20 Aug 2024法庭線#3921
First anti-terrorism case | Judge directs jury to consider whether defendants knowingly participated and whether throwing petrol bombs constituted terrorist acts
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（20 日）在高等法院踏入第 76 天審訊，法官張慧玲第 3 天總結供詞及引導陪審團。
法官指，自稱「屠龍」隊長的黃振強事前著隊友毋須帶裝備，但另與其他小隊談及用汽油彈，著陪審團考慮黃「講咗幾多嘢畀隊友聽」，隊友是否在知情下參與「殺警計劃」。
官又指，一被告選擇出庭作供，若陪審團認為其說法真實、可能真實，或未能肯定控方說法，就應裁定罪名不成立；官另指，擲汽油彈屬否恐怖行為，亦交由陪審團決定。
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 76th day at the High Court on Tuesday (20th), with Judge Cheung Wai-ling on the third day of summing up the evidence and directing the jury.
The judge said Victor Chun Keung Wong, who claimed to be the captain of “Dragon Slaying Brigade,” had earlier told teammates that they did not need to bring equipment, but had separately discussed using petrol bombs with other squads. She asked the jury to consider “how much Wong had told his teammates” and whether the teammates had knowingly participated in the “plan to kill police officers.”
The judge also said that one defendant had chosen to testify. If the jury considered his account to be true or possibly true, or was unable to be sure of the prosecution’s case, it should find him not guilty. She added that whether throwing petrol bombs constituted terrorist acts was also for the jury to decide.
19 Aug 2024追新聞#3915
Anti-Extradition Movement Fifth Anniversary · Interview | Hong Kong Government Seeks HK$1.7 Million in Compensation for Two Injured Officers; Released 7.14 Sha Tin Riot Convict Travels to Taiwan to Seek a Living
2019年反送中運動沙田新城市廣場警民衝突中承認暴動的抗爭者梁柏添，2024年5月中即他完成4年刑期後1年，收到律政司代表警務處長開出的「罰單」，向他追討案中兩名受傷便衣警員的病假等僱員賠償，金額逾170萬港元，限時兩星期清還，否則梁須承擔法律責任。反送中6.12百萬人遊行5周年，梁離港赴台旅行，目前尋求留台。
「我寧願係台灣瞓街，我也唔想係香港，去到一個咁悲哀嘅地步。係台灣瞓街仲舒服過係香港。」
Leung Pak-tin, a protester who admitted rioting during the police-civilian clashes at Sha Tin’s New Town Plaza in the 2019 Anti-Extradition Movement, received a demand in mid-May 2024—one year after completing his four-year sentence—from the Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, seeking more than HK$1.7 million in sick leave and other employee compensation for two plainclothes officers injured in the case. He was given two weeks to repay the sum, or Leung would have to bear legal responsibility. On the fifth anniversary of the June 12 million-person march during the Anti-Extradition Movement, Leung travelled to Taiwan and is currently seeking to remain there.
“I would rather sleep on the streets in Taiwan than be in Hong Kong, which has reached such a sad state. Sleeping on the streets in Taiwan is still more comfortable than being in Hong Kong.”
19 Aug 2024法庭線#3917
First Terrorism Case | Judge Directs Jury as Prosecution Says Conspiracy Began on Nov. 18, Defence Says It Began in December
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周一（19 日）在高等法院踏入第 75 天審訊，法官張慧玲第二天總結供詞及引導陪審團。
法官簡述，控方指控關於「屠龍」的串謀，於 2019 年 11 月 18 日開始，因為當時自稱「屠龍」隊長的黃振強才確認共謀者吳智鴻有槍及炸彈；辯方則爭議「屠龍」有份的串謀，最早於 12 月 3 日才開始，因為當時才落實行動的日期及時間。被告張銘裕的辯方代表則認為，涉案協議於 12 月 8 日凌晨，當黃與吳確認行動實際地點後才開始。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 75th day at the High Court on Monday (19th), with Judge Cheung Wai-ling on the second day of summarising the testimony and directing the jury.
The judge summarised the prosecution’s allegation that the conspiracy involving Dragon Slaying Brigade began on Nov. 18, 2019, because it was only then that Victor Chun Keung Wong, who called himself the captain of Dragon Slaying Brigade, confirmed that co-conspirator Ng Chi-hung had guns and bombs. The defence disputed this, saying the conspiracy involving Dragon Slaying Brigade began no earlier than Dec. 3, when the date and time of the operation were finalised. Counsel for defendant Cheung Ming-yu argued that the agreement only began in the early hours of Dec. 8, when Wong and Ng confirmed the actual location of the operation.
