23 Jan 2024法庭線#2860
8.25 Kwai Chung | Man charged with conspiracy to riot and other offences more than four years later; prosecution says defendant was only discovered early this year
2019 年 8 月 25 日 的「荃葵青遊行」原獲警方發出不反對通知書，及後有人堵路遭警方驅散。一名 39 歲男子事隔 4 年 4 個月後，被控串謀暴動等罪，案件周二（23 日）在區院再訊。
就控罪書提及同一事件、另案的 9 名被告，7 人已經認罪判刑，2 人則不認罪待 3 月開審。控方透露，「本案被告係 2024 年先被發現 … 2024 年 1 月 2 日被捕」，現考慮將本案與不認罪 2 人的案件一併處理。
親自應訊的被告指，由於時間匆忙，尚未交齊申請法援的文件。法官彭中屏批准押後至 2 月 6 日提訊，待被告申請法援。被告准以原有條件保釋。
The Tsuen Wan-Kwai Tsing march on 25 August 2019 had initially been issued a letter of no objection by police, but police later dispersed people who blocked roads. A 39-year-old man was charged with conspiracy to riot and other offences four years and four months later. The case was mentioned again at the District Court on Tuesday (23rd). Of the nine defendants in a separate case arising from the same incident referred to in the charge sheet, seven have already pleaded guilty and been sentenced, while the remaining two have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting trial in March. The prosecution told the court that “the defendant in this case was only located in 2024 … and was arrested on 2 January 2024”, and said it was considering handling this case together with that of the two defendants who have pleaded not guilty.
The defendant, who appeared in person, said that because of the limited time available, he had not yet submitted all the documents required for his legal aid application. Judge Chung Ping Pang adjourned the case to 6 February for further mention, pending the defendant’s legal aid application. The defendant was allowed to remain on bail under the existing conditions.
22 Jan 2024法庭線#2847
51-year-old woman who reposted post urging District Council election boycott pleads guilty and receives suspended sentence; judge says fair elections are based on “honest voting”
51 歲女子被指於區議會選舉期間，在 Facebook 群組轉載由前區議員李文浩發布、呼籲他人杯葛選舉的帖文。被告周一（22 日）在東區裁判法院承認一項「在選舉期間內藉公開活動作出煽惑另一人投無效票的非法行為」罪，被判囚兩個月、緩刑兩年。
案情指，被告除了轉發帖文外，亦加上文字說明，呼籲人在選票上寫上名字和身分證號碼，使其無效。辯方指被告被捕後情緒受困，「為自己咁愚蠢行為影響到社會十分後悔」，並選擇即時認罪。
主任裁判官徐綺薇指，「投票係市民權利，都係公民責任…公平選舉基於市民誠實嘅投票」，社會不能接納被告的行為，惟官接納被告為一時愚蠢才犯案，加上她認罪及其背景，認為緩刑可反映控罪嚴重性。
A 51-year-old woman was accused of reposting in a Facebook group a post published by former district councillor Man Hoo Li urging people to boycott the District Council election. The defendant pleaded guilty on Monday (22nd) at Eastern Magistrates’ Court to one count of “an illegal act of inciting another person to cast an invalid vote by public activity during an election period”. She was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.
The case stated that, in addition to reposting the message, the defendant added text urging people to write a name and identity card number on the ballot paper, thereby invalidating it. The defence said the defendant had been emotionally distressed after her arrest and “deeply regretted that her own foolish conduct had affected society”, and that she had chosen to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Chief Magistrate Tsui Yee-wai said, “Voting is a right of the people and also a civic responsibility … fair elections are based on citizens’ honest voting.” Society could not accept the defendant’s conduct, but the magistrate accepted that she had committed the offence out of momentary foolishness. Taking into account her guilty plea and background, the magistrate considered that a suspended sentence could reflect the seriousness of the offence.
19 Jan 2024獨媒#2836
Pik Uk Correctional Officer Accused of Probing Inmate’s Anus with Wooden Stick; Charged with Four Inmates with Wounding with Intent and Remanded
一名駐守壁屋懲教所的二級懲教助理，涉在沒有閉路電視的範圍，用木棍捅18歲男囚犯的肛門，在場另有其他囚犯協助，最終導致事主肛門撕裂及直腸穿孔。一名二級懲教助理及4名囚犯，同被控「有意圖而傷人」罪，今（19日）被押往觀塘裁判法院提堂。控方申請押後至4月22日再訊，以待警方調查。二級懲教助理申保釋遭拒，連同其他沒有申請保釋的被告一同還柙。
An Assistant Officer II stationed at Pik Uk Correctional Institution allegedly used a wooden stick to probe the anus of an 18-year-old male inmate in an area without CCTV, with other inmates present assisting. The inmate suffered an anal tear and rectal perforation. The Assistant Officer II and four inmates were jointly charged with wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent and appeared at Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts today (19th). The prosecution applied to adjourn the case until 22 April pending a police investigation. The Assistant Officer II’s bail application was refused, and he was remanded in custody together with the other defendants, who had not applied for bail.
