27 Feb 2025法庭線#4573
721: Lam Cheuk-ting and Six Others Jailed for Rioting; Friends and Relatives Plead They Are Upright and Selfless
前立法會議員林卓廷與另外 6 名「非白衣人」，被裁定 721 在元朗站大堂參與暴動罪成，周四（27日）在區院被判刑，官基於同意案情節省時間、案件歷時多年，為各人減刑 5 個月，最後判囚 2 年 1 個月至 3 年 1 個月。
法官陳廣池指，本案並非街頭暴動那一種，亦非早有計劃，而白衣人的暴動「醖釀催快了閘內另一場暴動」，因應各被告的角色，採取較低的量刑起點（見內文表），又指難免因襲擊事件，致使有人以為非白衣人都是「受害者」，他相信部份沒被捕的閘內人亦參與了暴動。
官指林卓廷的求情信「文筆暢順，亦充滿悲情壯志」，但沒悔意，「撫心自問，D1 晚上入元朗真是監督警察，保護巿民，調解閘內閘外對壘雙方嗎？D1 有沒有怱悠他人，甚至自己呢？」被告親友求情則提及，各人正直無私，因案自責悔疚、付出代價，望法庭輕判（見內文表）。
Former Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting and six other “non-white-shirted” defendants were convicted of rioting for taking part in the riot in the concourse of Yuen Long Station on 21 July. They were sentenced at the District Court on Thursday (27th). The judge reduced each sentence by five months because the agreed facts saved time and the case had lasted several years. They were ultimately jailed for between two years and one month and three years and one month.
Judge Chan Kwong-chi said the case was not the kind of street riot that had been planned in advance. The riot by the white-shirted men had “hastened the brewing of another riot inside the gates”. Taking into account the roles of the defendants, he adopted lower sentencing starting points (see table in the full article). He also said the attacks had inevitably led some people to believe that all the non-white-shirted people were “victims”, and that he believed some people inside the gates who had not been arrested had also taken part in the riot.
The judge said Lam Cheuk-ting’s mitigation letter was “smoothly written and also full of tragic passion and lofty aspirations”, but showed no remorse: “As D1 asks himself, did he really enter Yuen Long that night to supervise the police, protect the public, and mediate between the two sides confronting each other inside and outside the gates? Did D1 mislead others, or even himself?” In mitigation, the defendants’ friends and relatives said that they were all upright and selfless, had blamed themselves and felt remorse over the case, and had paid a price, and urged the court to impose light sentences (see table in the full article).
26 Feb 2025法庭線#4570
Man denied bail pending appeal over 22-month sentence for inciting police killings in WhatsApp group
3 名男子被指 2019 年 10 月，在 WhatsApp 群組揚言殺害警員及其家屬，經審訊後被裁定兩項「煽惑有意圖而傷人」罪成，各囚 22 個月。其中一被告周三（26 日）在高院申請保釋等候上訴，被即日駁回。
上訴庭法官潘敏琦在判詞引述該被告稱，懲教署指他最早今年 6 月可獲釋，但上訴刑期聆訊定在 5 月，若他最後上訴得直，屆時或會多服刑期，並引港大學生會評議會的「張敬生案」指其刑期上訴有合理成功機會。
官反駁指，原審已考慮了私人 WhatsApp 群組傳播力等因素，不認為上訴有合理成功機會，又指本案和「張敬生案」不可比較。官並指，涉案訊息血腥及殘暴，煽惑對警員和家人作暴力行為，形容是「無差別和無底線的」。
Three men were accused of making statements in a WhatsApp group in October 2019 threatening to kill police officers and their family members. After trial, they were convicted on two counts of inciting wounding with intent and each sentenced to 22 months in prison. One of the defendants applied in the High Court on Wednesday (26th) for bail pending an appeal, but the application was rejected the same day.
In her judgment, Court of Appeal judge Pang Min-ki quoted the defendant as saying that the Correctional Services Department had indicated he could be released as early as June this year, while the hearing of his appeal against sentence was scheduled for May. If he ultimately succeeded in his appeal, he might otherwise serve more time than his sentence, and he cited the University of Hong Kong Students’ Union Council’s “Kinson Cheung King-sang case” to argue that his appeal against sentence had a reasonable prospect of success.
The judge disagreed, saying that the trial court had already considered factors including the dissemination power of a private WhatsApp group, and did not consider that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. She also said that the present case could not be compared with the “Kinson Cheung King-sang case”. The judge added that the messages in question were bloody and brutal, inciting violence against police officers and their family members, and described them as “indiscriminate and without limits”.
