2 May 2024法庭線#3477
First anti-terrorism case | “Dragon Slaying Brigade” squad leader Victor Chun Keung Wong says he planned to detonate a bomb at Langham Place to “blow up as many police officers as possible”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周四（2 日）在高院踏入第八天審訊。同案認罪被告、自稱「屠龍小隊」隊長黃振強，續以控方證人身分作供，稱曾透過 Telegram 呼籲示威者參與 12.8 大遊行，但未有向他們透露「屠龍」與吳智鴻團隊，當天將執行「殺警計劃」，引爆炸彈及槍殺警員。另黃稱曾計劃行事後，「屠龍」全隊「走佬」至台灣，並參加當地軍訓。
作供期間，控方播出黃與被告張俊富的錄音對話，披露黃曾提出在旺角朗豪坊外放置炸彈，形容位置「好靚仔」，因警察必經該處清場。張關注「好容易炸到啲唔撚關事嘅人」，黃覆「炸到最撚多嘅狗，我唔撚理其他人㗎啦。」案件周五（3日）續審。
The first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, involving seven defendants who have pleaded not guilty, entered its eighth day of trial at the High Court on Thursday (2nd). The defendant who pleaded guilty, Victor Chun Keung Wong, who described himself as the leader of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade squad”, continued to give evidence for the prosecution. He said he had used Telegram to call on protesters to take part in the 12.8 major march, but did not tell them that “Dragon Slaying Brigade” and the Ng Chi-hung team would carry out a “police-killing plan” that day involving detonating bombs and shooting police officers. Wong also said that after carrying out the operation, the entire “Dragon Slaying Brigade” team had planned to flee to Taiwan and take part in military training there.
During the testimony, the prosecution played a recorded conversation between Wong and defendant CHEUNG Chun-fu, revealing that Wong had proposed placing a bomb outside Langham Place in Mong Kok. He described the location as “very ideal” because police would inevitably pass through it to clear the area. Cheung expressed concern that it would be “very easy to blow up people who fucking had nothing to do with it”. Wong replied: “Blow up the most fucking cops; I don’t fucking care about anyone else.” The trial will continue on Friday (3rd).
30 Apr 2024法庭線#3459
Counter-terrorism case | Victor Chun Keung Wong details “police-killing plan”: 20kg of explosives planned for Dec. 8 march to lure police out and “kill them all”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（30 日）在高院踏入第七天審訊。同案認罪被告、自稱「屠龍小隊」隊長黃振強，續以控方證人身分作供，交代「屠龍」與共謀者吳智鴻的小隊，計劃在 2019 年 12 月 8 日大遊行「殺警」的詳情，包括由「屠龍」負責「裝修」，引警方走近兩個炸彈位置，吳隊則有人製作約 20 公斤炸彈，屆時負責引爆，另安排槍手從高處殺射警員。
黃又稱，曾提議 12 月 1 日展開行動，但吳的槍手希望延後，因想「第一波」就「盡殺」，「將殺警數字最大化」，待警員受傷倒地或死亡時，示威者就可「全民執槍」、執拾警槍使用，達至吳智鴻提倡的「示威者武力對等」。控方指，黃與「屠龍」另外 2 人，最後於 12 月 8 日行動當日，在安全屋被捕。案件周四（5 月 2 日）續。
In the first case under the Counter-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its seventh day on Tuesday (the 30th). Victor Chun Keung Wong, who has pleaded guilty in the same case and identifies himself as the captain of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade squad”, continued to testify for the prosecution, giving details of a plan by “Dragon Slaying Brigade” and co-conspirator Ng Chi-hung’s squad to “kill police” during the major march on Dec. 8, 2019. The plan included “Dragon Slaying Brigade” undertaking “renovation” to lure police towards two bomb locations, while members of the Wu squad made a bomb weighing about 20kg and detonated it. Gunmen were also arranged to shoot police officers from an elevated position.
