27 Apr 2023法庭線#6367
Lui Sai Yu granted certificate to appeal to CFA after one-third sentence reduction denied for admitting National Security Law offence
理大男生呂世瑜被指 2020 年在 TG 頻道煽動港獨及售武煽暴，2022 年 4 月承認「煽動他人分裂國家」罪，原獲法庭由判囚 5 年半減刑至 3 年 8 個月。惟控方指，判刑受《國安法》罪行的最低刑期所限，情節嚴重者須「處 5 年以上」，法官胡雅文改判被告監禁 5 年。
呂世瑜早前不服刑罰提上訴，被上訴庭駁回。呂向上訴庭申請上訴至終院的證明書，首席法官潘兆初、上訴庭法官彭偉昌及彭寶琴周四（27 日）頒下判詞，指涉及重大而廣泛重要性的法律觀點，批出證明書。
根據終院網站，呂世瑜申上訴許可的聆訊，尚待排期處理。服刑中的呂世瑜今出庭時身穿格仔冷衫，戴黑框眼鏡，精神不俗。根據終院網站，呂世瑜申上訴許可的聆訊，尚待排期處理。
A male Polytechnic University student, Lui Sai Yu, was accused of using a TG channel in 2020 to incite Hong Kong independence and sell weapons to incite violence. In April 2022, he pleaded guilty to the offence of “inciting others to secede from the country”. The court originally reduced his sentence from five and a half years’ imprisonment to three years and eight months. However, the prosecution argued that sentencing was subject to the minimum terms for offences under the National Security Law, under which a serious case must carry “five years or more”. Judge Amanda Jane Woodcock subsequently resentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
Lui Sai Yu previously appealed against the sentence, but the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Chief Justice, Poon Siu-chu, and Court of Appeal Justices Pang Wei-cheung and Pang Pui-ching handed down their judgment on Thursday (27th), granting Lui Sai Yu a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. They said the case involved a point of law of great and general importance.
According to the Court of Final Appeal website, the hearing of Lui Sai Yu’s application for leave to appeal has yet to be scheduled. Lui Sai Yu, who is serving his sentence, appeared in court today wearing a checked sweater and black-rimmed glasses and appeared to be in good spirits.
27 Apr 2023法庭線#6369
48-year-old housewife jailed four months after admitting to posting 65 seditious messages on Facebook and Twitter, including calls for Hong Kong independence
48 歲家庭主婦涉在 Facebook 及 Twitter 轉發或發布煽動訊息，包括「願三萬黑警墊屍底」、「香港獨立」、「各省獨立，全民滅共，獨立建國」等 65 則陳述、相片等，被控一項「作出具煽動意圖的作為」罪，她周四（27 日）在西九龍裁判法院認罪。
辯方求情稱，被告獨力撫養 4 名子女，並患抑鬱症，現已深感後悔，且她重犯機會低；辯方又引述被告 12 歲兒子的求情信，信中提到「媽媽已不在家一個月了，請你（法官）放我媽媽回家，多謝你」，冀法庭輕判。
主任裁判官羅德泉判刑時稱，被告有計劃地挑起他人情緒、帖文的目標對象是志同道合者，犯案歷時十個月，風險並非憑空想像，而煽動罪是防範性的罪行，一旦防範失效，會令社會受嚴重嚴響，故要遏止此類罪行。考慮本案規模不大、被告影響力有限等，判囚 4 個月。被告聞判時一直低頭，步入羈留室時向親友、兒子揮手。
A 48-year-old housewife was charged with one count of doing an act with a seditious intention over 65 statements, photographs and other items that she allegedly reposted or published on Facebook and Twitter, including “May 30,000 black police officers serve as cushioning for corpses”, “Hong Kong independence” and “Independence for every province, eliminate communism nationwide and establish independent countries”. She pleaded guilty at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Thursday (27th).
The defence pleaded that the defendant had raised four children alone and suffered from depression. She now deeply regretted her actions and was unlikely to reoffend. The defence also cited a mitigation letter from the defendant’s 12-year-old son, which said: “Mum has not been at home for a month. Please let my mum go home, Judge. Thank you.” The defence asked the court to impose a lenient sentence.
