12 Aug 2024法庭線#3896
Final appeal over 18 August flowing assembly dismissed; Martin Lee, Margaret Ng and five others lose case — Hong Kong courts should not follow two UK cases, judgment says
2019 年 8 月 18 日，民陣在維園舉行流水式集會，黎智英、吳靄儀等 7 名民主派人士，經審訊後被裁定「組織」及「參與」未經批准集結兩罪罪成。上訴庭裁定 7 人「組織集結」上訴得直、撤銷定罪；「參與集結」罪則上訴失敗、維持定罪。被告一方上訴至終審法院，指法庭應採納英國最高法院案例所訂下的「執行相稱性原則」，以考慮檢控、定罪決定，有否不符比例地限制集會自由。5 位法官周一（12 日）一致裁定敗訴。
判詞指，兩宗英國案例的法律背景有別於香港，處理人權挑戰的法律框架並不相同，例如本港法庭可直接裁定違憲法律無效，但在英國，被宣告為不符合人權的條文，仍會被視為有效法律、繼續執行，有機會衍生檢控、定罪有否過分限制權利的考慮。因此，香港法庭不應跟隨英案例，「應遵從本港已確立的違憲審查原則」。終院又指，上訴方的主張，違背香港與憲法挑戰有關的所有原則，強調拘捕、檢控、定罪及判刑過程，已受到完善法律和程序管轄。
吳靄儀庭外表示，本次裁決非常重要，但未有時間詳細研究判詞，不適合作出評論，另感謝律師團隊及一直支持他們的市民；李柱銘則稱「No comment」。
On 18 August 2019, the Civil Human Rights Front held a flowing assembly at Victoria Park. Following trial, seven pro-democracy figures, including Jimmy Lai and Margaret Ng, were convicted of organising and participating in an unauthorised assembly. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the conviction for organising an assembly and quashed the convictions, but dismissed the appeal against the conviction for participating in an assembly and upheld those convictions. The defendants appealed to the Court of Final Appeal, arguing that the court should adopt the “principle of proportionality in enforcement” established in UK Supreme Court cases to consider whether the decisions to prosecute and convict had disproportionately restricted freedom of assembly. Five judges unanimously dismissed the appeal on Monday (12th). The judgment said that the legal backgrounds of the two UK cases differed from those in Hong Kong and that the legal frameworks for addressing human-rights challenges were not the same. For example, Hong Kong courts can directly declare unconstitutional laws invalid, whereas in the UK provisions declared incompatible with human rights are still regarded as valid law and continue to be enforced, potentially giving rise to consideration of whether prosecution and conviction have excessively restricted rights. Hong Kong courts should therefore not follow the UK cases and “should follow Hong Kong’s established principles of constitutional review”. The Court of Final Appeal also said the appellants’ arguments ran counter to all the principles relating to constitutional challenges in Hong Kong, stressing that the processes of arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentencing were governed by a comprehensive legal and procedural framework. Outside court, Margaret Ng said the ruling was very important, but she had not had time to study the judgment in detail and it would not be appropriate to comment. She also thanked the legal team and members of the public who had continued to support them. Martin Lee said, “No comment”.
12 Aug 2024法庭線#3897
First terrorism case | Lee Ka Tin, Christian’s defence says Li made confession involuntarily; joined only a “food and drink group”, not a conspiracy
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周一（12 日）在高等法院踏入第 70 天審訊。由被告李家田一方作結案陳詞。
辯方指，認罪被告黃振強、彭軍壕的供詞均不可信，彭表示想和盤托出，但又拒向警方提供電話密碼；又指李家田遭受「打、嚇、氹」才作出招認。至於控方曾質疑涉事警肥胖，難以「屈住肚腩」襲擊李，辯方反駁「一個人有肚腩唔代表佢唔可以打人」，而且警員不算很肥，而李亦在庭上示範受襲過程。李選擇出庭作供，希望獲得公義。
辯方續指，李「日日唔夠錢使」，而當他加入群組後獲黃振強資助，「如果有人畀錢你飲飲食食，你會唔會留低？」指李所參與的只是「飲食 group、玩嘅 group，唔係串謀計劃」。案件周二續。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 70th day on Monday (12th), with the defence for defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian making closing submissions.
The defence said the statements by the pleading defendants Victor Chun Keung Wong and Eddie Pang Kwan-ho were both unreliable. Peng said he wanted to tell the whole truth but refused to provide his phone password. The defence also said Lee Ka Tin, Christian confessed only after being “beaten, threatened and coaxed”. As for the prosecution’s previous suggestion that the police officer involved was obese and would have found it difficult to attack Li while “holding in his belly”, the defence countered that “having a belly does not mean a person cannot hit someone”. It also said the officer was not very fat, while Li demonstrated the attack in court. Li chose to testify in court in the hope of obtaining justice.