16 Aug 2024法庭線#3909
First Terrorism Case: Judge Directs Jury to Carefully Consider Evidence from Tainted Witnesses
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周五（16 日）在高等法院踏入第 74 天審訊。7 名被告已完成陳詞，案件由法官張慧玲總結供詞，引導陪審團。
法官指，陪審團須謹慎處理本案 3 名認罪被告的證供，因他們協助控方舉證，希望可獲減刑。他們有明顯誘因為減刑而剪裁證供，甚或作假證供，但如陪審團認為證人已說出真相，便可信納其證供。當中黃振強及彭軍壕亦獲豁免起訴書，提醒陪審團要考慮此兩人的個人利益，考慮其證供是否可信。法官又提醒，陪審團不應被個人同情或偏見影響，須抱持平及中肯的態度處理案件。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 74th day at the High Court on Friday (the 16th). The seven defendants have completed their closing submissions, and Judge Zhang Huiling summed up the evidence and directed the jury.
The judge said the jury must treat the evidence of the three defendants who had pleaded guilty with caution, as they had assisted the prosecution in proving its case in the hope of receiving reduced sentences. They had obvious incentives to tailor their evidence for sentence reductions, or even to give false evidence. However, if the jury considered that a witness had told the truth, it could accept that witness’s evidence. Victor Chun Keung Wong and Eddie Pang Kwan-ho had also been granted immunity from prosecution. The judge reminded the jury to consider the personal interests of these two people when assessing whether their evidence was credible. She also reminded the jury not to be influenced by personal sympathy or prejudice, and to deal with the case fairly and impartially.
15 Aug 2024法庭線#3905
First anti-terrorism case | Defence says Lau Pui-ying was merely a “part-time accounting clerk girl”; 2019 riot was never classified as terrorist activity, “not simply whatever the prosecution says”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周四（15 日）在高等法院踏入第 73 天審訊。女被告劉佩凝一方陳詞，指其面對的串謀眾籌以作恐怖活動罪，須證劉有意圖或知悉眾籌將用於恐怖活動。
對於控方指擲汽油彈已屬恐怖活動，辯方稱恐怖活動「不是控方說了便算」，指 2019 年的暴動從沒被定性為恐怖活動，案中亦沒證據顯示有警員於暴動中嚴重受傷。辯方強調，劉案發時對自稱「屠龍」隊長黃振強言聽計從，開設「育龍」頻道將籌得款項交予黃，被「點到頭擰擰」，「只係一個兼職會計文員妹嚟，佢冇人工收添㗎。」
辯方又指，黃振強為減刑將劉「拖落水」，指黃獲發豁免起訴書、被控的串謀謀殺罪獲存檔法庭，「講白少少，睇下你表現如何，睇下你乖唔乖，係咪真誠同控方合作，再睇下告唔告返你串謀謀殺，等同佢頭上嘅一把刀。」
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty, and the trial entered its 73rd day at the High Court on Thursday (15th). In submissions, counsel for female defendant Lau Pui-ying said the charge of conspiracy to crowd-fund for terrorist acts required the prosecution to prove that she intended, or knew, that the funds would be used for terrorist acts.
In response to the prosecution’s claim that throwing petrol bombs constituted terrorist acts, the defence said that a terrorist act was “not simply whatever the prosecution says”. It said the 2019 riot had never been classified as a terrorist act, and there was also no evidence in the case that any police officer had been seriously injured during the riot. The defence stressed that, at the time of the alleged offences, Liu followed the instructions of Victor Chun Keung Wong, captain of the self-styled “Dragon Slaying Brigade” team, and opened the “育龍” channel to pass the funds raised to Wong. She would “just nod when prompted”, and was “just a part-time accounting clerk girl—she wasn’t even paid.”
The defence also said that Victor Chun Keung Wong had “dragged Liu into the case” to obtain a reduced sentence. Wong was issued a letter granting immunity from prosecution, while the conspiracy-to-murder charge against him was left on the court file. “To put it plainly, it depends on your performance, whether you behave, whether you sincerely cooperate with the prosecution, and whether they will charge you again with conspiracy to murder—it is equivalent to a sword hanging over his head.”
