14 Jun 2024法庭線#3688
First anti-terrorism case | Defence says Lai Chun-pong was beaten and threatened by police into confessing: “Otherwise, I’ll make sure you sit for more than a dozen years” — police deny all allegations
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周五（14 日）在高等法院踏入第 34 天審訊。有份調查本案的警員馮保羅稱，轉任控方證人的黃振強，被捕時激烈掙扎，警員遂環抱、按頭部和腳部等方式制服他，但不知黃事後投訴被警員施襲。
辯方另指，被告賴振邦曾在警署內被要求脫剩內褲，著在牆角踎低，被喝罵為「曱甴」，指馮威嚇稱「只要話識佢哋，我就放你走。唔係我一定整到你坐十幾碌，唔好以為我哋冇辦法整到你坐監。」辯方指，因賴沒作招認，故警方向另一控方證人彭軍壕提議「篤多啲人出嚟」；馮一概否認。
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 34th day at the High Court on Friday (the 14th). Fung Po-lo, a police officer involved in investigating the case, said Victor Chun Keung Wong, who later became a prosecution witness, struggled violently when arrested, so officers restrained him by wrapping their arms around him and pressing down on his head and legs. However, he said he was unaware that Wong had later complained of being assaulted by police officers.
The defence also said defendant Lai Chun-pong had been required to strip down to his underpants at the police station, squat in a corner and was verbally abused as a “cockroach”. It alleged that Fung threatened him, saying: “If you just say you know them, I’ll let you go. Otherwise, I’ll definitely make sure you sit for more than a dozen years. Don’t think we have no way of getting you sent to prison.” The defence said that because Lai did not confess, police suggested to another prosecution witness, Eddie Pang Kwan-ho, that he should “name more people”. Fung denied all the allegations.
14 Jun 2024獨媒#3694
[Five Years After the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement] Have Cases Involving More Than 7,000 Uncharged Arrestees Been Closed? Police: Handling Them in Accordance with the Law
反修例運動爆發至今五年，根據警方數字，截至今年3月底，共有10,279人被捕，2,961人已完成或正經司法程序處理，當中2,328人須承擔法律後果，佔進入司法程序者近8成。至於逾7成、約7,300名被捕人士未被起訴及未進入司法程序，警務處處長蕭澤頤去年2月曾多次表示望月內公布處理方式，並於3月中稱正「密鑼緊鼓」，望在一、兩個月內完成；不過特首李家超同年5月表示定一個不基於任何證據考慮的時間表是「不切實際、未必符合法治精神」。
蕭澤頤其後未再提公布的限期，今年2月僅表示有些案件已處理、有些會繼續就相關證據跟進，因案件非常複雜，調查需時。《獨媒》向警方查詢，會否就案件處理方式設立限期和作正式公布、已向多少人通知案件進度等，警方均無回應，僅稱「正依法處理其餘案件」。有2019年曾被捕的人士向《獨媒》表示，至今仍未獲通知可取回證物，他認為事隔多年，再被控的機會不大，但不敢主動找警方查詢，擔心「舊事重提」會令警方變相「開檔案」。
Five years after the anti-extradition bill movement began, police figures show that, as of the end of March this year, 10,279 people had been arrested. Of these, 2,961 had completed or were undergoing judicial proceedings, and 2,328 had faced legal consequences, accounting for nearly 80% of those who entered the judicial process. More than 70%—around 7,300 arrestees—had neither been charged nor entered the judicial process. Police Commissioner Raymond Siu said several times in February last year that he hoped to announce how they would be handled within the month, and said in mid-March that work was proceeding “in full swing”, with completion hoped for within one or two months. However, Chief Executive John Lee said in May of the same year that setting a timetable without considering any evidence was “unrealistic and may not accord with the spirit of the rule of law”.
