4 Jul 2025法庭線#6994
November 12 Central District Riot Conviction: Woman’s Appeal Dismissed; Seeks Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal
2019 年 11 月 12 日中環「和你 lunch」，28 人被控暴動，其中一名經審訊後罪成、判囚 3 年 3 個月的女子，提出定罪上訴，今年 4 月被上訴庭駁回。終審法院網頁顯示，她已提出終極上訴許可申請，暫未排期聆訊。
At a “lunch with you” gathering in Central on November 12, 2019, 28 people were charged with rioting. One woman, who was convicted after trial and sentenced to three years and three months’ imprisonment, lodged an appeal against her conviction, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in April this year. The Court of Final Appeal’s website shows that she has applied for leave to bring a final appeal; a hearing has not yet been scheduled.
4 Jul 2025法庭線#6995
Accused of Helping Tsang Chi Kin and Others Flee, Man and Woman Charged with Perverting the Course of Justice; Cases to Be Transferred to District Court
4 名涉反修例案青年包括荃灣中槍的「健仔」曾志健，於 2022 年 7 月在港潛逃時被捕，4 人連同被指協助他們匿藏的男子，事後承認妨礙司法公正等罪判囚。
另外兩名男女被指協助曾志健等人潛逃，各被控一項「作出一項或一連串傾向並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為罪」，周五（4 日）於東區裁判法院再訊。控方申請合併兩案，轉介區域法院審理，獲署理主任裁判官張志偉批准。案件押至 8 月 1 日再訊，以處理轉介至區院文件，兩人繼續還押。
Four young people involved in anti-extradition bill cases, including Tsang Chi Kin Tsang Chi-kin, who was shot in Tsuen Wan, were arrested in July 2022 while evading capture in Hong Kong. The four, together with a man accused of helping them hide, subsequently pleaded guilty to offences including perverting the course of justice and were sentenced to imprisonment.
A further man and woman accused of helping Tsang Chi-kin and the others flee were each charged with one count of “doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice”. They appeared again at Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on Friday (4th). The prosecution applied to consolidate the two cases and refer them to the District Court for trial, and the application was approved by Acting Chief Magistrate Chi Wai (1965) Cheung. The cases were adjourned to 1 August to deal with documents for the transfer to the District Court, and the two defendants were remanded in custody.
4 Jul 2025法庭線#6996
11.18 Yau Ma Tei | Five jailed for five years after riot convictions lose appeals; Court of Appeal says convictions sound despite cumulative effect
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，今年 5 月被上訴庭即日駁回，拒批上訴許可。
上訴庭周五（4 日）頒判詞指，雖然部分被告沒證據證明他們被捕前的情況，但原審「絕對有權依賴其席前整體證據的疊加效應，作出有罪推論，定罪並無不妥」，而法庭沒必要為沒出庭作供的被告，構想各種可能脱罪的情況。
判詞又指，年輕等因素在嚴重罪行前，能起的求情作用有限，原審不予酌情權減刑，上訴庭不宜干預。
In November 2019, police surrounded protesters inside Polytechnic University. A total of 213 people were charged with rioting in connection with the “besieging Wei to rescue Zhao” incident in Yau Ma Tei. Five were convicted after trial and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. They appealed against their convictions and sentences, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals immediately in May this year and refused leave to appeal.
In its judgment handed down on Friday (the 4th), the Court of Appeal said that although there was no evidence proving the circumstances of some defendants before their arrests, the trial court “was absolutely entitled to rely on the cumulative effect of the overall evidence before it to draw an inference of guilt, and there was nothing improper about the convictions”. The court did not need to envisage various possible scenarios that could have resulted in acquittals for defendants who did not testify.
The judgment also said that factors such as youth had limited mitigating effect in the face of serious offences. The trial court had declined to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentences, and the Court of Appeal should not interfere.
3 Jul 2025法庭線#6988
Five Years of the National Security Law | Chief Executive certificates, no remission in prison and concealing evidence: how many of the Government’s arguments have the courts accepted?
全國人大常委會制訂的《國安法》在香港實施 5 年，強調與本地法律銜接、兼容，奉行普通法的香港法院，如何處理兩者法律原則和詮釋的衝突或不一致？本地國安法律與機制持續加強，法院對政府的主張又有何取態？
《法庭線》整理比較近期的案件，顯示法庭大部分情況接納政府的主張，例如上訴庭在「《願榮光》禁制令案」，指出就特首發出證明書，法院應對行政機關的判斷「予以絕對遵從」；在挑戰沒有獄中減刑的司法覆核案，原訟庭亦認同，新做法並非額外懲罰，甚至「有助更生」。
在少數案件，法院肯定普通法的原則，亦劃出內地法律適用的界線。例如終審法院在「支聯會拒交資料案」重申，公平審訊的權利是最重要，控方若堅持引用「公眾利益豁免權」或需考慮撤控。
可見未來，預計仍有一些爭議待解決。例如在「民主派初選 47 人案」，控辯爭議顛覆罪條文中「非法手段」的詮釋，該上訴案將於今年 7 月中開始，在上訴庭聆訊。
The National Security Law enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress has been implemented in Hong Kong for five years. How have Hong Kong courts, which follow the common law, handled conflicts or inconsistencies between the two systems’ legal principles and interpretations, given the emphasis on linking and compatibility with local laws? As local national security laws and mechanisms continue to be strengthened, what position have the courts taken on the Government’s arguments?