15 Aug 2024法庭線#3906
8.31 Prince Edward station | Five men jailed for 7 to 22 weeks for assaulting police and other offences; prosecution explains delay, citing overlapping witnesses among Special Tactical Contingent officers
2019 年 8 月 31 日，旺角及太子港鐵站內發生衝突，防暴警進站以警棍等制服和拘捕多人。16 人事隔逾 3 年 8 個月被起訴襲警、藏武等罪，其中一宗涉 11 人案件，5 男經審訊後定罪，周四（15 日）即事發將近 5 年後，在九龍城裁判法院被判監禁 7 至 22 星期。
控方庭上解釋延誤，指律政司於 2020 年中已決定起訴，惟因案件分批處理，「速龍警員（當時）由朝做到晚，想像到所有案件，區院、裁院一齊做，啲證人會重疊晒」，指已盡量處理，惟「事實上會有『時差』出現」。
辯方求情指，本案延誤影響被告升學、工作。裁判官陳志輝考慮延誤、有被告妻因本案須停職、接受紀律聆訊，可能被撤銷紀律部隊宿舍資格等，酌情減刑 2 至 3 周。
On 31 August 2019, clashes occurred inside Mong Kok and Prince Edward MTR stations, where riot police entered and used batons and other means to subdue and arrest numerous people. Sixteen people were charged with offences including assaulting police and possession of weapons more than three years and eight months later. In one case involving 11 people, five men were convicted after trial and, on Thursday (15th)—nearly five years after the incident—were sentenced to between 7 and 22 weeks’ imprisonment at Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts.
The prosecution explained the delay in court, saying the Department of Justice had decided to prosecute by mid-2020, but the cases were handled in batches. “The Special Tactical Contingent police officers were working from morning to night at the time. Imagine handling all the cases, with the District Court and Magistrates’ Courts doing them at the same time—the witnesses would all overlap,” it said. The prosecution said it had handled the matter as far as possible, but “in reality, there would be a ‘time lag’”.
The defence submitted in mitigation that the delay had affected the defendants’ further studies and employment. Magistrate Brian Chi Fai Chan took the delay into consideration, as well as the fact that one defendant’s wife had to suspend her duties because of the case and undergo disciplinary proceedings, potentially losing her eligibility for disciplinary services quarters, and exercised discretion to reduce the sentences by 2 to 3 weeks.
14 Aug 2024集誌社#3902
8.18 Assembly Case｜Patten Criticises Ruling as Unjust; Hong Kong Government Strongly Condemns “Malicious Denigration”
8.18 流水式集會案，黎智英、李柱銘、吳靄儀等7名民主派人士，就「參與集結」定罪作終極上訴，爭議檢控、定罪決定損害集會自由；本周一（12日）終審法院頒下裁決，一致駁回所有上訴。前港督彭定康接受《衛報》訪問時，批評裁決不公，前英國最高法院院長廖柏嘉參與其中令事件更差；特區政府今（14日）發聲明譴責彭定康「惡意詆毀」裁決及對廖柏嘉肆意作人身攻擊，予以強烈譴責。
In the 8.18 assembly case, Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee, Margaret Ng and four other pro-democracy figures lodged a final appeal against their convictions for participating in an assembly, arguing that the prosecution and conviction decisions undermined freedom of assembly. On Monday (12th), the Court of Final Appeal handed down its judgment and unanimously dismissed all the appeals. Former Governor Chris Patten told The Guardian that the ruling was unjust, and that the involvement of former President of the UK Supreme Court Lord Neuberger made the matter worse. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government issued a statement today (14th) strongly condemning Patten for “maliciously denigrating” the ruling and for making wanton personal attacks on Lord Neuberger.
14 Aug 2024法庭線#3903
Complaint letter sent via lawyer without authorisation: Owen Chow jailed for 3 days and plans appeal; lawyer fined $1,800
去年 5 月，因「47 人案」還押的鄒家成，被指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，兩人經審訊後被裁定罪成。
主任裁判官徐綺薇周三（14 日）於西九龍裁判法院，判鄒家成監禁 3 天，律師罰款 1800 元。鄒獲准保釋候上訴，但繼續就另案服刑。
鄒在求情信指，曾兩度向懲教署投訴均不成立，加上獄中遭遇不愉快經歷，擔心無法寄出投訴信。裁判官判刑時指，被告的擔心僅基於「主觀想法」，若他循正常途徑申請，理應可以順利寄出投訴信，惟被告「魯莽、愚昧」地選擇私自寄出投訴信。
In May last year, Owen Chow Ka-shing, who was remanded in custody over the “47-person case”, was accused of sending a complaint letter to the Ombudsman through a lawyer. The letter complained that the Correctional Services Department had damaged and refused to accept two Buddhist books brought in by his relatives and friends. 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.