19 Jan 2024法庭線#2837
PolyU breakout | 11 plead guilty to rioting and are jailed for 46 to 61 months; 7-year sentencing starting point for one is highest in similar cases
2019 年 11 月 18 日，警方圍堵理工大學，15 人被指在暢運道一帶「突圍而出」被捕，當中 11 人開審前改認控罪時間較短、涉案範圍較細、屬交替控罪的另一項暴動罪，周五（19 日）在區域法院被判囚 46 至 61 個月不等。
法官謝沈智慧判刑時指，理大暴動是本港有史以來最嚴重的暴動之一，示威者對警射箭、擲汽油彈等，「形容為泯滅人性亦不為過」；而本案發生前，理大事件已持續 7 天，批眾被告為不想面對法律責任才突圍逃走。
官以判囚 6 年為眾人量刑起點，當中 2 人因認無牌管有無線電器具或汽油彈等，法官上調起點至囚 6 年半及 7 年，後者達區院案最高刑期上限，亦屬同類案最高。
On 18 November 2019, police besieged the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Fifteen people were arrested after allegedly “breaking out” in the area around Cheong Wan Road. Before trial, 11 of them changed their pleas to another, alternative riot charge involving a shorter period and a narrower scope of conduct. They were sentenced at the District Court on Friday (19th) to between 46 and 61 months in prison.
In sentencing, Judge Adriana Noelle Tse Ching said the PolyU riot was one of the most serious riots in Hong Kong’s history. Protesters fired arrows at police and threw petrol bombs, conduct which “could not be described as anything other than devoid of humanity”. The judge said the PolyU events had already continued for seven days before this case occurred, and criticised the defendants for breaking out to flee because they did not want to face legal responsibility.
The judge set six years’ imprisonment as the sentencing starting point for all of them. For two defendants, who admitted offences including unlicensed possession of radio equipment or petrol bombs, the starting points were increased to six and a half years and seven years respectively. The latter reached the District Court’s maximum sentencing limit and was also the highest in similar cases.
19 Jan 2024法庭線#2839
Pik Uk detainee assaulted; five men, including correctional officer, charged with ‘wounding under Section 17’, all remanded until April hearing
關押 14 至 20 歲男性定罪或還押犯人的西貢壁屋懲教所，有 18 歲還押者懷疑被人用木棍捅肛門致造成永久傷害，據悉需用人工造口、接受手術。警方調查後拘捕 6 男，當中 5 男包括一名 33 歲壁屋懲教員，周五（19 日）在觀塘裁判法院首提堂。
5 人暫毋須答辯。控方申請押後，以候警方繼續調查；辯方不反對。署理主任裁判官劉綺雲押後至 4 月 22 日再訊。報稱為公務員的首被告申請保釋，控方反對，官考慮後拒絕，下令他即時還押。另外 4 被告則沒保釋申請，繼續還押。
懲教署回覆指，十分重視事件，接獲投訴後已立刻轉交警方跟進，並全力協助其調查，以及勒令涉案的一名二級懲教助理及一名一級懲教助理停職。署方指，任何人員若干犯違法違紀行為，定必依法處理，絕不姑息。
Pik Uk Correctional Institution in Sai Kung houses male convicted or remanded offenders aged 14 to 20. An 18-year-old remand detainee was allegedly prodded in the anus with a wooden stick, causing permanent injury. He reportedly required an artificial stoma and surgery. Following a police investigation, six men were arrested. Five of them, including a 33-year-old Pik Uk correctional officer, appeared at Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts on Friday (the 19th) and were charged with “wounding under Section 17”.
The five men were not required to enter pleas. The prosecution applied for an adjournment to allow police investigations to continue, and the defence did not object. Acting Chief Magistrate Lau Yee-wan adjourned the case to April 22. The first defendant, who was reported to be a civil servant, applied for bail. The prosecution objected, and the magistrate refused bail after consideration, ordering that he be remanded immediately. The other four defendants did not apply for bail and were also remanded.
The Correctional Services Department said it took the matter very seriously. After receiving the complaint, it immediately referred the case to police for follow-up and fully assisted with the investigation. It also ordered a Correctional Services Assistant II and a Correctional Services Assistant I involved in the case to suspend duty. The department said any staff member found to have committed an offence or disciplinary misconduct would be dealt with according to law, without leniency.