Siu did not subsequently mention another deadline for the announcement. In February this year, he only said that some cases had been handled, while others would continue to be followed up in light of the relevant evidence, as the cases were extremely complicated and investigations took time. When Independent Media asked the police whether they would set a deadline and make a formal announcement on how the cases would be handled, and how many people had been notified of their case progress, among other matters, the police did not respond, saying only that they were “handling the remaining cases in accordance with the law”. A person arrested in 2019 told Independent Media that they had still not been notified that they could retrieve their seized property. The person believed that, after so many years, the possibility of being charged again was small, but did not dare to contact the police proactively for fear that “bringing up the old matter again” would effectively prompt the police to “reopen the file”.
13 Jun 2024法庭線#3684
First anti-terrorism case | Defence alleges Lee Ka Tin, Christian assaulted by police in toilet; search officer says toilet was outside search area
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周四（13 日）在高等法院踏入第 33 天審訊。辯方早前指稱，被告李家田被捕當日，一度被警員帶入屋內廁所施襲。到場搜查的警員，周四在辯方盤問下稱，同僚交代搜查範圍時，曾提及「廁所唔喺搜查範圍內」。
時任案件主管則指，從沒指示警員毋須搜查廁所，亦不會容許作出有關指示。辯方另關注認罪被告彭軍壕轉任控方證人後，曾否要求警方不起訴他；案件主管回應指「警方係冇任何話事權」，起訴與否由律政司衡量。
辯方周三（12 日）盤問拘捕李家田的警員楊立隆時，指李遭警以「水刑」等方式施襲，威嚇「殺咗你都冇問題，就喺出面搵棵樹吊死你都得」，又利誘李按警員提供的版本錄取口供，稱若表現良好可獲保釋。警員一概否認。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 33rd day at the High Court on Thursday (13th). The defence previously alleged that, on the day of his arrest, defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian was taken into a toilet inside the premises and assaulted by police officers. Under cross-examination by the defence on Thursday, the police officer who attended the search said a colleague had mentioned that “the toilet was not within the search area” when explaining the scope of the search.
The officer in charge of the case said he had never instructed officers that they did not need to search the toilet, and would not have allowed such an instruction to be given. The defence also raised whether defendant Eddie Pang Kwan-ho, after becoming a prosecution witness following a guilty plea, had asked police not to prosecute him. The officer in charge of the case responded that “the police have no say whatsoever” and that whether to prosecute was for the Department of Justice to consider.
On Wednesday (12th), the defence cross-examined police officer Yeung Lap-lung, who arrested Lee Ka Tin, Christian, alleging that Lee had been assaulted by police using methods including waterboarding, and threatened with the words: “It wouldn’t matter if we killed you; we could find a tree outside and hang you.” The defence also alleged that Lee was induced to give a statement according to a version provided by police officers, with the promise that he could be released on bail if he performed well. The officer denied all the allegations.
