3 Oct 2024法庭線#4115
Jimmy Lai alleges defamation by Ta Kung Pao, applies for jury trial; Ta Kung Pao objects
壹傳媒創辦人黎智英 2020 年入稟高等法院，指控《大公報》發布題為「亂港頭目謀『著草』路線曝光 收費100萬」的文章，指稱黎欲棄保潛逃，內容涉及誹謗。黎要求法庭頒令禁制《大公報》誹謗、道歉及賠償。黎一方希望審訊設陪審團，《大公報》則反對，法官歐陽桂如周四（3 日）聽畢雙方陳詞，將於一個月內頒下判詞。
黎一方指，黎智英打算就本案作供，並指他為知名人士，所涉案件均受廣泛關注，質疑《大公報》明知文章內容虛假仍惡意發布。加上《大公報》在本港廣泛流傳、有大量數者，本案涉及公眾利益，審訊應設有陪審團。
《大公報》一方則認為，若本案由陪審團審理，法官便不能在審訊前閱讀文章，或向法律代表提問以澄清疑惑，陪審團亦可能需更長時間審視文章，以評估《大公報》發布文章時的思想狀態。
Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai filed a suit in the High Court in 2020 accusing Ta Kung Pao of publishing an article titled “Hong Kong chaos leader’s route for ‘going on the run’ exposed, fee HK$1 million”. The article alleged that Lai intended to abscond after abandoning bail, and Lai said its contents were defamatory. Lai asked the court to restrain Ta Kung Pao from defaming him and to order an apology and damages. Lai’s side wanted the trial to be heard by a jury, while Ta Kung Pao opposed the application. Judge Au-yeung Kwai-yu heard the parties’ submissions on Thursday (the 3rd) and will hand down judgment within a month.
Lai’s side said that Lai intended to testify in the case and was a well-known figure whose cases attracted widespread attention. It questioned whether Ta Kung Pao had knowingly and maliciously published the article despite knowing that its contents were false. It also said that Ta Kung Pao was widely circulated in Hong Kong and had a large number of readers, and that the case involved the public interest, so the trial should have a jury.
Ta Kung Pao’s side argued that if the case were tried by a jury, the judge would be unable to read the article before the trial or ask the legal representatives questions to clarify doubts. The jury might also need more time to examine the article in assessing Ta Kung Pao’s state of mind when it published it.
2 Oct 2024獨媒#4105
Liao Tsz-manCheng Tsz-ho Wins Sentence Appeal; Court of Appeal Gives Reasons, Citing Trial Judge’s Original Intention and the Pair’s Good Conduct in Prison
「12港人」廖子文和鄭子豪分別承認妨礙司法公正，及於灣仔單位藏汽油彈半製成品和材料，區院法官游德康下令兩案部份刑期同期執行，總刑期為31個月。惟懲教指在妨礙司法公正案判刑當天已視二人服刑完畢，乃至翌日即使法官下令兩案部份刑期同期執行，懲教署也無法遵循相關的命令。二人就刑期提出上訴，上訴庭在今年3月的聆訊中裁定二人上訴得直，即時釋放，直至周一（9月30日）頒布判決理由。
The “12 Hong Kong people” Liao Tsz-man and Cheng Tsz-ho respectively pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and possessing semi-finished petrol bombs and materials in a Wan Chai flat. District Court judge Douglas Tak Hong Yau ordered part of the sentences in the two cases to run concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of 31 months. However, the Correctional Services Department said it had regarded the pair as having completed their sentences in the perverting the course of justice case on the day they were sentenced. Consequently, even though the judge ordered the sentences in the two cases to run partly concurrently the following day, the department was unable to comply with the relevant order. The pair appealed against their sentences. At a hearing in March this year, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and ordered their immediate release. It handed down its reasons on Monday (September 30).
