3 Dec 2024法庭線#4321
Fanling Golf Course judicial review | Golf club wins as EIA report must undergo renewed public consultation
政府計劃收回粉嶺高球場部分用地興建公屋，香港哥爾夫球會 2023 年 7 月入稟高等法院，就粉嶺高爾夫球場用地發展的環評報告，向環保署提出司法覆核，要求法庭推翻環保署接納報告的決定，並擱置決定至司法覆核有結果。法官高浩文周一（2 日）於高等法院頒下判詞，裁定球會勝訴，環評報告須發還重新諮詢公眾。
哥球會一方早前質疑，環保署於土拓署補交資料後，沒有再進行公眾諮詢。判詞指，公眾只有一次機會發表意見，故環評報告應盡可能「全面」，若有補充資料，應重新諮詢公眾。判詞又指，環評報告忽視古樹名林、對瀕危物種水松欠分析，或造成災難影響。另外，針對蝙蝠與飛蛾的物種，法官指土拓署的環評報告、球會及漁護署的研究結果有差異，但環保署沒提出疑問，亦沒解釋為何只考慮土拓署的研究。法官亦接納球會一方所指，署方批准報告時附加多項條件，反映報告非真正獲批。
特首李家超指，政府需全面考慮對可建公屋量、10 年供應目標的影響，才可決定下一步跟進工作。球會發聲明指歡迎裁決，指粉嶺球場是香港重要且無可替代的體育設施，亦是有重大生態及文化價值的地方，希望未來善用三個國際級錦標賽球場，繼續配合政府政策，以體塑旅，促進盛事經濟。
The government plans to reclaim part of the Fanling Golf Course site to build public housing. In July 2023, the Hong Kong Golf Club filed a judicial review in the High Court against the Environmental Protection Department over the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report for development of the Fanling Golf Course site, seeking to overturn the department’s decision to accept the report and suspend the decision pending the outcome of the judicial review. On Monday (2nd), High Court Judge David Lok handed down his judgment, ruling in favour of the club and ordering that the EIA report be returned for renewed public consultation.
The club had earlier argued that the Environmental Protection Department did not conduct another public consultation after the Civil Engineering and Development Department submitted supplementary information. The judgment said the public had only one opportunity to express its views, and that an EIA report should therefore be as comprehensive as possible; if supplementary information was provided, the public should be consulted again. The judgment also said the report had overlooked old and valuable woodland and lacked analysis of the endangered water fir, which could have disastrous consequences. Regarding bats and moth species, the judge said there were differences between the findings in the Civil Engineering and Development Department’s EIA report and the research conducted by the club and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, but the Environmental Protection Department had raised no questions and had not explained why it considered only the Civil Engineering and Development Department’s research. The judge also accepted the club’s argument that the department had attached multiple conditions when approving the report, indicating that the report had not truly been approved.
Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu said the government needed to fully consider the impact on the amount of public housing that could be built and the 10-year housing supply target before deciding on the next steps. The club said in a statement that it welcomed the ruling, describing the Fanling course as an important and irreplaceable sports facility in Hong Kong and a place of significant ecological and cultural value. It hoped to make good use of the three international-standard championship courses in the future, continue to support government policies, use sport to promote tourism and advance the major-events economy.
3 Dec 2024法庭線#4322
Second Terrorism Case | Police Say They Followed Defendants to Pharmacies and Hardware Shop; Defence Sought Location Markings, Prosecution Objected
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 8 天審訊。
控方繼續傳召 4 名監視警員作供，並讀出另外兩名監視警員的書面供詞，提到警員在被告被捕的前一天，開始輪流跟蹤不同被告，其中首被告進入多間藥房，拿著有重量的膠袋離開，次被告則被指在五金鋪購買兩枝角鐵。
其中一名監視警員在盤問下承認，他看不到首被告在藥房做了甚麼。辯方則指首被告購買了夏枯草，被法官打斷。辯方盤問時希望警員在地圖標示跟蹤時位置，控方引「公眾利益豁免權」反對。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 “九十二籤” later 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 eighth day at the High Court on Tuesday (the 3rd).