Chief Magistrate Ho Wai-yin sentenced Chow to three days’ imprisonment at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Wednesday (the 14th), while the lawyer was fined $1,800. Chow was granted bail pending an appeal, but will continue serving a sentence in another case.
In a mitigation letter, Chow said he had twice complained to the Correctional Services Department without success. Together with unpleasant experiences in prison, this made him worry that he would be unable to send the complaint letter. In sentencing, the magistrate said the defendants’ concern was based only on a “subjective belief”. If Chow had applied through the normal channels, he should have been able to send the complaint letter successfully; however, he had “recklessly and foolishly” chosen to send it privately.
14 Aug 2024法庭線#3904
First anti-terrorism case | Defence: Hui Cham-wing withdrew before conspiracy was formed; unfair prosecution made him “waste his youth and destroyed his life”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周三（14 日）在高等法院踏入第 72 天審訊。被告許湛榮一方陳詞指，控方針對其證據空洞無物，舉證失敗。
辯方指，許在串謀協議形成前已退出，從犯證人彭軍壕亦確認許在試槍後，已再沒參與任何行動。辯方指，由許角度可想像，他在試槍時得悉有槍和炸彈，因而決定退出，並拒絕接聽同謀者吳智鴻來電。
辯方又指，控方心知針對許的證據「有幾多斤兩」，仍盲目、不公正地起訴，令許「坐住監等審訊」、「白白浪費青春，係不公義，無理控告係摧毀佢嘅人生」；又指「遲來公義唔係公義，不過遲到好過無到」。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 72nd day on Wednesday (the 14th). In submissions on behalf of defendant Hui Cham-wing, the defence said the prosecution’s evidence against him was devoid of substance and that it had failed to prove its case.
The defence said Hui had withdrawn before the conspiracy agreement was formed. Accomplice witness Eddie Pang Kwan-ho also confirmed that, after the gun-testing exercise, Hui no longer took part in any activities. The defence said that, from Hui’s perspective, it was conceivable that he learned during the gun test that there were guns and bombs, and decided to withdraw, refusing to answer calls from co-conspirator Ng Chi-hung.
The defence also said the prosecution knew “how much weight” the evidence against Hui carried, but nevertheless blindly and unfairly prosecuted him, leaving him to “sit in prison awaiting trial”, “waste his youth for nothing”; it was unjust, and an unfounded prosecution was destroying his life. It added: “Justice delayed is not justice, but late is better than never.”
13 Aug 2024法庭線#3900
First anti-terrorism case | Lai Chun-pong’s defence closes, saying Lai was released after arrest and could leave Hong Kong but stayed because he believed he was innocent
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（13 日）在高等法院踏入第 71 天審訊，由被告賴振邦一方陳詞，批評認罪被告彭軍壕的證供「逢大必縮」，「講到自己好叻」，但當實質要行動時，又稱自己沒參與其中，只在旁觀看；彭亦「選擇性記憶」，邏輯混亂、自相矛盾。
辯方最後指，賴曾兩度被捕，期間有約 3 個月獲警方釋放，可自由離港，但他仍選擇留下，正正因為他相信自己無辜，可以坦蕩蕩地繼續工作。辯方形容，即使被告的政治立場屬於「黃」，不等於會殺警，希望陪審員考慮案情時，不要考慮被告的政治理念，為賴達無罪裁決。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven people pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 71st day at the High Court on Tuesday (13th), with submissions from the defence of defendant Lai Chun-pong. The defence criticised the testimony of guilty-plea defendant Eddie Pang Kwan-ho, saying he “shrunk whenever things got serious” and “made himself sound very capable”, but when it came to taking concrete action, claimed he had not participated and had only watched from the side. The defence also said Pang had a “selective memory” and that his account was logically confused and contradictory.
The defence concluded that Lai had been arrested twice and had been released by police for about three months during that period, allowing him to leave Hong Kong freely. He nevertheless chose to stay because he believed he was innocent and could continue working openly. The defence said that even if a defendant’s political stance was “yellow”, that did not mean he would kill police officers. It urged the jurors not to consider the defendant’s political beliefs when considering the case and to acquit Lai Tat.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