30 Sept 2024法庭線#4098
12 Hong Kong people | Cheng Tsz-ho, Liu Tsz-man win sentence appeal; Court of Appeal: Failing to reduce terms would be “unfair”
「12 港人」案被告鄭子豪、廖子文，2022 年先後就潛逃，及灣仔倉庫爆炸品案認罪，區院法官游德康下令兩案部分刑期同期執行，共判囚 31 個月。懲教署其後通知法院，由於兩人已服畢潛逃案的刑期，無法同期執行，令實際刑期較原審判刑多出半年。兩人申請保釋等候刑期上訴，上訴庭早前裁定兩人得直，撤銷原定刑期，並改判可即時釋放兩人的刑期。
上訴庭周一（30 日）頒下判詞解釋，指兩人一直紀錄良好，完成所有刑期，「這是回溯過去而非假設」。判詞又指，律政司一方沒陳詞指，懲教署署長有合理理由相信，囚犯將非常可能在出獄後干犯嚴重罪行，另《維護國家安全條例》的修訂亦尚未生效。
考慮原審的原意、兩人在相關時段一直行為良好的事實等，「本庭認為不把 323 案（即爆炸品案）的刑期下調至16個月，不會公道」。
Defendants in the “12 Hong Kong people” case, Cheng Tsz-ho and Liu Tsz-man, pleaded guilty in 2022 to absconding and to the Wan Chai warehouse explosives case. District Court judge Douglas Tak Hong Yau ordered parts of the sentences in the two cases to run concurrently, and sentenced them to a total of 31 months’ imprisonment. The Correctional Services Department later informed the court that, because the two had already completed their sentences for the absconding case, the terms could not be served concurrently, meaning their actual imprisonment would be six months longer than the sentences imposed at trial. The two applied for bail pending their sentence appeal. The Court of Appeal earlier allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentences and imposed terms that enabled both to be released immediately.
The Court of Appeal handed down its reasons on Monday (the 30th), saying that the two had maintained good records and completed all their sentences: “This is a retrospective assessment, not a hypothetical one.” The judgment also said the Department of Justice had not submitted that the Commissioner of Correctional Services had reasonable grounds to believe the prisoners were very likely to commit serious offences after release. Amendments to the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance had also not yet come into force.
Having considered the original sentencing intent and the fact that the two had behaved well throughout the relevant period, among other matters, the court held that it “would not be fair” not to reduce the sentence in Case 323, namely the explosives case, to 16 months.
30 Sept 2024法庭線#4099
Tai Hang Sai Estate redevelopment: Another resident seeks stay of possession order; housing company questions whether cases are being deliberately delayed
石硤尾的大坑西邨將清拆重建，興建與管理該邨的「平民屋宇有限公司」以民事控告 67 名拒絕遷出的居民。再有因缺席聆訊被判敗訴需遷出的居民，入稟要求擱置裁決、重新呈交抗辯書、移除單位上鎖等，案件周一（30 日）在區院處理。
居民的兒子稱從未收到通知上庭，後來「平屋」提出和解並要求「先交單位後簽合約」。他指對方「氹我哋交鎖匙」，其母的冬天衣物亦沒法取回。「平屋」一方確認未達成和解，「但係收樓程序我哋話完成咗」，又引述交還文件指提及單位內物品會棄置或清理。
「平屋」一方另指，「咁巧合」上周處理過類似案件，而兩案的傳票首兩段相似，質疑「係咪有組織、有計劃去拖延呢一啲案件嘅情況呢？」聆案官陸惠雅押後至 12 月 16 日再訊，待雙方呈交誓章。
Tai Hang Sai Estate in Shek Kip Mei is to be demolished and redeveloped. The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited, which built and manages the estate, has brought civil proceedings against 67 residents who refused to move out. Another resident who was ordered to leave after losing the case in their absence has filed an application seeking to stay the judgment, re-submit a defence and remove the lock on the flat, among other requests. The case was dealt with at the District Court on Monday (30th). The resident’s son said they had never received notice requiring them to attend court. He said the housing company later proposed a settlement and required them to “hand over the flat first before signing the agreement”. He accused the company of “tricking us into handing over the keys”, adding that his mother had been unable to retrieve her winter clothing from the flat.
The company confirmed that no settlement had been reached, but said that “as far as the repossession process is concerned, we consider it completed”. It also referred to the handover documents, which stated that items left inside the flat would be discarded or cleared away.
The company further said that, “coincidentally”, it had dealt with a similar case the previous week, and noted that the first two paragraphs of the summonses in the two cases were similar. It questioned whether there was “an organised and planned attempt to delay these cases”.
Deputy District Judge Luk Wai-nga adjourned the case to 16 December for further hearing, pending the filing of affidavits by both sides.