Wong also said he had proposed launching the operation on Dec. 1, but the Wu gunmen wanted to postpone it because they wanted to “kill them all” in the “first wave” and “maximise the number of police killed”. When police officers were injured and lying on the ground or dead, protesters could “take up guns en masse” and pick up and use the police’s guns, thereby achieving the “equality of force between protesters and police” advocated by Ng Chi-hung. The prosecution said Wong and two other members of “Dragon Slaying Brigade” were ultimately arrested at a safe house on the day of the operation on Dec. 8. The case continues on Thursday (May 2).
30 Apr 2024法庭線#3460
Mong Kok Reporter Jailed 5 Days for Obstructing Police; Chan Long-sing Appeals, Hearing on 19 November
記協主席、網媒《Channel C》多媒體製作主任陳朗昇，2022 年 9 月赴旺角麥花臣場館採訪元朗朗屏邨業主大會時，被指拒向警員出示身份證被捕，2023 年經審訊後被裁定阻差辦公罪成，判囚 5 天。
陳朗昇獲准保釋，等候定罪及刑期上訴。司法機構網頁顯示，案件排期於 11 月 19 日，在高等法院聆訊，預料需時 180 分鐘。
Hong Kong Journalists Association chairman and Channel C multimedia production director Chan Long-sing was arrested in September 2022 after allegedly refusing to show his identity card to police while covering a meeting of owners of Long Ping Estate in Yuen Long at MacPherson Stadium in Mong Kok. Following a trial in 2023, he was convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of duty and sentenced to five days in prison.
Chan was granted bail pending his appeal against the conviction and sentence. The Judiciary website shows that the case is listed for a hearing at the High Court on 19 November, which is expected to last 180 minutes.
30 Apr 2024法庭線#3461
Lo Kin-hei acquitted of unlawful assembly over 18 November East Tsim Sha Tsui case; Department of Justice appeals, hearing on 20 November
2019 年 11 月 18 日，市民發起到尖沙咀「營救」理大內示威者，多人被捕。民主黨主席羅健熙於 2022 年經審訊後，被裁定非法集結罪不成立，區院法官練錦鴻指他到現場，「為了提高知名度及囤積政治本錢，希望塑造一個與示威者站在同一陣線的形象」，又指他自招嫌疑，惟認為控方證供不足以定罪。
律政司不服裁決，以案件呈述方式提上訴。警方將羅帶往高院，法官批准他以 5,000 元現金保釋、期間不准離港、交出旅行證件，以及每周一次向警署報到。司法機構網頁顯示，案件排期於 11 月 20 日，在上訴庭聆訊，預料需時一天。
On 18 November 2019, members of the public launched an effort to go to Tsim Sha Tsui to “rescue” protesters inside the Polytechnic University, and many people were arrested. After a trial in 2022, Democratic Party chairman Lo Kin-hei was acquitted of unlawful assembly. District Court Judge Yip Kin-hong said Lo went to the scene “to boost his popularity and accumulate political capital, hoping to create an image of standing on the same side as the protesters”, and that he had brought suspicion upon himself. However, the judge considered that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to convict him.
The Department of Justice, dissatisfied with the verdict, appealed by way of case stated. Police took Lo to the High Court, where a judge granted him bail of HK$5,000 in cash, on condition that he not leave Hong Kong, surrender his travel documents and report to a police station once a week. The Judiciary website shows that the case is scheduled to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 20 November and is expected to take one day.