17 Jan 2024法庭線#2822
Police Failure to Display Identification Numbers Ruled Breach of Human Rights Law; Appeal Court Strikes Out Some New Evidence and Allows Further Response
2019 年反修例運動期間，「速龍小隊」等沒有展示警員編號，被記協及受傷市民提出司法覆核，時任高院法官周家明於 2020 年裁定警方不展示警員編號違反《人權法》。警方不服，提出上訴，雙方以書面處理理據再釀爭議，上訴庭在周三（17 日）頒下判詞。
根據判詞，律政司一方提出，申請人指稱執行不當的指控屬個別情況；申請方則援引新證據回應，指違規情況具規律性（regular），並非孤例。律政司質疑申請方藉回應為名，「偷襲」遞交新證據，提出原審時未曾作出的新指控，要求法庭剔除申請方遞交的新證據。
上訴庭裁定，申請方就警方違規具規律性一說，超出原有指控，該部分新證據須剔除。判詞又指律政司一方起初並沒指明違規屬於「個別情況」，而申請方就這一點提交的新證據「有一定道理」，並為公平起見，批准律政司一方再遞交書面回應。
During the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement, police teams including Special Tactical Contingent did not display officers’ identification numbers. The Hong Kong Journalists Association and injured members of the public subsequently sought a judicial review. Then High Court judge Anderson Ka Ming Chow ruled in 2020 that the police’s failure to display officers’ identification numbers breached the Human Rights Law. The police, dissatisfied with the ruling, appealed. A dispute over the parties’ written submissions on the grounds of appeal followed, and the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on Wednesday (the 17th).
According to the judgment, the Department of Justice argued that the applicants’ allegations of improper enforcement concerned individual circumstances. In response, the applicants relied on new evidence to argue that the breaches were regular rather than isolated. The Department of Justice alleged that the applicants had used their response as a pretext to “ambush” the other side by submitting new evidence and raising new allegations that had not been made at trial, and asked the court to strike out the new evidence submitted by the applicants.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the applicants’ claim that the police breaches were regular went beyond the original allegations, and that this part of the new evidence had to be struck out. The judgment also stated that the Department of Justice had not initially specified that the breaches concerned individual circumstances. The applicants’ submission of new evidence on this point had “some merit”, and, in the interests of fairness, the court allowed the Department of Justice to submit a further written response.
17 Jan 2024法庭線#2830
Police failure to display identification numbers ruled breach of human rights law; appeal court strikes out some new evidence and allows police to respond again
2019 年反修例運動期間，「速龍小隊」等沒有展示警員編號，被記協及受傷市民提出司法覆核，時任高院法官周家明於 2020 年裁定警方不展示警員編號違反《人權法》。警方不服，提出上訴，雙方以書面處理理據再釀爭議，上訴庭在周三（17 日）頒下判詞。
根據判詞，律政司一方提出，申請人指稱執行不當的指控屬個別情況；申請方則援引新證據回應，指違規情況具規律性（regular），並非孤例。律政司質疑申請方藉回應為名，「偷襲」遞交新證據，提出原審時未曾作出的新指控，要求法庭剔除申請方遞交的新證據。
上訴庭裁定，申請方就警方違規具規律性一說，超出原有指控，該部分新證據須剔除。判詞又指律政司一方起初並沒指明違規屬於「個別情況」，而申請方就這一點提交的新證據「有一定道理」，並為公平起見，批准律政司一方再遞交書面回應。
During the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests, officers from the “Special Tactical Contingent Squad” and others did not display their identification numbers. The Hong Kong Journalists Association and injured members of the public brought a judicial review, and then High Court judge Anderson Ka Ming Chow ruled in 2020 that the police’s failure to display officers’ identification numbers breached the Human Rights Act. The police appealed, and a dispute over the grounds of the appeal being dealt with in writing subsequently arose. The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on Wednesday (the 17th). According to the judgment, the Department of Justice argued that the applicants’ allegations of improper implementation concerned individual cases. In response, the applicants relied on new evidence to argue that the breaches were regular rather than isolated incidents. The Department of Justice challenged the applicants’ submission of new evidence under the guise of a response, describing it as an ambush involving new allegations that had not been made at first instance, and asked the court to strike out the new evidence submitted by the applicants. The Court of Appeal ruled that the applicants’ claim that the police breaches were regular went beyond the original allegations and that this part of the new evidence had to be struck out. The judgment also stated that the Department of Justice had not initially specified that the breaches were “individual cases”. The new evidence submitted by the applicants on this point had “some merit”, and, in the interests of fairness, the court allowed the Department of Justice to submit a further written response.