30 Sept 2024法庭線#4100
Grandpa Chan Denies Displaying Banner Bearing Lu Xun Quote on Lion Rock Without Permit; Closing Submissions Set for Oct. 30
「馬屎埔陳伯」陳基裘被指於 2023 年，中秋前夕登上獅子山，展示出自魯迅的「橫眉冷對千夫指 俯首甘為孺子牛」字句，事後被警方拘捕。陳否認一項「沒有許可證下於郊野公園內展示條幅」，案件周一（30 日）在九龍城裁判法院開審。
控方傳召案發時截查被告的警員及警長作供，警員供稱截查被告後搜出 3 條條幅，警員檢查「睇到冇違法嘅成分」，亦與國家安全無關，最終放行，亦沒有目睹被告拿出條幅拍照或展示。
辯方表示同意被告曾拿出條幅拍照，但爭議法律上何謂「展示」，亦有言論自由相關的憲法爭議。控方傳召共 3 名證人後，裁判官裁定表證成立，並將案件押後至 10 月 30 日進行結案陳詞。
Grandpa Chan’s Ki Kau Chan was accused of climbing Lion Rock on the eve of the Mid-Autumn Festival in 2023 and displaying a banner bearing the words from Lu Xun: “With a cold brow I defy a thousand pointing fingers; with a bowed head I willingly serve as a child’s ox.” The person was subsequently arrested by police. Chan denied one charge of displaying a banner in a country park without a permit. The case was heard at Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts on Monday (the 30th).
27 Sept 2024法庭線#4084
First anti-terrorism case | Defence says “gunman” Su Wai-hin once described society as a dangerous building; now only wants to study and rejoin society
2019 年 12 月 8 日「國際人權日大遊行」前夕，警方搜出大批武器，包括手槍、子彈等，事後多人被捕，被指串謀以槍械和炸彈殺警。當中 7 人不認罪受審，陪審團裁定 6 人無罪、1 人交替控罪罪成。
4 名認罪被告周五（27 日）在高等法院求情，其中被指為「槍手」的從犯證人蘇緯軒，辯方指他對社會很有熱誠，被捕後曾形容社會如危樓，「唔可以俾佢再起落去」，但現時蘇別無他想，只想努力讀書日後重投社會。另一從犯證人、協助製炸彈的彭軍壕，辯方指他早有悔意，重犯機會極微。
至於另外兩名認罪被告，法官張慧玲指他們沒被控《反恐條例》控罪，雖不知串謀計劃，「叫做俾人利用咗」，但考慮 2019 年的社會環境，認為兩人不可能不知與反政府、反修例有關，「唔係貪得意，唔可以抹煞個背景」。案件暫定於 11 月 14 日判刑。
On the eve of the 8 December 2019 “International Human Rights Day” march, police seized a large quantity of weapons, including handguns and bullets. Several people were arrested afterwards and accused of conspiring to kill police officers with firearms and bombs. Seven of them pleaded not guilty and stood trial; a jury acquitted six and convicted one on an alternative charge.
Four defendants who pleaded guilty made mitigation submissions at the High Court on Friday (27th). The defence for Su Wai-hin, an accomplice witness alleged to be the “gunman”, said he had been passionate about society and, after his arrest, had described it as a dangerous building, saying, “We can’t let it keep deteriorating.” Su now has no other wish but to study hard and rejoin society in the future. For another accomplice witness, Eddie Pang Kwan-ho, who helped make the bombs, the defence said he had shown remorse from an early stage and was extremely unlikely to reoffend.
As for the other two defendants who pleaded guilty, Judge Audrey Chang Hui-ling said they had not been charged with offences under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance. Although they did not know about the conspiracy plan and had “been used by others”, the judge considered the social environment in 2019 and said it was impossible that they did not know it was related to anti-government and anti-extradition-amendment causes. “It was not just for fun; the background cannot be erased.” Sentencing has provisionally been set for 14 November.
27 Sept 2024法庭線#4085
Doctor Admits 9.29 Admiralty Riot Offence; Medical Council Orders Nine-Month Removal from Register, Suspended for Three Years
一名註冊醫生承認在 2019 年 9 月在金鐘干犯暴動罪，被判囚 4 年。他於今年 8 月接受醫委會研訊小組研訊。醫委會周五（27 日）憲刊公布決定，指該醫生承認干犯可被判處監禁的罪行，裁定他違反《醫生註冊條例》罪成，頒令他除牌 9 個月，暫緩執行 36 個月。
A registered doctor admitted committing the offence of riot in Admiralty in September 2019 and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He appeared before an inquiry panel of the Medical Council in August this year. The Medical Council published its decision in the Gazette on Friday (27th), stating that the doctor had admitted committing an offence punishable by imprisonment. It found him guilty of breaching the Medical Registration Ordinance and ordered that his name be removed from the register for nine months, with the order suspended for 36 months.