The defence continued that Li was “short of money every day”, and that after joining the group he received financial support from Victor Chun Keung Wong. It asked, “If someone gave you money to eat and drink, would you leave?” The defence said Li had taken part only in a “food and drink group, a group for having fun, not a conspiracy plan”. The case will continue on Tuesday.
12 Aug 2024法庭線#3898
Involved in 2020 Unlawful Assembly, 20-Year-Old Student Who Abandoned Bail Returns from Abroad Four Years Later, Pleads Guilty and Jailed for Eight Weeks
2020 年《港區國安法》生效前夕，有網民發起在觀塘 APM 商場「和你 Sing」，警方其後入商場驅散，當日有 4 人被捕。事隔逾四年，一名案發時 16 歲、曾「踢保」的男學生，2024 年 7 月返港時被捕，指他涉當天舉「香港獨立」字眼和獅子山圖樣的藍旗。他同月承認一項參與非法集結罪，周一（12 日）在觀塘裁判法院被判囚 8 周。
法庭為被告索取 3 項俗稱「3C」的報告，看能否以禁閉式刑罰替代監禁；惟辯方求情指被告正在英國讀書，冀服刑後順利開學，故不希望判入更生中心、勞教中心或教導所。
On the eve of the National Security Law for Hong Kong coming into force in 2020, netizens organised a “Sing with You” event at APM mall in Kwun Tong. Police subsequently entered the mall and dispersed the crowd, arresting four people that day. More than four years later, a male student who was 16 at the time and had previously abandoned bail was arrested when he returned to Hong Kong in July 2024. He was accused of holding a blue flag bearing the words “Hong Kong independence” and a Lion Rock design. He pleaded guilty that month to one count of participating in an unlawful assembly and was sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment at Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts on Monday (the 12th).
9 Aug 2024法庭線#3893
First Anti-Terrorism Case | Yim Man-Him’s Side Concludes, Saying Victor Chun Keung Wong Was Like a “Bad Card” and Had a Motive to Give Self-Serving Testimony
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周五（9 日）在高等法院踏入第 69 天審訊。由被告嚴文謙一方作結案陳詞。
辯方指，自稱為「屠龍」隊長的控方證人黃振強，證供有如一張「爛牌」，但控方仍要採用，因為需借助黃的口供以說明行動當天，屠龍打算配合吳智鴻團隊，才可構成本案的串謀。而黃又獲認罪協議、豁免起訴書、減刑，獲撤銷部分嚴重控罪，有動機及莫大誘因作出對自己有利的證供。
至於針對嚴文謙的證據，辯方指在過往的行動中，嚴多次缺席，例如表示「陪緊條女」、「要返屋企呀」等，「睇落都唔似係最積極嘅隊員」及至 12 月 8 日行動前，嚴又一度表示「會遲到」、「唔得閒」，隨後遭黃及隊友埋怨才現身。案件下周一續，辯方將繼續陳詞。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, all seven defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 69th day at the High Court on Friday (the 9th), with Yim Man-Him’s defence making its closing submissions.
The defence said the prosecution witness Victor Chun Keung Wong, who claimed to be the captain of Dragon Slaying Brigade, had As One “bad cards” in his testimony, but the prosecution still had to rely on it because Wong’s evidence was needed to show that, on the day of the operation, Dragon Slaying Brigade intended to cooperate with the Ng Chi-hung team, thereby establishing the conspiracy in this case. Wong had also received a plea agreement, immunity from prosecution and a reduced sentence, with some serious charges withdrawn, giving him a motive and considerable incentive to give evidence favourable to himself.
As for the evidence against Yim Man-Him, the defence said Yim had repeatedly been absent from previous operations, making remarks such as “I’m with my girlfriend” and “I have to go home”. He “did not look like the most active team member”. Before the operation on 8 December, Yim again said he “would be late” and “was not free”, and only appeared after Wong and his teammates complained. The case resumes next Monday, when the defence will continue its submissions.