12 Jun 2024法庭線#3677
Autistic young man convicted of inciting injury to officials and police given one-year probation order
21 歲患自閉症及輕度弱智男子，涉於 2023 年 9 月至 10 月間，在 Facebook 發布 12 則帖文，提及「首先殺警察，延（然）後殺特首」等言論。他早前承認一項「煽惑他人有意圖而導致身體受嚴重傷害」罪，周三（12 日）在區域法院被判感化令 12 個月。
法官林偉權判刑前著被告站立，問他已還押多久、想不想困更長時間。被告稱已還押 7 個月，不想再被困，並指「知錯啦，法官」。官其後勸勉被告「你自己要乖啲」、「網上世界唔係虛擬世界，唔係鍾意做乜都得」，又著被告「乖仔啲，讀下書…幫輕下媽媽」。
法官判刑時指，被告受精神困擾而發布狂言妄語，重申煽惑罪非輕微罪行，但考慮被告特殊情況，認為感化令對社會、被告及其家人更有禆益。對於被告母親在求情信指，自己未盡最大努力監管，法官特別提到，報告顯示媽媽對子女盡心盡力，不足之處來自支援及輔導不足。
A 21-year-old man with autism and mild intellectual disability published 12 posts on Facebook between September and October 2023, including remarks such as “First kill the police, then kill the Chief Executive.” He earlier pleaded guilty to one count of “inciting another person to cause serious bodily harm intentionally” and was sentenced to a 12-month probation order at the District Court on Wednesday (the 12th). Judge Dominic Wai Kuen Lam asked the defendant to stand before sentencing and asked how long he had been remanded in custody and whether he wanted to be imprisoned for longer. The defendant said he had been remanded for seven months, did not want to be detained again and said, “I know I was wrong, Judge.” The judge subsequently urged him to “behave better” and said, “The online world is not a virtual world where you can just do whatever you like.” The judge also told him to “be a good boy, study … and help your mother.” In sentencing, the judge said the defendant had been suffering from mental distress when he published the wild and delusional remarks, and reiterated that the offence of incitement was not minor. However, taking the defendant’s special circumstances into account, the judge considered a probation order to be more beneficial to society, the defendant and his family. Regarding the defendant’s mother’s mitigation letter, which said she had not done her utmost to supervise him, the judge specifically noted that the report showed she had devoted herself fully to her child, and that the shortcomings arose from insufficient support and counselling.
12 Jun 2024法庭線#3680
Dismissed government school teacher wins judicial review over remarks during anti-extradition bill movement; Civil Service Bureau appeals
官校女教師被指 2019 年反修例運動期間，在 Facebook 發表不當言論，經紀律聆訊後被裁定行為不當，遭公務員事務局革職。她今年 4 月司法覆核得直，法官撤銷局方的革職決定，並獲頒訟費。
公務員事務局回覆《法庭線》查詢時確認，已於上訴期限屆滿前，向上訴庭提出動議，申請撤銷判決。局方又指，由於涉及司法程序，現階段不適宜公開評論。
局方重申，政府非常重視公務員的紀律和操守，對違法或違紀的公務員零容忍，會按公務員紀律機制公平、公正及嚴謹處理紀律個案。
A female teacher at a government school was accused of posting inappropriate remarks on Facebook during the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement. Following a disciplinary hearing, she was found to have committed misconduct and was dismissed by the Civil Service Bureau. She won her judicial review in April this year, with the judge quashing the Bureau’s dismissal decision and awarding her costs.
The Civil Service Bureau confirmed in response to an inquiry from The Witness that, before the appeal deadline expired, it had filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking to set aside the judgment. The Bureau said it was not appropriate to comment publicly at this stage because judicial proceedings were involved.
The Bureau reiterated that the Government attaches great importance to civil servants’ discipline and conduct, has zero tolerance for civil servants who violate the law or disciplinary rules, and will handle disciplinary cases fairly, impartially and rigorously under the civil service disciplinary mechanism.
12 Jun 2024法庭線#3681
First Anti-Terrorism Ordinance case | Defence says Lee Ka Tin, Christian was assaulted by police using “waterboarding” and other methods, induced to give statement from a draft in exchange for bail; police deny allegations
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周三（12 日）在高等法院踏入第 32 天審訊。控方播放被告李家田的錄影會面，李稱試槍後得悉將有計劃，以堵路及破壞店舖，引誘警察到場再開槍，他認為行動危險，故計劃當日沒出席。
辯方盤問拘捕李的警員，指李家田遭警以「水刑」等方式施襲，威嚇「殺咗你都冇問題，就喺出面搵棵樹吊死你都得」；又稱「可以話你搶槍，喺度開槍啪咗你都得 … 同樣嘅情況可以出現喺你啊媽身上。」辯方指出，警員利誘李按警員提供的版本錄取口供，稱若表現良好可獲保釋。警員一概否認。
The first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, involving seven defendants who have pleaded not guilty, entered its 32nd day of trial at the High Court on Wednesday (12th). The prosecution played a recorded interview with defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian. Li said that after test-firing a gun, he learned that there was a plan to block roads and damage shops, luring police to the scene before opening fire. He considered the operation dangerous and therefore did not attend that day.