In sentencing, Chief Magistrate Lo Tak-chuen said the defendant had deliberately provoked the emotions of others, and that the posts were aimed at like-minded people. The offending had lasted for 10 months, and the risk was not imagined out of thin air. The offence of sedition was preventive in nature; if prevention failed, it could have a serious impact on society, so such offences had to be deterred. Taking into account that the scale of the case was not large and the defendant’s influence was limited, he sentenced her to four months’ imprisonment. The defendant kept her head down after hearing the sentence and waved to her relatives and son as she entered the detention room.
25 Apr 2023法庭線#6356
47-person case | Prosecution says it cracked Chung Kam-lun’s phone in recent days; judge concerned witnesses may need to be recalled
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周二（25 日）展開第 50 天審訊。趙家賢完成作供，控方指下一證人為認罪被告鍾錦麟，但稱警方上周六（22 日）才破解到其手機取得資料，需時看有否控方可依賴內容等。
法官李運騰直言情況令人非常不滿意，指審訊已第 50 日，控方欠眾人解釋。主控萬德豪解釋指，鍾忘記密碼，警方為免撞錯密碼致手機資料清空，沒冒險破解，直至技術改良方成功。辯方稱，午膳才收到鍾的資料，涉逾 2,400 條訊息。
法官關注，會否需重召已完成作供的區諾軒、趙家賢作供，遂下令即時休庭，供辯方檢閱資料，周三再交代立場。另外，趙於盤問提及，2010 年政改方案時，他任民主黨中央委員，支持投票通過政府的政改方案。
The trial of 47 pro-democracy figures charged with “conspiracy to subvert state power” entered its 50th day on Tuesday (25th). Chiu Ka-yin completed his testimony. The prosecution said the next witness would be defendant Chung Kam-lun, who has pleaded guilty, but said police had only cracked his phone last Saturday (22nd) and obtained the data, and time was needed to determine whether the contents included material on which the prosecution could rely.
Judge Lee Yuntong said the situation was highly unsatisfactory, noting that it was already the 50th day of the trial and that the prosecution owed everyone an explanation. Lead prosecutor Jonathan Tak Ho Man explained that Chung had forgotten his passcode and that police had avoided attempting to crack the phone for fear that entering the wrong code would erase its data, succeeding only after technological improvements. The defence said it had received Chung’s data only at lunchtime, involving more than 2,400 messages.
The judge raised concern over whether Au Nok-hin and Chiu Ka-yin, who had completed their testimony, would need to be recalled to testify. He therefore ordered an immediate adjournment to allow the defence to review the material, with the parties to state their positions again on Wednesday. In addition, during cross-examination, Chiu said that when the constitutional reform proposal was put forward in 2010, he was a Democratic Party Central Committee member and supported voting to pass the government’s political reform proposal.
24 Apr 2023法庭線#6350
47 Democrats case | Andrew Chiu changes testimony on Chan Chi-chuen’s attendance at New Territories East meeting, says assistant mistook him for someone else
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周一（24 日）展開第 49 天審訊。上周否認記錯陳志全有出席新東首次協調會議的趙家賢，事隔兩日主動改口指經「多次回想後」，確認陳沒出席該次會議。趙又指，「民動」總幹事黎敬輝因認錯人致會議的筆記紀錄出錯。
趙另又主動澄清，「回想返」後確認公民黨在有消息指《國安法》通過但未頒布前，向「民動」要求改為留白政綱；亦記得有「民動」職員說「赤柱嗰個呢，個政綱有啲嘢想改」，他事後回想才記得為彭卓棋。
鄒家成的代表大狀陳世傑開始盤問，指新東首次會議根本沒討論否決權，而鄒沒說「用盡方法係去逼政府回應『五大訴求』」等。趙不同意。法官提問下，趙稱鄒與民主黨莊榮輝於會上，一度「企咗起身」討論。
The 49th day of the trial in the case against 47 democrats charged with “conspiracy to subvert state power” began on Monday (the 24th). Andrew Chiu Ka-yin, who last week denied misremembering that Chan Chi-chuen had attended the first New Territories East coordination meeting, voluntarily changed his account two days later, saying that “after recalling it several times”, he confirmed Chan had not attended the meeting. Chiu also said that Luke Lai King-fai, secretary-general of Power for Democracy, had mistaken someone for another person, resulting in errors in the meeting notes.