26 Feb 2025法庭線#4571
Second terrorism case | Telegram group discussed disguises; defence says this does not mean defendant read messages; officer says remarks showed he knew
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（26 日）於高院踏入第 59 天審訊。
O 記警員供稱，調查時曾看過第六被告張琸淇的錄影會面及 TG 訊息。庭上訊息可見，張曾被加入一個「無名群組」，成員曾討論易容，使用假髮、假鬚，張曾在群組稱，「但其實戴咗口罩，仲邊度見到鬚」。辯方指不代表機主有閱讀訊息，警員回答，「我唔能夠完全確定，但根據 D6 喺群組入面嘅對話，佢係知道嘅」。
拘捕第八被告周皓文的警員則供述拘捕過程，指破門進入周的單位，惟同意周的態度合作。證物警員亦供稱，在周家中搜出 3D 打印機、化學品、1.9 萬港元現金、兩本記事簿。庭上可見，記事簿內畫有一些草圖及算式。案件周五續。
Explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train carriage in early 2020. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Fortune Sticks” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance, while one remaining person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 59th day on Wednesday (the 26th).
An O Division police officer testified that, during the investigation, he had viewed the video-recorded interview and Telegram messages of the sixth defendant Cheung Cheuk-ki. Messages shown in court indicated that Cheung had been added to a “nameless group”, whose members discussed disguises, including the use of wigs and false beards. Cheung had said in the group: “But actually, if you’re wearing a mask, where would you see the beard?” The defence said this did not mean that the device owner had read the messages. The officer replied: “I cannot be completely certain, but based on D6’s conversations in the group, he knew.”
The officer who arrested the eighth defendant Chow Ho-man testified about the arrest, saying that officers broke into Chow’s unit, while agreeing that Chow had been cooperative. An evidence officer also testified that a 3D printer, chemicals, HK$19,000 in cash and two notebooks were found at Chow’s home. Sketches and calculations could be seen in the notebooks in court. The case will continue on Friday.
25 Feb 2025法庭線#4556
Second Anti-terrorism Case | Police Sergeant Says 4am Interview Continued to Check for Other Bombs; Defence: “But You Didn’t Ask”
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（25 日）於高等法院踏入第 58 天審訊。
O 記警署警長解釋凌晨 4 時繼續錄影會面，因有迫切性查有否未爆炸彈，辯方質疑「但係你冇問」，警署警長解釋是在會面途中，判斷被告不知是否還有其他炸彈。惟官翻查謄本，指被告曾提及「未發生嘅爆炸事件」；辯方亦質疑，警署警長聲稱迫切，但沒在會面一早提問。
警署警長另稱，他或其隊員在拘捕現場問過被捕人，因此得知兩人是男女朋友；其隊員則稱，不知道兩人為男女朋友。另外，本案原定 4 月中審結，控方表示現料要延至 6 月頭。審訊周三續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “92 Divination Sticks” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people have been charged with offences under the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance, while one other person has been charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 58th day at the High Court on Tuesday (25th).
A police sergeant from the Organised Crime and Triad Bureau explained that the recorded interview continued at 4am because there was an urgent need to check whether there were other bombs. The defence challenged him, saying: “But you didn’t ask.” The sergeant explained that during the interview he assessed that the defendant did not know whether there were any other bombs. However, the judge reviewed the transcript and said that the defendant had mentioned “explosion incidents that had not happened”. The defence also questioned why, despite claiming there was urgency, the sergeant had not asked about this at the beginning of the interview.
The sergeant further said that he or a member of his team had asked the arrested people questions at the scene of the arrests, and had therefore learned that two of them were boyfriend and girlfriend. A member of his team, however, said he did not know that the two were in a relationship. The trial was originally expected to conclude in mid-April, but the prosecution said it was now likely to continue until early June. The trial resumes on Wednesday.
25 Feb 2025法庭線#4562
Chow Ka-shing appeals conviction over allegedly unauthorised mailing of complaint letter via lawyer; appeal says completed form constituted authorisation
2023 年 5 月，因「47 人案」還押的鄒家成，被指未經授權透過律師寄出申訴專員公署投訴信，投訴懲教署損毀及拒絕其親友送入兩本佛學書籍。鄒與一名女律師，被國安處控以一項「將未經授權的物品攜離監獄」罪，兩人經審訊後罪成。鄒家成判囚 3 天，律師罰款 1,800 元。
鄒及律師不服定罪提上訴，案件周二（25 日）在高等法院審理。上訴方指，當鄒填妥懲教人員給予的表格時，信件已獲署長授權。女律師一方則爭議，她當時收到夾附表格的文件後，沒有向鄒點頭，實況與原審描述不一致。惟法官張慧玲在播片後質疑，片段見到鄒將紙張對摺後，女律師數次點頭，形容非正常行為，是有意隱藏一些事。
律政司一方形容，涉案信件未經安檢，就「鬼鬼祟祟」交予第三者寄出，強調署方需知悉在囚人士是否與「指明人士」通信，而懲教人員獲授權檢查。法官將於 3 個月內頒下判決。
In May 2023, while remanded in custody over the “47-person case”, Chow Ka-shing was accused of sending, through a lawyer, a complaint letter to the Office of The Ombudsman without authorisation. The letter complained that the Correctional Services Department had damaged and refused to accept two Buddhist books sent by his friends and relatives. Chow and a female lawyer were charged by the National Security Department with one count of “taking an unauthorised article out of a prison”. Both were convicted after trial. Chow was sentenced to three days’ imprisonment and the lawyer was fined HK$1,800.