30 Apr 2024法庭線#3462
11.18 Yau Ma Tei | Male Student Convicted of Riot Applies for Leave to Appeal, Argues in Person That Trial Court Could Not Infer Riot Involvement; Judge Rejects Application Same Day
2019 年 11 月，警方圍堵理工大學內的示威者，213 人涉在油麻地「圍魏救趙」被控暴動，分成多案審理。案發時 20 歲男生經審訊後被裁定罪成，判囚 4 年 3 個月，他不服定罪申請上訴許可，周二（30 日）在高等法院處理。
申請人自行陳詞指，他的母親原審時以辯方證人身分，為其當晚穿著和口罩解釋，而判詞沒拒絕接納其母供詞，認為不能達到環境證供的疊加效應，從而令原審法官推論他有參與暴動。
律政司一方同意，判詞字面上沒處理被告母親的供詞，但認為是無關宏旨、毋須駁斥，又指「正常市民不會在恍如戰場的環境出現」。上訴庭法官彭寶琴聽畢雙方陳詞，拒絕批出許可。
In November 2019, police besieged protesters inside the Polytechnic University. A total of 213 people were charged with rioting in Yau Ma Tei in an attempt to “besiege Wei to rescue Zhao”, and the cases were heard separately. A 20-year-old male student at the time was convicted after trial and sentenced to four years and three months’ imprisonment. He applied for leave to appeal against his conviction, and the application was heard at the High Court on Tuesday (the 30th).
The applicant represented himself, arguing that his mother had testified for the defence at trial to explain what he was wearing and the mask he wore that night. He said the judgment had not rejected his mother’s testimony and that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence was therefore insufficient for the trial judge to infer that he had participated in the riot.
The Department of Justice agreed that the judgment did not, in its wording, address the defendant’s mother’s testimony, but said the omission was immaterial and that there was no need to rebut it. It also said that “ordinary members of the public would not appear in an environment resembling a battlefield”. After hearing both sides’ submissions, appeal judge Pang Po-kam refused leave to appeal.
29 Apr 2024法庭線#3455
Three Men Sentenced to 22 Months Each for Inciting Police Killings in WhatsApp Group; Judge Condemns Smears Against Police
3 名男子被指 2019 年 10 月，在 WhatsApp 群組揚言殺害警員及其家屬，經審訊後被裁定兩項「煽惑有意圖而傷人」罪成，周一（29 日）在區域法院各被判囚 22 個月。
案情指，群組內成員有總督察，把對話截圖轉交同袍跟進。辯方求情時提及，3 人在私人群組對話，沒料到言論會被人截圖，而群組內「成功人士」居多，被煽惑機會相對低。另力陳本案涉檢控延誤，3 人由 2019 年 10 月犯案，2 個月後被捕，至 2022 年才正式提堂，應予減刑。
法官張潔宜判刑時指，案發時香港正經歷嚴重衝擊行為，被告行為明顯加劇社會安寧被破壞的風險；而襲擊對象是警方及其家人，無疑是阻礙及正面挑戰警方執法。官另斥被告誣衊警方性侵女示威者、謀殺市民，甚至利用催淚煙害全港市民等，或致市民懷疑，甚至仇視警方，打擊警隊公信力。但官接納初犯、延誤等因素，予以減刑。
Three men accused of threatening to kill police officers and their family members in a WhatsApp group in October 2019 were found guilty after trial on two counts of inciting wounding with intent. They were each sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment at the District Court on Monday (29th).
The case heard that a chief inspector was among the group’s members and forwarded screenshots of the conversations to colleagues for follow-up. In mitigation, the defence said the three men had been speaking in a private group and had not expected their comments to be screenshotted. It also argued that, as most members of the group were “successful people”, there was a relatively low likelihood of them being incited. The defence further submitted that there had been a delay in prosecution: the three men allegedly committed the offences in October 2019, were arrested two months later, but were not formally brought before the court until 2022, which should warrant a sentence reduction.
In sentencing, Judge Kit Yee (1971) Cheung said Hong Kong was experiencing serious disruptive acts at the time of the offences, and that the defendants’ conduct had clearly increased the risk of further undermining social order. The targets were the police and their families, which unquestionably obstructed and directly challenged police enforcement. The judge also condemned the defendants for smearing the police by alleging that officers had sexually assaulted female protesters, murdered members of the public and used tear gas to harm all Hong Kong residents. Such claims could cause members of the public to doubt or even hate the police, undermining the force’s credibility. The judge nevertheless took into account that the defendants were first-time offenders and the delay, and reduced their sentences accordingly.