Chiu also voluntarily clarified that, after “thinking back”, he confirmed that the Civic Party had asked Power for Democracy to change its platform to a blank one after there was news that the National Security Law had been passed but before it was promulgated. He also recalled a Power for Democracy staff member saying, “What about the one in Stanley? There’s something in the platform that he wants to change.” He only remembered afterwards that this referred to Michael Cheuk Kei Pang.
The representative counsel for Owen Chow Ka-shing, Philip Sai Kit Chan, began cross-examination, saying that the first New Territories East meeting had not discussed veto power at all, and that Chow had not said that “using every means was to force the government to respond to the ‘five demands’”, among other things. Chiu disagreed. In response to questions from the judge, Chiu said that Chow and Winfield Chong Wing-fai of the Democratic Party had at one point “stood up” to discuss matters at the meeting.
21 Apr 2023法庭線#6342
47-case | Andrew Chiu challenged by Gwyneth Ho’s side, responds emotionally in English; judge reminds him it is not personal
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周五（21 日）展開第 48 天審訊。何桂藍一方質疑趙家賢口供可信性時，指趙定位自己（put yourself forward）政見溫和等，趙激動以英語回應「I’m not put(ting) myself forward! I just told the fact!（我只是說出事實，不是定位自己）」。法官提醒趙，辯方並非針對；趙其後續以英語回答「I disagree」。
何一方又指出，趙作供時將其參與減至最低、卸責予他人等，質疑為減刑作供。趙否認，並在法官提問下同意，知道有認罪扣減，以及做控方證人或可獲額外扣減。另趙主動提及何曾於會議上說，「立法會係變咗一個抗爭陣地...希望將立法會係用作中港關係破局」。
陳志全一方則播放陳的網台節目直播片段，質疑趙記錯陳出席同一時間的新東會議，趙稱記得陳及助理身在會議場地，對辯方的提問「No comment」。
The 47 pro-democracy figures’ case, in which they are charged with “conspiracy to subvert state power”, entered its 48th day of trial on Friday (the 21st). When Gwyneth Ho’s side challenged the credibility of Andrew Chiu’s testimony, saying that Chiu had put himself forward as politically moderate and so on, Chiu responded emotionally in English: “I’m not put(ting) myself forward! I just told the fact!” (I am merely stating the facts, not positioning myself.) The judge reminded Chiu that the defence was not targeting him personally. Chiu subsequently continued answering in English, saying, “I disagree.”
Ho’s side also said that Chiu had minimised his own participation and shifted responsibility to others in his testimony, questioning whether he was testifying in order to obtain a reduced sentence. Chiu denied this. In response to questions from the judge, he agreed that he knew a guilty plea could lead to a reduction and that acting as a prosecution witness might result in an additional reduction. Chiu also voluntarily mentioned that Ho had said at a meeting: “The Legislative Council has become a battleground for protest ... [I] hope to use the Legislative Council to break the deadlock in Hong Kong-mainland relations.”
Raymond Chan’s side played a clip from a live broadcast of Chan’s online programme, questioning whether Chiu had misremembered Chan’s attendance at a New Territories East meeting held at the same time. Chiu said he remembered Chan and his assistant being at the meeting venue and answered “No comment” to the defence’s questions.
20 Apr 2023獨媒#6338
Returning Valiant case: Eighth person charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism; 23-year-old student denied bail
「光城者」被指策劃在公共設施發動恐怖活動，7男女分3案被起訴一項「串謀恐怖活動」罪，及一項「串謀導致相當可能危害生命或財產的爆炸」罪為交替控罪。事隔兩年再多一人被起訴，至今案件共牽涉8人。23歲男學生今（20日）被押解往西九龍裁判法院提堂。《國安法》指定法官、總裁判官蘇惠德將案押後至5月12日作提訊日，以進行將案件交付高等法院的程序。被告申請保釋被拒須還柙。
Returning Valiant was accused of planning terrorist activities at public facilities. Seven men and women were charged in three cases with one count of conspiracy to commit terrorism, with one count of conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or property as an alternative charge. Another person was charged two years later, bringing the total number involved in the case to eight. The 23-year-old male student was brought to West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on the 20th. NSL-designated judge and Chief Magistrate So Wai-tak adjourned the case to May 12 for a mention to begin committal proceedings to the High Court. The defendant’s bail application was refused and he was remanded in custody.