Chow and the lawyer, dissatisfied with their convictions, lodged appeals. The case was heard at the High Court on Tuesday (25th). The appellants argued that when Chow completed the form provided by correctional officers, the letter had already been authorised by the Commissioner. The female lawyer’s side disputed that, after receiving the documents with the form attached, she had nodded to Chow, saying that the actual circumstances differed from the trial court’s description. However, after playing the video, Judge Audrey Chang Hui-ling questioned this account, saying the footage showed Chow folding the paper and the lawyer nodding several times. She described this as abnormal conduct intended to conceal something.
The Department of Justice described the letter as having been handed “sneakily” to a third party for posting without undergoing a security check. It stressed that the department needed to know whether prisoners were corresponding with “specified persons”, and that correctional officers were authorised to conduct inspections. The judge will deliver her judgment within three months.
24 Feb 2025法庭線#4553
Anti-terrorism second case | Sixth defendant says in video interview he wanted to turn prosecution witness, declined to hire lawyer to avoid “going head-to-head with police”
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（24 日）於高等法院踏入第 57 天審訊。
控方繼續播放第六被告張琸淇的錄影會面片段，警署警長問張有否被警方毆打、為何主動向警方披露案件細節？張表示「因為我想同警方合作，轉做污點證人」，並確認沒被警方毆打。控辯雙方承認事實指出，張在警署會見律師兩個多小時，最終拒絕聘用律師。
警署警長在接續的錄影會面中，詢問張為何毋須律師陪同會面？張重申希望做污點證人，與警方合作「而唔係同律師合作，可能同警方打對台」。警署警長兩度追問張是否需要聘請律師，張均稱不需要。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train compartment. 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, and the trial entered its 57th day at the High Court on Monday (the 24th). The prosecution continued playing video-recorded interviews with the sixth defendant, Cheung Cheuk-kei. A police station sergeant asked Cheung whether she had been assaulted by police and why she had voluntarily disclosed details of the case to officers. Cheung replied, “Because I want to cooperate with the police and become a prosecution witness,” and confirmed that she had not been assaulted by police.
Agreed facts between the prosecution and defence stated that Cheung had met with a lawyer at the police station for more than two hours, but ultimately declined to retain legal representation.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the police station sergeant asked Cheung why she did not require a lawyer to be present during the interview. Cheung again said she wanted to become a prosecution witness and cooperate with the police, “rather than cooperate with a lawyer, which might mean going against the police”. The sergeant twice asked whether she wished to retain a lawyer, and Cheung said on both occasions that she did not.
24 Feb 2025法庭線#4554
Apple Daily Limited winding-up petition by former employees tentatively adjourned until 35 days after Jimmy Lai case concludes
壹傳媒有限公司於 2021 年遭頒令清盤，旗下的「蘋果日報有限公司」則於 2024 年被兩名前員工入稟要求頒令清盤。後者的與訟方早前提出，希望待創辦人黎智英的相關案件審結後再訊，以候「凍結財產通知書」安排，聆案官遂押後案件，轉交高院法官指示。清盤呈請案件於周一（24 日）再訊。
與訟方均表示，同意押後至黎智英案審結後再訊，其中「蘋果」的代表指，暫未知「凍結財產通知書」後續安排，但指據《國安法》實施細則，公司的「凍結財產通知書」一般維持至案件審結後 28 天。官遂暫訂押後至黎智英案審結後的 35 天再訊，實際日期再議。
Next Digital Limited was ordered to be wound up in 2021, while its subsidiary, Apple Daily Limited, was petitioned to be wound up by two former employees in 2024. The parties to the latter proceedings had earlier asked for the case to be adjourned until after founder Jimmy Lai’s related case was concluded, pending arrangements concerning the “notice to freeze property”. The master adjourned the case and referred it to a High Court judge for directions. The winding-up petition came before the court again on Monday (the 24th).