The Witness compiled and compared recent cases, showing that the courts accepted the Government’s arguments in most circumstances. For example, in the injunction case concerning “Glory to Hong Kong”, the Court of Appeal said that, regarding a certificate issued by the Chief Executive, the courts should “give absolute deference” to the executive authorities’ judgment. In a judicial review challenging the absence of sentence remission in prison, the Court of First Instance also agreed that the new approach was not an additional punishment and could even “help rehabilitation”.
In a small number of cases, the courts affirmed common law principles and drew boundaries on the application of Mainland laws. For example, in the Hong Kong Alliance refusal-to-provide-information case, the Court of Final Appeal reiterated that the right to a fair trial was paramount; if the prosecution insisted on relying on “public interest immunity”, it might have to consider withdrawing the charges.
Looking ahead, some disputes are expected to remain unresolved. For example, in the case involving 47 pro-democracy activists over the primary elections, the prosecution and defence are disputing the interpretation of “unlawful means” in the offence of subversion. The appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal from mid-July this year.
2 Jul 2025法庭線#6983
Cheng Ka-yu Privately Prosecutes Former Employer The Wall Street Journal; Department of Justice Will Not Intervene, Defence Writes to Ask Why
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（2 日）在東區裁判法院再訊。
辯方確認，律政司不會介入本案，指已去信律政司詢問理由，並考慮提出司法覆核。鄭嘉如一方指，辯方有足夠時間考慮答辯，其亦已準備好審訊。官最終將案件押至 7 月 23 日再訊，指辯方屆時無論是否提出司法覆核，都要提出答辯意向。
Less than a month after being elected chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association last year, Cheng Ka-yu was dismissed by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the grounds of “restructuring of the position”. Cheng believes she was dismissed because of her participation in a trade union and is privately prosecuting 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 (2nd).
The defence confirmed that the Department of Justice would not intervene in the case, saying it had written to the Department to ask for the reason and was considering applying for judicial review. Cheng KaAs One’s side said the defence had sufficient time to consider its plea and that it was also ready for trial. The magistrate ultimately adjourned the case to 23 July for a further hearing, saying that the defence would have to indicate its plea then, regardless of whether it had applied for judicial review.
30 Jun 2025法庭線#6967
Cheng Ka-yu Brings Private Prosecution Against Former Employer Wall Street Journal; Lawyer Says Department of Justice Confirms It Will Not Intervene
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，提出私人檢控（法律 101）。律政司曾考慮是否介入本案。
鄭的代表律師 Adam Clermont 早前在網上發文指，律政司確認不會介入本案。他形容律政司的決定「使我們追討公義的工作能夠順利進行」。案件將於本周三（7 月 2 日）再訊。
Less than a month after Cheng Ka-yu was elected chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association 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 initiated a private prosecution (Legal 101). The Department of Justice had considered whether to intervene in the case.
Cheng’s lawyer, Adam Clermont, wrote online earlier that the Department of Justice had confirmed it would not intervene in the case. He described the department’s decision as allowing “our work to seek justice to proceed smoothly”. The case will return for a hearing this Wednesday (2 July).
30 Jun 2025法庭線#6968
Second Anti-Terrorism Case | Defence Completes Evidence, Prosecution to Make Closing Submissions Next Week; Jury Expected to Retire for Deliberations in Late August
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，周一（6 月 30 日）於高院踏入第 126 天審訊。
控辯雙方舉證完畢，案件押至下周一（7 月 7 日）由控方結案陳詞，預料需時 5 至 7 日，其後由辯方結案陳詞、法官陳仲衡引導，預料陪審團於 8 月底退庭商議。
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 Lots” 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 126th day on Monday (June 30).
Both the prosecution and the defence have completed presenting evidence. The case was adjourned until next Monday (July 7), when the prosecution will make its closing submissions, which are expected to take five to seven days. The defence will then make its closing submissions, followed by the summing-up by Judge Chan Chung-hang. The jury is expected to retire for deliberations in late August.
