in two riot cases denied leave to appeal by CFA Appeal Committee
終院上訴委員會周三（16 日）駁回兩宗 2019 年暴動案件、共 6 名被告的上訴許可申請，指兩案皆沒有合理給予上訴許可的理由。
首宗申請涉 5 人，他們被控 9 月 29 日「全球反極權遊行」時，在金鐘政總外參與暴動，當中一人審後罪成，另 4 人包括一名醫生認罪。他們早前分別就定罪及刑期上訴時，爭議事件被拆成 4 案，惟本案量刑起點最重、達 64 個月，較另案最輕的起點 48 個月多出 16 個月，認為上訴庭應干預，上訴庭最後裁定一人獲減刑 3 個月，其餘均被駁回。
另一宗申請涉一名法律系女學生，被指 8 月 31 日港島區遊行時參與暴動，審後無罪兼獲裁訟費，其後律政司上訴得直，發還原審重新考慮。女學生就該決定，向上訴庭申請上訴至終院證明書被拒。她的案件將在下周二（22 日）在區域法院再次提訊。
The Court of Final Appeal Appeal Committee on Wednesday (16th) rejected applications for leave to appeal by six defendants in two 2019 riot cases, saying there were no reasonable grounds for granting leave to appeal in either case.
The first application involved five people charged with participating in a riot outside the Central Government Offices during the “Global Anti-Totalitarianism March” on September 29. One was convicted after trial, while the other four, including a doctor, pleaded guilty. When they earlier appealed against their convictions and sentences, they argued that the incident had been divided into four cases, but that the sentencing starting point in their case was the heaviest at 64 months—16 months more than the lightest starting point of 48 months in another case—and that the Court of Appeal should intervene. The Court of Appeal ultimately reduced one sentence by three months and dismissed the other appeals.
The other application involved a female law student accused of participating in a riot during a march on Hong Kong Island on August 31. She was acquitted after trial and awarded costs. The Department of Justice subsequently won an appeal, and the case was remitted for reconsideration by the trial court. The student applied to the Court of Appeal for a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, but the application was refused. Her case will be mentioned again at the District Court next Tuesday (22nd).
16 Jul 2025法庭線#7051
47-person case appeal｜Owen Chow and Yu Wai-ming say trial judge intervened excessively; Helena Wong and Lam Cheuk-ting say Wu Chi-wai’s remarks were wrongly applied
民主派初選案周三（16 日）展開第三日上訴聆訊，被告方已完成定罪上訴的陳詞。黃碧雲、林卓廷一方指，原審錯誤引用民主黨時任主席胡志偉在九東論壇的發言，裁斷黃碧雲、林卓廷對黨的否決立場知情，同意參與謀劃，又指沒證據顯示民主黨對否決有一致立場。
鄒家成、余慧明的代表大狀分別舉例指出，原審法官陳慶偉在兩人作供時過度干預，包括公開評論鄒的供詞「沒有邏輯」，亦阻止辯方大狀及另一法官陳仲衡擬對余提問，令她無法解釋對「五大訴求」看法。兩人代表指，被告有權獲得公平審訊。
何桂藍一方則稱，立會議員有責任向政府反映民意，亦獲民意授權，反問議員反映市民的正當訴求，何以構成顛覆政權？律政司一方則就 4 名被告方的陳詞，作口頭反駁。案件周四續，由被告方續就刑罰上訴陳詞。
The third day of the appeal hearing in the democratic primary case began on Wednesday (the 16th), with the defence completing its submissions on the appeals against conviction. The legal teams for Helena Wong and Lam Cheuk-ting said the trial court had wrongly relied on remarks made by then Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai at a Kowloon East forum to rule that Wong and Lam knew of the party’s position on vetoing and agreed to participate in planning. They also said there was no evidence that the Democratic Party had a unified position on vetoing.
Counsel for Owen Chow and Yu Wai-ming respectively cited examples to argue that trial judge Andrew Hing Wai Chan had intervened excessively while the two gave evidence. These included publicly commenting that Chow’s testimony “had no logic” and preventing defence counsel and another judge, Chan Chung-hang, from asking Yu questions, leaving her unable to explain her views on the “five demands”. Their representatives said the defendants had the right to a fair trial.
Ho Kwai-lam’s legal team said Legislative Council members had a duty to convey public opinion to the government and had also been given a mandate by the public. It asked rhetorically how a lawmaker’s conveying citizens’ legitimate demands could constitute subversion of state power. The Department of Justice made oral rebuttals to the submissions of the four defendants’ legal teams. The case will continue on Thursday, when the defence will continue making submissions on the appeals against sentence.
15 Jul 2025法庭線#7044
Anti-terrorism case 2｜Second defendant says he saw police plant evidence; prosecution: Would anyone be so stupid as to plant evidence in front of the accused?
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，周二（15 日）於高院踏入第 135 天審訊，控方繼續結案陳詞。
就次被告李嘉濱聲稱，曾被警方曾「打、嚇、𠱁」，控方反駁，李嘉濱於錄影會面中，對搜到的證物，均表示「冇嘢講」、「唔清楚」，指李「從頭到尾不斷行使佢嘅緘默權」，次數達 20 次，認為若警方真的威嚇招供，「唔會畀佢答冇嘢講。」
李嘉濱一方又指，目睹警員在搜查其西營盤單位時，將炸藥、鎂粉等證物放置於單位中，指控警員插贓嫁禍。控方則反駁「有冇人會蠢到喺被告人面前，插贓嫁禍啲爆炸品？」並補充李的電話內，有「水喉通炸彈」的相片和設計草圖。即若警員曾插贓嫁禍，須在發現相片後，即時製造相同物件，再放進單位內，「有冇咁多巧合？」
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu Station. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Divinations” 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 Tuesday (the 15th), the trial at the High Court entered its 135th day, with the prosecution continuing its closing submissions.
Regarding the second defendant Lee Ka-ban’s claim that police had beaten, threatened and coaxed the defendant, the prosecution argued that, during video-recorded interviews, Lee Ka-ban responded to the exhibits recovered by repeatedly saying “nothing to say” and “not clear”. It said the second defendant had exercised the right to silence throughout, doing so 20 times, and argued that if the police had really threatened the defendant into making a confession, “they would not have let the defendant answer ‘nothing to say’.”
The defence for Lee Ka-ban also said the defendant had seen police place explosives, magnesium powder and other exhibits inside the defendant’s flat in Sai Ying Pun during a search, accusing the officers of planting evidence to frame the defendant. The prosecution countered: “Would anyone be so stupid as to plant explosives to frame the accused in front of the accused?” It added that the defendant’s phone contained photographs and design sketches of a “water-pipe bomb”. Thus, if the police had planted the evidence, they would have had to make identical objects immediately after discovering the photographs and then place them inside the flat. “Could there really be so many coincidences?”
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