29 Apr 2024法庭線#3457
Anti-terrorism first case | “Dragon Slaying Brigade Squad” leader Victor Chun Keung Wong: “Dragon Slaying Brigade” implied that even the “Special Tactical Contingent Squad” could be slaughtered; made a name by avenging protesters
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周一（29 日）在高院踏入第六天審訊。同案認罪被告黃振強續以控方證人身分作供，他自稱獲推舉任「屠龍小隊」隊長，因較同隊具「財力」。而「屠龍」每次行動，均由他部署、指揮，另亦負責尋找「金主」、與勇武組織聯繫，如安排汽油彈送至示威現場等。
黃供稱，「屠龍小隊」前身是「荃灣示威群組」，獲衝突現場認識的被告嚴文謙邀請加入；成員對有示威者在荃灣被斬感憤怒，遂「裝修」施襲黑社會「睇場」的商舖，引來傳媒爭相報道。成員認為「起咗朵應該改返個名」，終改名為「屠龍小隊」，喻意「速龍小隊都可以屠」。小隊後來精英化，勸退女性、較瘦弱等成員，餘下約 10 人。
黃又指，「屠龍」曾獲邀出席「勇武派」會議，會上同謀者吳智鴻稱，示威者與警方的武力不對等，認為應主動出擊，並透露將引入軍火，「睇下可唔可以合作，去用啲軍火去射殺警察。」及後吳表示正製造炸藥，並邀請「屠龍」派員參與試槍、炸藥。
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven people pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its sixth day on Monday (29th). Victor Chun Keung Wong, a defendant in the same case who has pleaded guilty, continued to testify as a prosecution witness. He said he was elected leader of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade Squad” because he had greater financial resources than the other members. He deployed and directed every operation by “Dragon Slaying Brigade”, and was also responsible for finding financial backers and liaising with militant groups, including arranging for petrol bombs to be delivered to protest sites.
Wong testified that the “Dragon Slaying Brigade Squad” was formerly the “Tsuen Wan protest group” and that he was invited to join by defendant Yim Man-Him, whom he met at a conflict scene. Members were angered by a protester being slashed in Tsuen Wan and subsequently attacked shops where triads provided protection, in incidents described as “renovation” attacks, prompting widespread media coverage. Members believed that, having made a name for themselves, they should change their name, and eventually renamed the group the “Dragon Slaying Brigade Squad”, implying that even the “Special Tactical Contingent Squad” could be slaughtered. The squad later became more selective, persuading female and relatively weaker members to leave, leaving about 10 members.
Wong also said that “Dragon Slaying Brigade” was once invited to attend a meeting of the “militant faction”. At the meeting, co-conspirator Ng Chi-hung said the protesters’ firepower was unequal to that of the police, and believed they should take the initiative to attack. He also disclosed that weapons would be brought in, saying, “Let’s see whether we can cooperate and use the weapons to shoot and kill police officers.” Wu subsequently said that he was making explosives and invited “Dragon Slaying Brigade” to send members to take part in testing firearms and explosives.
26 Apr 2024法庭線#3434
First Anti-Terrorism Case | Guilty-Plea Defendant Victor Chun Keung Wong Testifies as Prosecution Witness; Prosecution Alleges He Led the “Dragon Slaying Brigade Squad”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，案件周五（26 日）在高院踏入第五天審訊。被指為「屠龍小隊」領導人物、同案認罪被告黃振強以控方證人身分作供。
他在控方主問下確認，於 2019 年 12 月 8 日因本案被捕，警方檢取其兩部手機，並擷取當中的 Telegram 訊息。控方指，涉案的 TG 訊息繁多，需讓黃閱覽並確認內容，遂押後至下周一（29 日）開始主問。
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty, and the trial entered its fifth day at the High Court on Friday (26th). Defendant Victor Chun Keung Wong, who has pleaded guilty in the same case and is alleged to have been the leader of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade Squad”, testified as a prosecution witness.