The prosecution continued calling four surveillance officers to testify and read out the written statements of two other surveillance officers. They said that, on the day before the defendants were arrested, officers began taking turns following different defendants. The first defendant entered several pharmacies and left carrying plastic bags that appeared to contain something heavy, while the second defendant was alleged to have bought two angle irons at a hardware shop.
Under cross-examination, one surveillance officer admitted that he could not see what the first defendant did inside the pharmacy. The defence said that the first defendant had bought self-heal herb, but was interrupted by the judge. During cross-examination, the defence asked for the officer to mark the locations where he had followed the defendant on a map. The prosecution objected, citing public interest immunity. The trial will resume on Wednesday.
29 Nov 2024法庭線#4310
Second Anti-Terrorism Case | Defence Questions Mistaken Identity; Surveillance Officer Denies Misidentification, Says Suspects’ Build Could Be Estimated from ID-Photo-Sized Images
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（29 日）於高院踏入第 7 天審訊。
控方指被告在擬尚德邨停車場外放炸彈行動前，在嘉頓山開會。監視警員供稱，看到 7 名被告曾到附近的巴域街休憩處。
在張家俊、楊怡斯的大狀盤問下，警員透露獲指示要留意共 17 人，獲發大概為證件相尺寸的黑白相片，有正面及膊頭位置，而各用約 3 分鐘看照片，可憑相片評估身型，他否認當時認錯人。何培欣一方則指出案情，指她當晚將物品給予何卓為後離開，並沒走入休憩處。警員則稱，「入咗公園，但入咗幾深我睇唔到。」案件下周一下午續。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train compartment. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Lots” 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, and the trial at the High Court entered its seventh day on Friday (29th).
The prosecution alleges that the defendants held a meeting at Garden Hill before carrying out an operation to place a bomb outside a car park in Sheung Tak Estate. A surveillance officer testified that he saw seven defendants visit a nearby rest area on Berwick Street.
During cross-examination by counsel for Christopher Ka Tsun Cheung and Yeung Yee-sze, the officer revealed that he had been instructed to look out for a total of 17 people. He was given black-and-white photographs approximately the size of identity-card photos, showing the subjects from the front and around the shoulders. He spent about three minutes looking at each photograph and could assess the suspects’ build from the images. He denied mistaking the person at the time. The side representing Ho Pui-yan put forward the case that she left after handing an item to Ho Cheuk Wai that night and did not enter the rest area. The officer said, “She entered the park, but I couldn’t see how far in she went.” The case will resume next Monday afternoon.
28 Nov 2024法庭線#4307
8.31 Wan Chai | Female student acquitted of rioting: DoJ wins appeal, case remitted for reconsideration; defence to seek leave to appeal to CFA
2019 年 8 月 31 日港島區遊行爆發警民衝突，法律系女學生被控暴動等兩罪，獲裁無罪兼獲訟費。上訴庭今年 6 月判律政司暴動罪上訴得直，發還原審重新考慮，女生一方申上訴至終審法院證明書被拒（時序見內文表）。案件周四（28 日）在區域法院處理。
代表女生的大狀吳珞珩指，已直接向終審法院申請上訴許可，惟至今未有聆訊日子，希望申請押後。律政司一方、外聘大律師韋浩棠表示，上訴庭的判詞指要求區院「盡速處理」案件，建議押後較短的時間，以兼顧上訴程序及上訴庭給予區院的責任；另不反對女被告續准保釋。
區院首席法官高勁修表示，宜在終院有裁決後再繼續處理，因被告暴動罪責是甚麼、案件是否會繼續以原本證據審理等，現階段都未能說到如何處理；又指終院或會另有進一步指示，遂押後至 2025 年 7 月 22 日再訊，期間女生續准保釋。
Clashes between police and protesters broke out during a procession on Hong Kong Island on 31 August 2019. A female law student was charged with rioting and another offence, but was acquitted and awarded costs. In June this year, the Court of Appeal allowed the Department of Justice’s appeal in respect of the rioting charge and remitted the case for reconsideration. The student’s application for a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused. (See the chronology table in the full report.) The case was dealt with at the District Court on Thursday (28th).