21 Feb 2025法庭線#4545
Second anti-terrorism case | Defendant implicates boyfriend in writing “Ninety-Two Lots” articles during video interview; police deny coaching statement
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（21 日）於高等法院踏入第 56 天審訊。
辯方指 O 記警員拘捕第六被告張琸淇時，遊說她配合調查，「如果你肯同我哋合作，就同上頭講幫你轉做控方證人」，並指導她供出其男友即第三被告吳子樂，與「五飛」、「山雞」等人為「九十二籤」成員，又稱「個個都爭住認」，着她「自己諗下」。警員庭上一概否認。
控方播放張的錄影會面片段，她供稱吳負責撰寫「九十二籤」的文章，承認在明愛醫院放炸彈；又指吳曾在涉案宏創方單位秤灰色粉末、將硫磺放入行李箱。審訊下周一續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train compartment. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Lots” later claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) 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 56th day on Friday (the 21st).
The defence said that, when an Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officer arrested the sixth defendant Cheung Cheuk-ki, he persuaded her to cooperate with the investigation, saying, “If you are willing to cooperate with us, we’ll tell our superiors to help you become a prosecution witness.” It also said he directed her to implicate her boyfriend, the third defendant Tsz Lok Ng, as a member of “Ninety-Two Lots” along with “Ng Fei”, Shan Gai and others. He allegedly told her that “everyone is vying to confess” and urged her to “think about it yourself”. The officer denied all of this in court.
The prosecution played video-interview footage in which Cheung said Ng was responsible for writing the “Ninety-Two Lots” articles and admitted planting a bomb at Caritas Medical Centre. She also said Ng had weighed grey powder in a unit at Wang Cheong Fong involved in the case and put sulphur into a suitcase. The trial will continue on Monday.
20 Feb 2025法庭線#4543
11.18 Yau Ma Tei｜Young Man Convicted of Riot Sentenced to 5 Years Wins Appeal, Sentence Reduced by 3 Months
2019 年 11 月，警方圍堵理大內示威者，213 人涉在油麻地以「圍魏救趙」，營救被圍堵的示威者，被控暴動，分成多案處理。案發時不足 21 歲青年經審訊後定罪，被判囚 60 個月。他提出定罪及刑期上訴，僅就後者獲批許可，周四（20 日）在上訴庭聆訊。
上訴方指，原審對同案另 3 名不足 21 歲被告給予減刑，惟上訴人沒有，但他們都同樣因年輕，不幸受社交媒體影響，誤信「圍魏救趙」。上訴方又指，上訴人案發時僅攜一個未開封外科口罩、和一隻 3M 手套，對比同案其他被告案情，認為他的刑期過重。
法官彭偉昌及彭寶琴聽畢雙方陳詞，退庭考慮約 20 分鐘後，裁定青年上訴得直，減刑 3 個月至 57 個月，書面理由將於 6 個月內頒布。
In November 2019, police surrounded protesters inside the Polytechnic University. A total of 213 people were accused of taking part in a “besiege Wei to rescue Zhao” operation in Yau Ma Tei to rescue the surrounded protesters, and were charged with rioting in several separate cases. A defendant who was under 21 at the time of the incident was convicted after trial and sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against both his conviction and sentence, but was granted leave to appeal only against the latter. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on Thursday (the 20th).
19 Feb 2025法庭線#4532
Hong Kong Independence Party Case: Portuguese Defendant Seeks Judicial Review, Arguing He Should Have Lost Chinese Nationality; Court Refuses Leave
「香港獨立黨」案葡籍被告黃煡聰，去年承認「串謀煽動分裂國家」罪被判囚 5 年。高院原訟庭法官陳健強周二（18 日）頒下判詞，拒絕向黃批出司法覆核許可。
判詞披露，黃去年判刑前後，向入境處提出申報國籍變更、退出中國國籍的申請（時序表見內文）；另向高院就該兩項申請提出司法覆核，爭議根據在港實施的《中華人民共和國國籍法》的其中 3 項條文，由於他已取得外國國籍，應已失中國國籍。
官指，黃申請國籍變更，看起來是為了得到外國領使探訪，以及法律諮詢等權利，認為覆核理據有可爭議之處，不過由於入境處尚未就黃的申請作決定，法庭現階段不能批出覆核許可。
Portuguese national defendant Wong Kin Chung in the “Hong Kong Independence Party” case pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to incite secession and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. High Court Court of First Instance judge Anthony Kin Keung Chan handed down a judgment on Tuesday (the 18th), refusing to grant Wong leave to apply for judicial review.
The judgment disclosed that, before and after Wong was sentenced last year, he applied to the Immigration Department to declare a change of nationality and to renounce Chinese nationality (see the chronology in the full text). He also applied to the High Court for judicial review concerning the two applications, arguing that under three provisions of the Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China implemented in Hong Kong, he should have lost Chinese nationality because he had acquired foreign nationality.
The judge said Wong’s application to change nationality appeared to have been made in order to obtain rights including visits from foreign consular officials and legal consultations. The judge considered that the grounds for review were arguable, but said the court could not grant leave at this stage because the Immigration Department had not yet made a decision on Wong’s applications.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