20 Apr 2023法庭線#6339
47-person case | Ho Kwun-lam’s side cites Facebook posts to challenge credibility; Andrew Chiu says they were likely posted by someone else
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周四（20 日）展開第 47 天審訊。何桂藍一方展示趙家賢個人 Facebook 帖文等盤問，法官關注盤問方向，提醒或會引來「反效果」或擴闊共謀者原則的應用範圍。何一方則指，盤問是有關趙的可信性。
庭上展示的兩則帖文中，有「#抗爭無退路」、「#香港正式進入準戰爭狀態」及「#香港人反抗」等字眼。辯方質疑看似抗爭派的帖文，法官指辯方是問趙是否並非假裝的那樣溫和，又直接問趙是否屬本土抗爭派。
趙一度稱不記得有相關帖文，又指回想是否因政局躁動而人有情緒，其後又稱帖文應是由他聘請的太古城居民發出，因自己「完全無任何印象」。此外，因有被告身體不適，審訊下午提早結束
The trial of 47 democrats charged with conspiracy to subvert state power entered its 47th day on Thursday (20th). Ho Kwun-lam’s side questioned Andrew Chiu’s credibility by showing, among other things, posts from his personal Facebook account. The judge expressed concern about the direction of the questioning, warning that it might have a “backfire effect” or broaden the scope of the co-conspirator principle. Ho’s side said the questioning concerned Chiu’s credibility.
Two posts shown in court included the phrases “#抗爭無退路” (“#ThereIsNoRetreatInTheProtests”), “#香港正式進入準戰爭狀態” (“#HongKongHasOfficiallyEnteredAQuasi-WarState”) and “#香港人反抗” (“#HongKongersResist”). After the defence questioned the apparently protest-oriented posts, the judge asked whether Chiu was not as moderate as he had pretended to be and directly asked whether he belonged to the local protest camp.
Chiu initially said he did not remember the relevant posts, and said he wondered in retrospect whether he had been emotional because of the turbulent political situation. He later said the posts should have been made by a Tai Koo Shing resident he had hired, as he had “absolutely no memory” of them. The hearing ended early in the afternoon because one of the defendants was unwell.
19 Apr 2023法庭線#6334
47-case | Gwyneth Ho’s counsel repeatedly challenges Andrew Chiu’s testimony; he asks, “How does defence counsel want me to answer?”
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周三（19 日）展開第 46 天審訊。何桂藍代表大狀 Trevor Beel 展開盤問，數次質疑趙家賢早前庭上證供，趙兩度反問「辯方律師想我點答呀？」、「辯方大狀係咪想喺我個腦度，植入一啲唔屬於我嘅認知？」最後在法官提問下簡短回答。
Beel 亦引用「民主動力」初選眾籌 Facebook 帖文，3 度問趙對當中「對抗暴政」字眼的看法，包括是否支持；趙否認並指自己不會使用該字眼。
此外，趙指「絕對不會」視戴耀廷為密友，又承認有感戴為「搞事者」（troublemaker），指其想法令自己工作變得困難，亦承認對戴有怨恨（resentment），故一直稱對方為「大思想家、大學者」。
The trial of 47 pro-democracy figures charged with conspiracy to subvert state power entered its 46th day on Wednesday (the 19th). Trevor Beel, lead counsel for Gwyneth Ho, repeatedly challenged Andrew Chiu’s earlier testimony in court. Chiu twice asked, “How does defence counsel want me to answer?” and “Does defence counsel want to implant in my mind some perceptions that do not belong to me?” He eventually gave brief answers after questions from the judge.
Beel also cited Facebook posts about the Power for Democracy primary election crowdfunding campaign and asked Chiu three times about the phrase “resist tyranny” in the posts, including whether he supported it. Chiu denied this and said he would not use that phrase.
Chiu also said he would “absolutely not” regard Benny Tai as a close friend. He acknowledged feeling that Tai was a “troublemaker”, saying Tai’s ideas had made his work more difficult. He also admitted harbouring resentment towards Tai, which was why he had consistently referred to him as a “great thinker and great scholar”.