Wu Lok-hang, counsel for the student, said she had applied directly to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal, but no hearing date had yet been fixed, and hoped the case would be adjourned. Wai Ho-tong, an external counsel representing the Department of Justice, said the Court of Appeal’s judgment required the District Court to deal with the case “as soon as possible”. He suggested a shorter adjournment to accommodate both the appeal process and the responsibility assigned to the District Court by the Court of Appeal. He also did not oppose the female defendant continuing to be granted bail.
Chief District Judge Ko King-shiu said it would be appropriate to continue dealing with the case after the Court of Final Appeal had ruled, as it was not yet possible to say how the case should proceed, including what the defendant’s liability for the rioting charge would be and whether the case would continue to be tried on the original evidence. He added that the Court of Final Appeal might issue further directions. The case was therefore adjourned to 22 July 2025 for mention, and the student was allowed to remain on bail in the meantime.
27 Nov 2024法庭線#4301
Second Anti-Terrorism Case | Agreed Facts: Police Seized Circuit Boards and Dangerous Chemicals; Five Defendants Repeatedly Entered Wang Cheong Building Units
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（27 日）於高院踏入第 5 天審訊。
控方早前在開案指，被告租用宏創方兩個單位儲存爆炸品原材料，製作、試炸炸彈等。控方周三讀出承認事實，提及有 5 名被告多次進出兩個單位，其中首被告進出一單位逾 100 次。警方並在各地點檢取電路板、煙花等物，而部分化學品具危險性，未能帶上法庭展示。
第八被告在警誡下稱「我喺 TG 度有睇過整炸彈嘅資料，但我冇整過炸彈」，亦自願向警方提供手機密碼、Telegram 密碼。第七被告被捕後，警方在其電腦登入了 Telegram，他承認其 Telegram 用戶名稱為「珀斯光輝」。審訊周四續，料控方將傳召證人。
第四日審訊｜控方：將軍澳爆炸案前一天拘眾人 搜出逾千公斤硝酸鉀、60公斤汽油
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in MTR Lo Wu train compartments. The Telegram channel “Gau Sap Yi Cim” 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 fifth day on Wednesday (27th).
The prosecution earlier said in its opening that the defendants had rented two units at Wang Cheong Building to store raw materials for explosives and to make and test-detonate bombs, among other things. On Wednesday, the prosecution read out agreed facts stating that five defendants had repeatedly entered the two units, with the first defendant entering one of them more than 100 times. Police also seized circuit boards, fireworks and other items at various locations. Some of the chemicals were hazardous and could not be brought to court for display.
The eighth defendant said under caution: “I saw information about making bombs on TG, but I have never made a bomb.” He also voluntarily provided police with his phone and Telegram passwords. After the seventh defendant was arrested, police logged into Telegram on his computer, and he admitted that his Telegram username was “Perth Glory”. The trial will continue on Thursday, when the prosecution is expected to call witnesses.
Fourth day of trial | Prosecution: All defendants arrested the day before the Tseung Kwan O explosion case; more than 1,000 kilograms of potassium nitrate and 60 kilograms of petrol seized.
27 Nov 2024法庭線#4302
9.29 Admiralty | Five convicted of rioting appeal sentences, saying they are 16 months longer than in separate cases at the same time and location; judge adjourns decision
2019 年 9 月 29 日「全球反極權遊行」，金鐘爆發警民衝突，共 96 人被控暴動。其中一宗 12 人罪成的案件，當中 5 人分別就定罪及刑罰申請上訴許可，上訴庭周三（27 日）就刑罰上訴進行聆訊。
During the “Global Anti-Authoritarian March” on 29 September 2019, clashes broke out between police and protesters in Admiralty, and 96 people were charged with rioting. In one case in which 12 people were convicted, five separately applied for leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal heard the sentence appeals on Wednesday (27th).