8 Aug 2024法庭線#3889
First anti-terrorism case | Defence says Victor Chun Keung Wong was not honest or reliable and concealed police-killing plan from “Dragon Slaying Brigade”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周四（8 日）在高等法院踏入第 68 天審訊。被告張銘裕一方指，張極少參與「屠龍」群組對話，不可能知悉殺警計劃，事前亦表明不願殺警。辯方指，從犯證人黃振強曾違反「屠龍」共識，私下策劃用槍，「咁 12 月 8 日發生嘅事係咪又係咁呢？」辯方指，黃從沒向隊員講述計劃，隊員不知計劃「好大鑊、會死好多人、後果不堪設想」，無法決定是否參與。
The first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, involving seven defendants who have pleaded not guilty, entered its 68th day of trial at the High Court on Thursday (8th). The defence for defendant Cheung Ming-yu said Cheung had rarely participated in the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” group’s conversations and could not have known about the police-killing plan, and had also stated beforehand that he was unwilling to kill police officers. The defence said accomplice witness Victor Chun Keung Wong had previously breached the consensus of “Dragon Slaying Brigade” by privately planning to use firearms, asking, “So was what happened on 8 December also like that?” The defence said Wong had never told the team members about the plan, and the members did not know that it was “very serious, that many people would die and that the consequences would be unimaginable”, leaving them unable to decide whether to participate.
7 Aug 2024法庭線#3887
First anti-terrorism case | Defence closing: Anti-police sentiment and conspiracy to murder police are two different things — “Being militant does not mean being a murderer”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周三（7 日）在高等法院踏入第 67 天審訊，辯方結案陳詞指，即使被告張銘裕曾參與軍訓、試槍等，當時串謀計劃尚未形成，故不屬本案串謀之事。
辯方又指，「屠龍」成員是勇武派，但「勇武唔係等於想殺人、勇武唔代表係殺人犯」，指 2019 年時不少人仇警，但串謀殺警是另一回事，「屠龍小隊」示威時使用汽油彈，亦不能與炸彈殺警相比；而即使黃振強有份參與串謀，亦不代表其他「屠龍」成員有參加，「香港係冇連坐法的」。
辯方指，黃振強未經隊友授權及同意，自行決定配合「殺警計劃」，又指黃沒向被告張銘裕講述計劃，「點可以話有參加個串謀，都唔知你搞邊科。」
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. On Wednesday (7th), the 67th day of the trial at the High Court, the defence made its closing submissions, arguing that although defendant Cheung Ming-yu had participated in military training and test-firing guns, among other activities, the conspiracy had not yet taken shape at that time and therefore did not form part of the conspiracy in this case.
The defence also said that members of “Dragon Slaying Brigade” were from the militant camp, but “being militant does not mean wanting to kill people, and being militant does not mean being a murderer”. It said that although many people were hostile towards the police in 2019, conspiring to murder police officers was another matter. The use of petrol bombs by the “Dragon Slaying Brigade squad” during protests also could not be equated with using bombs to kill police officers. Even if Victor Chun Keung Wong had participated in the conspiracy, that did not mean other “Dragon Slaying Brigade” members had taken part, as “Hong Kong has no law of collective punishment”.
The defence said that Victor Chun Keung Wong had decided on his own to cooperate with the “police-killing plan” without the authorisation or consent of his teammates. It also said Wong had not told defendant Cheung Ming-yu about the plan: “How can you say he took part in the conspiracy when he did not even know what you were up to?”
6 Aug 2024法庭線#3882
First anti-terrorism case | Defence closing: Victor Chun Keung Wong fabricated excuses and quibbled; team members kept in the dark and made “scapegoats”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（6 日）在高等法院踏入第 66 天審訊，辯方開始結案陳詞，指不否認被告張俊富參與暴動，但不代表有參與本案涉放炸彈、謀殺的嚴重罪行。
辯方又指，從犯證人、自稱「屠龍」隊長黃振強的證供不可信，指他作供時砌詞狡辯、「唔知佢邊句真邊句假」，是「好識得利用人」的機會主義者；又指他漠視「屠龍」不用槍、炸彈的共識，私下策劃殺警行動，隊友蒙在鼓裡、成「替死鬼」。辯方強調，黃證供存有太多疑點，疑點利益應歸與被告，陪審團應裁定被告無罪。
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven people pleaded not guilty. On Tuesday (the 6th), the trial entered its 66th day at the High Court, and the defence began its closing submissions. It said it did not deny that defendant CHEUNG Chun-fu had taken part in a riot, but that this did not mean the defendant had participated in the serious offences of planting bombs and murder alleged in the case.
The defence also said the evidence of the accomplice witness, Victor Chun Keung Wong, the self-styled captain of “Dragon Slaying Brigade,” was not credible. It said he fabricated excuses and quibbled when giving evidence, leaving people “unable to tell which of his statements were true and which were false”, and was an opportunist who was “very good at exploiting people”. The defence further said he ignored the consensus that “Dragon Slaying Brigade” would not use guns or bombs, secretly planned an operation to kill police officers, and kept his teammates in the dark, turning them into “scapegoats”. The defence stressed that Wong’s evidence contained too many doubts, that the benefit of the doubt should go to the defendants, and that the jury should find the defendants not guilty.