15 Jan 2024法庭線#2814
Accused of reposting Martin Oei post, 38-year-old man admits inciting others to boycott District Council election; jailed for 2 months, suspended for 18 months
廉政公署 2023 年 12 月起訴一名 38 歲男子，指他涉嫌區議會選舉期間，在社交媒體轉載一則帖文，內附有黃世澤呼籲杯葛選舉的直播片連結。被告周一（15 日）在粉嶺裁判法院承認「在選舉期間內，藉公開活動，作出煽惑另一人不投票的非法行為」罪。
辯方求情指，被告帖文沒人回應，曝光率極低，沒有證據顯示其帖文干預選舉，他在分享時也沒加上任何評論。署理主任裁判官黃雅茵考慮涉案帖文沒有任何讚好、分享等，傳播力不算最大，但強調本案仍屬嚴重，將被告判監 2 個月、緩刑 18 個月。
The Independent Commission Against Corruption charged a 38-year-old man in December 2023, alleging that during the District Council election he reposted on social media a post containing a link to a livestream in which Martin Oei called for a boycott of the election. The defendant pleaded guilty on Monday (15th) at Fanling Magistrates’ Courts to the offence of “during an election period, by public activity, engaging in illegal conduct that incites another person not to vote”.
The defence said in mitigation that no one had responded to the defendant’s post, its exposure was extremely low, and there was no evidence that the post had interfered with the election. He had also added no comment when sharing it. Acting Principal Magistrate Peony Nga Yan Wong considered that the post had received no likes, shares or other such engagement, and its reach was not the greatest, but stressed that the case remained serious. The defendant was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.
12 Jan 2024獨媒#2806
Defence solicitor in primary election case jailed for 7 days for obstructing police; appeal succeeds and sentence replaced with community service order
初選47人案於2021年提堂的首晚，警方圍封西九龍裁判法院出入口，一名辯方事務律師嘗試進入法院範圍以處理案件，期間拒絕應警方要求出示身份證明文件，遭原審裁判官鄭念慈裁定「故意阻撓警務人員」罪成，判監7日。該律師不服定罪及判刑，向高等法院提出上訴。原訟庭法官陳仲衡今（12日）頒下判詞，他駁回定罪上訴，但認為原審裁判官的判刑明顯過重，因此裁定刑期上訴得直，改判上訴人接受160小時社會服務令。
On the first night of the 47-person primary election case’s hearing in 2021, police cordoned off the entrances and exits of the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts. A defence solicitor attempted to enter the court premises to handle the case but refused a police request to produce an identity document. The trial magistrate, Cheng Nim-chi, convicted the solicitor of wilfully obstructing a police officer and sentenced the solicitor to seven days’ imprisonment. The solicitor appealed against the conviction and sentence to the High Court. In a judgment handed down today (12th), Court of First Instance judge Chan Chung-hang dismissed the conviction appeal but ruled that the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was manifestly excessive. The sentence appeal was therefore allowed and the appellant was instead ordered to perform 160 hours of community service.
12 Jan 2024法庭線#2810
Man Linked to Spark Alliance Charged with Money Laundering; Prosecution Says Case Targets Funds in His Account, Not Spark Alliance
警方 2019 年 12 月以涉嫌「洗黑錢」罪為由，拘捕與「星火同盟」相關的 3 男 1 女。其中一名現年 21 歲男子，其後被落案起訴，指他利用銀行户口洗黑錢，涉款逾 63 萬元，案件周五（12 日）在區域法院結案陳詞。
控方陳詞時稱，本案是針對被告戶口的資金流向，而不是檢控「星火同盟」，故星火的款項、捐款是否合法，並非控方的關注。控方又認為，被告與「星火」無關，提到辯方曾多次提及「星火」的運作，但沒傳召相關人士，只有被告的證供，質疑是「口講無憑」。
辯方則指，被告一直理解自己被捕與「星火」有關，故即使法官在審訊時曾提醒，其供詞或引伸其他刑事案件，被告明白「星火」屬敏感組織，仍堅持涉案款項與「星火」有關。辯方指，若法庭亦接納這點，控方的指控便不成立。暫委法官高偉雄押後至 3 月 28 日裁決。
Police arrested three men and one woman linked to Spark Alliance in December 2019 on suspicion of money laundering. One of the men, now aged 21, was subsequently charged with using a bank account to launder more than HK$630,000. The case concluded with closing submissions at the District Court on Friday (12th).
The prosecution said the case concerned the flow of funds in the defendant’s account, rather than a prosecution of Spark Alliance. It therefore said it was not concerned with whether Spark’s funds or donations were lawful. The prosecution also argued that the defendant was not connected with Spark Alliance, noting that the defence had repeatedly referred to the organisation’s operations but had not called any relevant people to testify. It questioned whether the matter amounted to merely “word of mouth”.
The defence said the defendant had always understood that his arrest was related to Spark Alliance. Although the judge had warned during the trial that his testimony might implicate other criminal cases, the defendant understood that Spark Alliance was a sensitive organisation and still maintained that the funds in question were connected with it. The defence said that if the court accepted this point, the prosecution’s case could not stand. Acting Judge Ko Wai-hung adjourned the case until 28 March for a verdict.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