26 Nov 2024法庭線#4292
Housing policy excluding same-sex couples ruled unconstitutional; Housing Authority suffers final defeat — CFA: opposite-sex spouses never had exclusive right to apply for public housing or HOS flats
兩名同性配偶因房委會拒絕承認其家庭成員身分，未能申請公屋及入住居屋，提出司法覆核。另外，男同志因擔心在無立遺囑下離世，丈夫無法按《無遺囑者遺產條例》繼承財產，提出司法覆核，3 案早前獲判勝訴。政府上訴至終審法院，周二（26 日）被終院 5 名法官一致駁回，兼須付訟費，同志一方於 3 案維持勝訴。
針對房屋政策，判詞指，允許海外已婚同性伴侶申請公屋、居屋，並不損害異性夫婦的權利，而異性配偶亦從來沒有獨享申請公屋、居屋權利。至於房委會指現行政策可鼓勵生育，法庭反駁，房委會政策的首要目標，應該是解決低收入家庭的住屋需要，而政策本身亦沒區分異性配偶有否生育。法官認為，海外已婚同性配偶不能在公屋或居屋中共享家庭生活，是剝奪了有住屋困難的同性配偶，在同一屋簷下生活的權利。
同志方其中一名申請人原為吳翰林，他離世後由丈夫李亦豪接手。李於 FB 感激法庭肯定亡夫同志平權的付出；公屋案申請人 Nick Infinger 則形容裁決「算係畀自己一個交代」。
Two same-sex spouses sought judicial reviews after the Housing Authority refused to recognise their status as family members, preventing them from applying for public rental housing and living in Home Ownership Scheme flats. In a separate case, a gay man sought judicial review because he feared that, if he died intestate, his husband would be unable to inherit his property under the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance. The three cases had earlier been decided in their favour. On Tuesday (the 26th), the Court of Final Appeal unanimously dismissed the Government’s appeal, with all five judges ordering it to pay the legal costs. The same-sex couples and spouses therefore retained their victories in all three cases.
Regarding housing policy, the judgment said allowing same-sex spouses married overseas to apply for public rental housing and Home Ownership Scheme flats would not prejudice the rights of opposite-sex couples, and that opposite-sex spouses had never had an exclusive right to apply for public rental housing or Home Ownership Scheme flats. In response to the Housing Authority’s argument that the existing policy could encourage childbirth, the court said the Authority’s primary objective should be to address the housing needs of low-income families, while the policy itself did not distinguish between opposite-sex spouses who had or had not had children. The judges held that preventing same-sex spouses married overseas from sharing family life in public rental housing or Home Ownership Scheme flats deprived same-sex spouses facing housing difficulties of the right to live under the same roof.
One of the applicants in the same-sex cases was originally Wu Hon-lam. After his death, his husband Yik Ho Li took over the case. Li thanked the court on Facebook for affirming his late husband’s contribution to equal rights for gay people. Nick Infinger, an applicant in the public housing case, described the ruling as “a way of giving myself an answer.”
26 Nov 2024法庭線#4293
10.13 Mong Kok | Woman acquitted over alleged vigilante attack on roadblock clearer; Department of Justice appeal rejected three years later
2019 年 10 月 13 日「18 區開花」，旺角爆發衝突，一名女子清路障時遭「私了」。案發時 42 歲女子被指開傘掩護黑衣人施襲，2020 年經審訊獲裁定無罪。律政司 3 年後提出上訴，案件再在逾一年後，即周二（26 日）在高院審理，法官即日駁回上訴。
暫委法官姚勳智指，「案件都幾耐㗎喎，唔打算再押後」，故即日裁決。他指被告在眾人襲擊之前突然為事主「開遮」，「確實是非常可疑之舉」。惟現場混亂，認為被告未必聽到有人呼籲「開遮」，加她沒戴口罩遮蓋容貌，認為原審裁決無誤。
On October 13, 2019, clashes erupted in Mong Kok during the “Blossom in 18 Districts” protests. A woman was subjected to a “vigilante attack” while clearing roadblocks. The 42-year-old woman at the time of the incident was accused of opening an umbrella to shield people in black while they attacked her, but was acquitted after trial in 2020. The Department of Justice filed an appeal three years later. The case was heard in the High Court more than a year afterwards, on Tuesday (26th), and the judge dismissed the appeal the same day.
Acting Judge Yiu Fan-chi said, “This case has been going on for quite some time, so I do not intend to adjourn it again,” and delivered his decision that day. He said the defendant’s suddenly opening an umbrella for the person concerned before the group attacked was “indeed a very suspicious act”. However, given the confusion at the scene, he considered that the defendant might not have heard anyone calling for an umbrella to be opened. As she had not worn a mask to conceal her appearance, he concluded that the original verdict was correct.