27 Sept 2024法庭線#4086
League of Social Democrats Street-Station Illegal Fundraising Case: Chan Po-ying’s Conviction Appeal Dismissed; Ruling Says Appellant’s Interpretation Contravened Legislative Purpose
社民連被指 2021 年街站展示 Patreon 二維碼非法籌款，主席陳寶瑩就定罪提出上訴，2024 年 8 月被高院暫委法官姚勳智駁回，周五（27日）頒下判詞解釋原因。
判詞提到，上訴方認為原審錯誤詮釋條例，「公眾地方」不應包括互聯網等虛擬空間，「籌款活動」亦不應涉及呼籲捐款、提供捐款資訊等行為，籲官應採「有疑不罰」原則，判陳上訴得直；答辯方則指原審詮釋符合立法原意，條文英譯「collection of money」（收集金錢）應指收集過程，故包括上訴人設置印有「捐款」字眼易拉架的舉動。
法官姚勳智認為，上訴方所倡釋義狹窄、違立法目的；而條文中、英意思清晰，進行有關籌款活動者，未持相關許可證，即屬違法。
The League of Social Democrats was accused of illegally raising funds at a street station in 2021 by displaying a Patreon QR code. Its chairwoman, Chan Po-ying, appealed against her conviction. The appeal was dismissed in August 2024 by High Court Acting Judge Yiu Fan-chi, who handed down the reasons on Friday (the 27th).
27 Sept 2024法庭線#4087
Remandees and visitors acquitted of conspiracy to forge claim documents; magistrate says no proof of forged signatures and citizens have right to sue police
2023 年 3 月，退休婦及一名男子，被指為兩名正在荔枝角收押所因「口岸爆炸品案」還押的男子，冒簽傳訊令狀，協助他們入稟向警務處索償，稱被警員毆打。4 人被控串謀製造虛假文書等罪，兩名還押者不認罪，周二（16 日）在西九龍裁判法院獲裁定無罪。
裁判官彭亮廷裁決時指，控方舉證除了要證明簽名虛假，還要證明傳訊令狀的內容失實，並且對警務處不利。惟目前未有法律程序判斷被告指控警方施暴的真偽，不能「貿然」說他們說謊，而被告「行使《基本法》賦予的公民權利」控告警方，「不敢苟同」控方主張被告趕及在期限前入稟索償，是對警方不利。
裁判官又指，控方沒有傳召筆跡專家鑑定簽名屬假，亦沒有傳召同案被告指證他人，證據「流於臆測層面」，不能證明有人冒簽。
In March 2023, a retired woman and a man were accused of signing, on behalf of two men remanded at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre in the “port explosives case”, writs of summons to help them file claims for compensation against the Police, alleging that they had been assaulted by police officers. The four were charged with conspiracy to make false documents and other offences. The two remanded men pleaded not guilty, and all four were acquitted at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday (16th).
25 Sept 2024法庭線#4077
Refusing to Reduce Sentence for HKU Kinson Cheung King-sang, Correctional Services Commissioner Cites “Review Panel” Views but Does Not Disclose Its Name or Members
港大學生會評議會案，在囚的時任主席張敬生周二（25 日）爭取提早獲釋失敗。懲教署一方在法庭引署長解釋拒讓張獲獄中行為良好減刑時，提及他「同意評委會的報告和意見」，但庭上未有詳述該「評委會」的名稱及成員。
《法庭線》向署方查詢，獲回覆指《監獄規則》、《監管釋囚條例》及《長期監禁刑罰覆核條例》授權署長及「相關委員會」可減刑或提早釋放囚犯。
惟記者翻查法例僅提及「監管釋囚委員會」及「長期監禁刑罰覆核委員會」，條文詳細列出成員的身分，除了署方代表亦有外部成員例如高院法官、具經驗精神科醫生、刑事執業大律師或律師等，惟法例沒有提及「評委會」或相關字眼的委員會。
In the HKU Students’ Union Council case, the imprisoned then-chairperson, Kinson Cheung King-sang, failed on Tuesday (the 25th) in a bid for early release. In court, the Correctional Services Department cited the Commissioner’s explanation for refusing to grant Cheung a sentence reduction for good conduct in prison, saying that he “agreed with the report and views of the review panel”. The court was not told the name or membership of the “review panel”.
The Witness asked the department about the matter and was told that the Prison Rules, the Prisoners (Release under Supervision) Ordinance and the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance authorise the Commissioner and “relevant committees” to reduce prisoners’ sentences or release them early.
However, a review of the legislation by the reporter found references only to the Release under Supervision Board and the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board. The provisions set out the identities of their members in detail: besides departmental representatives, they include external members such as High Court judges, experienced psychiatrists, and barristers or solicitors practising criminal law. The legislation does not mention a “review panel” or a committee with related wording.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