During cross-examination of the officer who arrested Li, the defence alleged that Lee Ka Tin, Christian was assaulted by police using “waterboarding” and other methods, and was threatened: “It wouldn’t matter if I killed you; I could find a tree outside and hang you.” It also alleged that he was told: “We could say you grabbed a gun and shoot you dead here … the same thing could happen to your mother.” The defence said police induced Li to give a statement based on a version provided by the officer, saying that he could be released on bail if he behaved well. The officer denied all the allegations.
11 Jun 2024法庭線#3671
First terrorism case | Defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian said under caution he had “gone to Sai Kung to test-fire a gun” and once carried a pistol “in a bag on his person”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（11 日）在高等法院踏入第 31 天審訊。認罪被告、控方證人彭軍壕完成 7 天作供，他在控方覆問下稱，台灣軍訓費用由曾參選區議員的「大嚿」劉偉德支付，而劉知悉殺警計劃，同謀者吳智鴻則曾透露行動將用槍，故認為兩者有關連。
控方同日傳召拘捕被告李家田的警員作供，指李在警誡下稱「去過西貢試槍」、「之後支槍畀返鴻仔」，又指試槍時按「鴻仔」指示「向空地開咗一槍」、「開完之後就知支槍係真槍」。警員在控方主問下稱，沒以武力威脅、恐嚇或利誘李家田。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants pleaded not guilty as the trial entered its 31st day at the High Court on Tuesday (11th). The defendant who pleaded guilty and became a prosecution witness, Eddie Pang Kwan-ho, completed seven days of testimony. During prosecution re-examination, he said the cost of military training in Taiwan was paid by “Daai Gwo” Walter Joseph Liu, who had previously stood for election as a district councillor, and that Lau knew of the plan to kill police officers. He also said co-conspirator Ng Chi-hung had disclosed that the operation would involve guns, and therefore believed the two matters were connected.
The prosecution also called the police officer who arrested defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian to testify. The officer said that, under caution, Li stated that he had “gone to Sai Kung to test-fire a gun” and “returned the gun to Hung Jai afterwards”. Li also said that, during the test-firing, he had followed “Hung Jai’s” instructions to “fire one shot at an open area” and that “after firing it, [he] knew the gun was real”. Under examination-in-chief by the prosecution, the officer said he had not used force, threats, intimidation or inducements against Lee Ka Tin, Christian.
7 Jun 2024法庭線#3660
8.31 Wan Chai | Female Student Acquitted of Rioting and Awarded Costs; Department of Justice Wins Appeal, Case Remitted for Reconsideration
2019 年 8 月 31 日，市民在港島區發起遊行，爆發警民衝突。一名急救員及女學生被控暴動，被裁定無罪，女生另獲批訟費。律政司不服裁決，以案件呈述方式提上訴，周五（7 日）在高等法院審理。據悉，急救員已離港獲撤銷上訴。
律政司一方指，原審忽略被告逃走路線、裝備的重要性。法官彭偉昌亦指，被告攜防毒面具、行山杖等，可見她打算防護及肢體衝突，考慮所有環境證供後，其參與暴動的推論是壓倒性。上訴庭裁定律政司上訴得直，撤銷暴動無罪裁決及相關訟費安排，發還原審重新考慮。
案件將於 8 月 1 日在區域法院再訊。庭上透露，被告原毋須保釋，一度移居外地，其後返港。上訴庭重新向她施加保釋條件，包括不得離港、每月往警署報到。
On 31 August 2019, members of the public organised a march on Hong Kong Island, where clashes between police and protesters broke out. A first-aider and a female student were charged with rioting and acquitted; the female student was also awarded costs. The Department of Justice, dissatisfied with the ruling, appealed by way of case stated. The appeal was heard in the High Court on Friday (the 7th). It was learned that the appeal concerning the first-aider had been discontinued after the first-aider left Hong Kong.