26 Nov 2024法庭線#4294
Anti-terrorism case II | Prosecution: All defendants arrested a day before Tseung Kwan O bombing; over 1,000kg potassium nitrate and 60kg petrol found
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（26 日）於高院踏入第 4 天審訊。
控方完成開案陳詞，提到各被告在原定作將軍澳爆炸案的前兩天，開會及購買原材料，次被告再於前一晚「踩線」，五度經過擬放炸彈的路口視察及拍照，又稱正考慮會否加上螺絲、絲帽。控方強調現場有大量巿民逗留，若非警方及時制止或有傷亡。
警方在事發前一晚拘捕各人，在大角嘴兩單位搜出大量炸藥原材料，包括逾千公斤硝酸鉀、約 60 公斤汽油，第三被告警誡下承認助製煙霧彈「迫醫護罷工」；3 警在庭上合力抬出一包約 30 公斤的硝酸鉀供陪審員查看，法官陳仲衡一度關注「係咪安全㗎」。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 “九十二籤” later claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining defendant was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and their trial at the High Court entered its fourth day on Tuesday (26th).
The prosecution completed its opening address, saying that the defendants held meetings and bought raw materials in the two days before the planned Tseung Kwan O bombing. The second defendant then conducted reconnaissance on the night before the planned attack, passing the junction where the bomb was allegedly intended to be placed five times to inspect and photograph it. The prosecution also said he was considering whether to add screws and nuts. It stressed that large numbers of members of the public were staying at the site and that casualties might have resulted had the police not intervened in time.
The police arrested the defendants on the night before the incident and found large quantities of raw materials for explosives in two flats in Tai Kok Tsui, including over 1,000kg of potassium nitrate and about 60kg of petrol. The third defendant admitted under caution to assisting in the manufacture of smoke bombs to “force healthcare workers to go on strike”. Three police officers jointly carried a bag containing about 30kg of potassium nitrate into court for the jury to inspect, prompting Judge Chan Chung-hang to ask at one point whether it was safe. The trial continues on Wednesday.
26 Nov 2024法庭線#4295
Government loses final appeals in housing policy and inheritance ordinance cases; applicant tells late husband: “I hope I did not let your efforts down”
兩名同性配偶因房委會拒絕承認其家庭成員身分，未能申請公屋及入住居屋，提出司法覆核。另外，男同志因擔心在無立遺囑下離世，丈夫無法按《無遺囑者遺產條例》繼承財產，提出司法覆核，3 案早前獲判勝訴。政府上訴至終審法院，周二（26 日）被終院一致駁回，同志一方於 3 案維持勝訴。
同志一方申請人之一原為吳翰林，他離世後由丈夫李亦豪接手。李於 FB 感激法庭肯定亡夫的苦，「肯定你對同志平權的付出」。公屋案申請人 Nick Infinger 則形容自己爭取平權多年，今次裁決「叫做有少少成果，算係畀自己一個交代」。
政府發言人及房委會表示，尊重終審法院的判決，會認真研究法庭判決，再按情況徵詢法律意見，以作出跟進行動。
Two same-sex spouses sought judicial reviews after the Housing Authority refused to recognise them as family members, preventing them from applying for public rental housing and moving into Home Ownership Scheme flats. In a separate case, a gay man sought judicial review over concerns that, if he died intestate, his husband would be unable to inherit his property under the Intestate’s Estates Ordinance. The applicants had earlier won all three cases. The government appealed to the Court of Final Appeal, which unanimously dismissed the appeals on Tuesday (26th), upholding the applicants’ victories in all three cases.
One of the applicants in the same-sex rights cases was originally Ng Hon-lam. After his death, his husband Yik Ho Li took over the case. Lee thanked the court on Facebook for affirming the hardships endured by his late husband and “affirming your contribution to equal rights for LGBT people”. Nick Infinger, an applicant in the public housing case, said he had fought for equal rights for many years and described the ruling as “some small result, at least giving myself an answer”.
A government spokesperson and the Housing Authority said they respected the Court of Final Appeal’s judgment. They would study the judgment seriously and, depending on the circumstances, seek legal advice before taking follow-up action.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