18 Apr 2023法庭線#6327
47-person case | Defence says Si Tak-lai submitted common platform at request of Power for Democracy staff; Andrew Chiu says he was unaware and gave no instructions
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周二（18 日）展開第 45 天審訊。焦點落在寫有協調共識，包括運用否決權的「共同綱領」文件。趙家賢確認，九東 6 名初選參選人提交提名表格時，均有夾附「共同綱領」。
不過施德來的代表大狀指出，施原沒夾附，但後來在「民主動力」職員要求下才附交。趙家賢盤問下稱「唔清楚」該情況，又指沒指示過職員作出要求。趙又形容，施「溫和理性」，稱「未見過佢（施）會係同其他人有嗰種『黃毓民式』嘅對鬧指罵」。
另辯方一度問及衛生服務界，趙稱，該界別在反修例運動期間有新工會成立，令「勢力版塊呢就開始有啲轉變」，同意是進步派佔上風，又指該界別的初選是由新工會提倡，時任議員李國麟亦願意參加。案件周三（19 日）續，何桂藍代表大狀料將開始盤問。
The case involving 47 pro-democracy figures charged with “conspiracy to subvert state power” entered its 45th day of trial on Tuesday (18th). The focus was on the “common platform” document setting out coordination agreements, including the use of veto power. Andrew Chiu Ka-yin confirmed that all six Kowloon East primary election candidates attached the “common platform” when submitting their nomination forms.
However, Si Tak-lai’s barrister said Si had not originally attached it, but submitted it later at the request of staff from Power for Democracy. Under questioning, Chiu said he was “not clear” about the situation and had never instructed staff to make such a request. Chiu also described Si as “moderate and rational”, saying he had “never seen him engage in Wong Yuk-man-style mutual shouting and insults” with others.
The defence also briefly asked about the Health Services constituency. Chiu said new unions had been formed in the sector during the anti-extradition bill movement, causing “some changes in the balance of forces”. He agreed that the progressive camp had gained the upper hand, and said the primary election in the constituency was advocated by the new union, while then-legislator Joseph Lee Kok-long was also willing to participate. The case continues on Wednesday (19th), when Gwyneth Ho’s barrister is expected to begin cross-examination.
17 Apr 2023法庭線#6320
47 case | Andrew Chiu cites Tai Yiu-ting saying Joshua Wong and Eddie Chu proposed written agreements for two constituencies
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周一（17 日）展開第 44 天審訊。趙家賢盤問下同意，初選提名表格所指的共識是各區的共識；至於如何達成共識，整個「35+」計劃並沒書面或口頭規定，而戴耀廷會私下和參加者個別商討。
趙又供稱，原定參選人不簽任何文件，但有本土抗爭派以對方已簽〈墨落無悔〉聲明為由，逼其他人就協調內容簽署，又引述戴耀廷指，九東、新西分別由黃之鋒、朱凱廸倡議。趙又指，兩區的共同綱領是從沒公開的協調文件中「加加減減」，再額外附加簽署。
另趙早前供稱，第二次新東會議上李永成為民主黨代表，辯方指出李當時已退黨，趙稱「我完全無印象依件事情呀，唔好意思呀法官閣下同埋沈大狀。」辯方又首次播放趙與警方錄口供片段，指出謄本與片段有別，趙確認謄本有錯。
The trial of 47 pro-democracy figures charged with conspiracy to subvert state power entered its 44th day on Monday (the 17th). Under cross-examination, Andrew Chiu agreed that the consensus referred to in the primary election nomination forms was the consensus of each constituency. As for how consensus would be reached, the entire “35+” plan contained no written or oral requirements, and Tai Yiu-ting would discuss matters privately with participants individually.
Chiu also testified that the intended candidates were not originally required to sign any documents. However, members of the localist protest camp pressured others to sign the coordination arrangements on the grounds that the other side had already signed the “Ink Has Not Dried, No Regrets” declaration. He also cited Tai as saying that the proposal for Kowloon East and New Territories West had come from Joshua Wong and Eddie Chu respectively. Chiu further said that the joint platforms for the two constituencies were created by adding to and deleting from coordination documents that had never been made public, followed by additional signatures.
Chiu had earlier testified that Wilson Wing Shing Li was the Democratic Party representative at the second New Territories East meeting. The defence pointed out that Lee had already left the party, to which Chiu replied: “I have absolutely no recollection of this matter, I’m sorry, Your Honour and Senior Counsel Sham.” The defence also played, for the first time, excerpts of Chiu’s police interview, pointing out differences between the transcript and the recording. Chiu confirmed that the transcript contained errors.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