30 Jun 2025法庭線#6969
National Security Law at Five｜61 Cases Have Entered Court; 6 on Trial, Awaiting Trial or Pending Processing, More Than 140 Arrested but Not Yet Charged
香港進入「國安時代」5 年。政府就危害國安罪行或活動，累計拘捕 332 人，檢控 189 人。《法庭線》統計，綜合《國安法》、「23 條」及舊煽動罪，至今共 61 宗國安案件進入法庭，55 宗已完成原審階段。
餘下的 6 宗，包括審訊中的「黎智英案」、預定今年 11 月開審的「支聯會被指煽動顛覆案」，以及待處理的「黃之鋒被指勾結案」、「郭鳳儀父親被指處理資產案」等 4 案。
過去這一年多，「23 條」實施，多人被控新罪；民主派初選 47 人案審結，僅 2 人無罪。上訴案件中，政府在「支聯會拒交資料案」終極敗訴，但在「譚得志煽動案」終極勝訴。馬俊文、張敬生挑戰懲教署不予提早釋放雙雙失敗。
此外，超過 140 個被捕的人暫未被起訴，包括「612 基金」信託人陳日君樞機等人、「懲罰 MEE」的前香港眾志成員，部分人仍未獲發還護照，離境須獲批准。被通緝的海外港人則增至 19 人，其在港的家人被調查。
Hong Kong has spent five years in the “national security era”. In connection with offences or activities endangering national security, the government has arrested a total of 332 people and prosecuted 189. According to statistics compiled by The Witness, a total of 61 national security cases involving the National Security Law, Article 23 and the former sedition offence have entered court, of which 55 have completed the first-instance stage.
The remaining six cases include the Jimmy Lai case, which is currently being tried; the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China case, in which the defendants are accused of inciting subversion and which is scheduled to go to trial in November this year; and four cases pending processing, including the case in which Joshua Wong is accused of collusion and the case involving the father of Kwok Fung-yi, who is accused of handling assets.
Over the past year or more, since Article 23 came into effect, a number of people have been charged with new offences. The case involving 47 members of the pro-democracy camp over the primary election has concluded, with only two people acquitted. In appeal cases, the government ultimately lost the case concerning the Hong Kong Alliance’s refusal to provide information, but ultimately won the Tam Tak-chi sedition case. Ma Chun-man and Kinson Cheung King-sang both failed in their challenges against the Correctional Services Department’s refusal to release them early.
In addition, more than 140 people who have been arrested have not yet been charged, including Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun and other trustees of the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, as well as former members of Demosisto involved in “Punish MEE”. Some of them have still not had their passports returned and must obtain approval to leave Hong Kong. The number of wanted overseas Hong Kong people has risen to 19, and their families in Hong Kong have been investigated.
27 Jun 2025集誌社#6957
Government gazettes ruling suspending Albert Ho’s solicitor’s practising qualification for three months
支聯會前主席何俊仁因被控「煽動顛覆國家政權」罪而遭還押多時，政府今日（27日）刊憲公布，按照律師紀律審裁組 5 月中裁定，就何俊仁因多項「煽惑他人明知而參與未經批准集結」而違反《香港事務律師專業操守指引》，將其律師執業資格吊銷三個月，以及需於 9 月 30 日前，支付合共 18.7 萬元事務費用等。
Former Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China chairman Albert Ho, who has been remanded in custody for a considerable period after being charged with “inciting subversion of State power”, had his solicitor’s practising qualification suspended for three months, the Government Gazette announced today (27th). The measure follows a ruling by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in mid-May that Ho had breached the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct in relation to multiple counts of “inciting another person knowingly to participate in an unauthorised assembly”. He must also pay a total of $187,000 in costs by 30 September.
27 Jun 2025法庭線#6958
Anti-terrorism case No. 2 | Prosecution questions why no complaint was made to family about police beating; fourth defendant: “What authority did my father have?”
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（27 日）於高院踏入第 125 天審訊，第四被告張家俊繼續作供。
控方質疑，張聲稱被警察毆打，導致胸口及左膝疼痛，卻沒有在搜屋時向父親投訴。張指已自行向值日官作出投訴，反問「我爸爸有咩權力？我投訴嚟做咩？」控方追問，為何沒有要求父親報警。張則笑稱「成間屋都係差人，報咩警？報警只不過令間屋再多啲警察。」
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train compartment at Lo Wu, and the Telegram channel “九十二籤” 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. On Friday (the 27th), the trial at the High Court entered its 125th day, with the fourth defendant Christopher Ka Tsun Cheung continuing to give evidence.
The prosecution questioned why Cheung, who claimed that police officers had beaten him, causing pain in his chest and left knee, had not complained to his father during the search of the home. Cheung said he had made a complaint directly to the duty officer, asking: “What authority did my father have? What was the point of my making a complaint?” The prosecution pressed him on why he had not asked his father to call the police. Cheung replied with a laugh: “The whole flat was full of police officers. What was I supposed to report to the police? Calling the police would only put more police officers in the flat.”
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