The Department of Justice argued that the trial court had overlooked the importance of the defendants’ escape routes and equipment. Judge Pang Wai-cheong also said that the defendant’s possession of a gas mask and hiking stick showed that she intended to protect herself and engage in physical confrontation. After considering all the circumstantial evidence, the inference that she had participated in the riot was overwhelming. The Court of Appeal allowed the Department of Justice’s appeal, set aside the acquittal on the rioting charge and the related costs order, and remitted the case to the trial court for reconsideration.
The case will return to the District Court on 1 August. It was disclosed in court that the defendant had originally not been required to post bail and had at one point moved overseas, before subsequently returning to Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal reimposed bail conditions, including a ban on leaving Hong Kong and reporting to a police station every month.
7 Jun 2024法庭線#3661
Court prosecution officer accused of emailing complaint against police dismissed and stripped of pension, seeks judicial review
時任東區裁判法院高級二級檢控主任黃華芬，被指 2019 年發電郵指控警方；另涉於翌年六四當日發電郵予同事，內容「可被理解為」邀請參與違反社交距離措施的活動。他其後被停職、接受紀律聆訊，並遭裁定行為失當。黃於 2024 年被革職，失去服務逾 30 年的退休金。
黃周四（6 日）入稟高等法院，提出司法覆核（法律 101 文章），指自己曾任輔警及檢控官，發電郵予警方只是給建議。至於六四發出的電郵，「可被理解為」字眼性質含糊。黃要求法庭頒令撤銷紀律聆訊的裁定，以及將他革職的決定。
Wong Wah-fan, then a Senior Court Prosecutor II at Eastern Magistrates’ Court, was accused of sending an email in 2019 making allegations against the police. He was also alleged to have emailed colleagues on June 4 the following year in words that “could be understood as” inviting them to take part in an activity breaching social-distancing measures. He was subsequently suspended, subjected to a disciplinary hearing and found guilty of misconduct. Wong was dismissed in 2024 and lost his pension after more than 30 years of service.
Wong filed a judicial review application in the High Court on Thursday (the 6th) (Law 101 article), arguing that he had previously served as an auxiliary police officer and prosecutor, and that his email to the police was merely intended to offer advice. As for the email sent on June 4, he said the wording “could be understood as” was ambiguous. Wong is asking the court to quash the disciplinary hearing’s finding and the decision to dismiss him.
6 Jun 2024明報#3657
“Cheung Chau Judicial Review King” Kwok Cheuk-kin Arrested over Alleged Failure to Declare Assets Truthfully; Kwok Says: “There Wasn’t Even a Form—How Could I Fill It In?”
85歲「長洲覆核王」郭卓堅涉嫌騙取政府資助和社會福利，包括公共房屋、長者生活津貼、綜援及法援被捕。郭卓堅接受訪問時引述警方，指他涉嫌2015年就新界原居民丁權的司法覆核申請法援時未有如實申報，未有提供馬會智財卡的資產，他解釋當時申報表格上未有列明需填寫，故未有作出申報。他現時以200元獲准保釋，本月27日再到警署報到。
Eighty-five-year-old “Cheung Chau Judicial Review King” Kwok Cheuk-kin was arrested on suspicion of defrauding the government of funding and social welfare benefits, including public housing, the Old Age Living Allowance, Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and legal aid. In an interview, Kwok quoted police as saying that he allegedly failed to declare his assets truthfully when applying for legal aid in 2015 for a judicial review concerning the New Territories indigenous inhabitants’ male-rights policy, and did not provide details of assets held in a Jockey Club Intelligent Card. He explained that the declaration form at the time did not state that such information had to be provided, so he did not declare it. He was released on HK$200 bail and is due to report to a police station again on the 27th of this month.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