6 Aug 2024法庭線#3883
Man in His Seventies Jailed 18 Days for Unlicensed Performance and Fundraising Linked to ‘Glory to Hong Kong’; Erhu Confiscated
2023 年 9 月至 10 月期間，七旬翁李解新被指在觀塘、葵涌等地，以二胡演奏《願榮光》，被票控無牌演奏及籌款等 12 罪，周二（6 日）在西九龍裁判法院承認 8 罪，餘下 4 罪存檔法庭，被判監禁 18 日。案情提到，國安處展開「先發制人」的調查，暗中觀察被告，並一度以煽動罪拘捕他。
主任裁判官徐綺薇指，被告就同類案件受審時干犯本案，顯示非單一事件，斥他冥頑不靈。另外，控方指被告有機會「死心不息」犯案，申請充公在住所檢取的二胡獲批。
Between September and October 2023, Li Xiexin, a man in his seventies, was accused of performing “Glory to Hong Kong” on the erhu in Kwun Tong, Kwai Chung and other locations. He was charged by summons with 12 offences, including unlicensed performance and fundraising. He pleaded guilty to eight offences at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday (the 6th); the remaining four were filed with the court. He was sentenced to 18 days’ imprisonment. The case facts stated that the National Security Department conducted a “pre-emptive” investigation and secretly observed the defendant, who was also arrested once on suspicion of sedition.
Chief Magistrate Esther Tsu Kui-wai said the defendant committed the offences in this case while he was being tried for similar cases, showing that this was not an isolated incident, and criticised him as obstinate and unrepentant. The prosecution also said there was a risk that the defendant would continue offending, and its application to confiscate the erhu seized from his residence was approved.
5 Aug 2024法庭線#3881
First Anti-terrorism Case | Prosecution Completes Closing Submissions, Says Two Ng Chi-hung Team Defendants Made Bombs and Scouted Before Test-firing Guns
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周一（5 日）在高等法院踏入第 65 天審訊。控方完成結案陳詞，提到吳智鴻團隊的行動不斷升級，最終演變成「12.8 計劃」。兩名被指為吳團隊的被告，控方指賴振邦必然知悉計劃涉炸彈，指他曾爆竊大學實驗室，並協助製造炸彈。另一被告許湛榮則在試槍前探路，曾參與軍訓。
至於被控串謀眾籌作恐怖主義行為的女被告，控方指此罪毋須與「12.8 計劃」有必然關係，指「屠龍」對外宣揚五大訴求、「一齊殺狗」等，「並唔係出嚟遊行咁簡單」，其中使用汽油彈已屬針對他人的嚴重暴力。
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 65th day at the High Court on Monday (the 5th). The prosecution completed its closing submissions, saying the actions of the Ng Chi-hung team had continually escalated, eventually developing into the “12.8 Plan”. Regarding the two defendants alleged to belong to Wu’s team, the prosecution said Lai Chun-pong must have known that the plan involved bombs. It said he had burgled a university laboratory and assisted in making bombs. The other defendant, Hui Cham-wing, had scouted the area before test-firing guns and had previously taken part in military training.
As for the female defendant charged with conspiracy to crowd-fund terrorist acts, the prosecution said the offence did not necessarily have to be related to the “12.8 Plan”. It said “Dragon Slaying Brigade” had promoted the five demands and slogans including “Kill the dogs together” to the public, and that this “was not simply going out to march”. The use of petrol bombs, it said, already constituted serious violence directed at other people.
2 Aug 2024法庭線#3875
First terrorism case | Prosecution: Conspirators need no clear division of roles, only a common purpose to attack police with guns and bombs in public places
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周五（2 日）在高等法院踏入第 64 天審訊。控方第四日結案陳詞，指本案串謀由吳智鴻團隊開始，「屠龍小隊」後來加入，此後兩方「成咗一個組合」，計劃亦演變成「12.8 計劃」。
控方指，吳團隊在「屠龍」加入前，曾談及製作炸彈、試槍等，顯示已串謀襲擊警察。控方重申，串謀者各有角色、毋須有明確分工，只要他們有共同目的在公眾地方，以槍和炸彈攻擊警方，「咁佢嘅參與已經夠。」
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 64th day on Friday (the 2nd). On the fourth day of the prosecution’s closing submissions, the prosecution said the conspiracy began with the Ng Chi-hung team, and that the “Dragon Slaying Brigade squad” joined later. The two sides thereafter “became one combination”, and the plan evolved into the “12.8 plan”.
The prosecution said Ng’s team had discussed making bombs and test-firing guns before the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” joined, showing that they had already conspired to attack police officers. The prosecution reiterated that conspirators each had their own roles and did not need a clear division of labour; as long as they shared the common purpose of attacking police with guns and bombs in public places, “then their participation was already sufficient.”
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