During examination-in-chief by the prosecution, he confirmed that he was arrested in connection with the case on 8 December 2019, and that police seized two mobile phones from him and extracted Telegram messages from them. The prosecution said there were numerous Telegram messages related to the case and that Wong needed to review and confirm their contents, so examination-in-chief was adjourned until next Monday (29th).
26 Apr 2024獨媒#3436
“Grandpa Chan” Climbs Lion Rock to Display Lu Xun Couplets; Charged with Displaying Banner Without a Permit, Case Adjourned to June 21
「陳伯」陳基裘於去年中秋前夕（9月28日），帶同出自魯迅的「橫眉冷對千夫指 俯首甘為孺子牛」對聯，登上獅子山，並在社交網站上展示，事後被警方拘捕。他被控一項「沒有許可證下於郊野公園內展示條幅」，案件在2月28日首度提堂，辯方申請押後獲批，被告獲准保釋。案件今早（4月26日）在九龍城裁判法院再訊，辯方再度申請押後答辯，以提取法律諮詢，裁判官林子康批准押後，並提醒辯方今次為最後一次。案件押後至6月21日再訊，期間被告可繼續保釋，保釋條件不變。
On September 28 last year, the eve of the Mid-Autumn Festival, “Grandpa Chan” Ki Kau Chan climbed Lion Rock carrying a couplet by Lu Xun—“With arched eyebrows, I coldly face a thousand pointing fingers; bowing my head, I willingly serve the children”—and displayed it on social media. He was subsequently arrested by police. He was charged with one count of displaying a banner in a country park without a permit. The case first came before the court on February 28, when the defence’s application for an adjournment was granted and the defendant was released on bail. The case came before the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts again this morning (April 26). The defence again applied to adjourn the plea in order to obtain legal advice. Magistrate Chee Hong Lam approved the adjournment and reminded the defence that this would be the final one. The case was adjourned to June 21, and the defendant may remain on bail with the same bail conditions.
26 Apr 2024法庭線#3438
Dismissed over remarks said to attack police, government-school teacher wins judicial review; judge says dismissal was not the only viable penalty
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。她早前入稟高院提請司法覆核，指當局錯誤裁定她行為失當、辭退決定涉欺壓等，要求法庭撤銷局方革職決定。
高院法官高浩文周五（26 日）頒判詞，裁定她司法覆核得直，指女教師雖有行為不當之處，但局方處分時，看來未考慮其他可行懲罰如強制退休，就直接以革職為量刑起點，必涉法律上的錯誤，故理據成立，下令撤銷革職決定，並向她頒訟費。
判詞提到，女教師任教官校 25 年，除本次事件外，行為無可挑剔，卻因解僱失去所累積福利；以申請人的年紀，或難再覓新僱主，遑論重建退休金。另亦沒證據顯示，其 Facebook 言論對其校內教職，或任何學生有所影響。
A female teacher at a government school was accused of posting inappropriate remarks on Facebook during the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement. After a disciplinary hearing found her conduct improper, she was dismissed by the Civil Service Bureau. She earlier filed for judicial review in the High Court, arguing that the authorities had wrongly found her conduct improper and that the dismissal decision was oppressive, and seeking to have it quashed.
High Court judge Ko Ho-man handed down his judgment on Friday (the 26th), allowing her judicial review. He ruled that although the teacher had acted improperly, the bureau appeared not to have considered other viable penalties, such as compulsory retirement, and had instead directly treated dismissal as the starting point for determining the penalty. This involved an error of law, so the challenge was well-founded. He ordered the dismissal decision to be quashed and awarded her costs.
The judgment said the teacher had taught at government schools for 25 years and, apart from this incident, had an unblemished record, but had lost her accumulated benefits as a result of the dismissal. Given her age, she might find it difficult to secure another employer, let alone rebuild her pension. There was also no evidence that her Facebook remarks had affected her teaching post or any students.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
