8 Aug 2023法庭線#8160
Man admits contempt of court over posting details of Sai Wan Ho shooting officer; 28-day jail term suspended for one year
2019 年 11 月 11 日，一名交通警在西灣河以實彈射擊一名男學生。34 歲男子被指在 Facebook 披露開槍警及其家人的個人資料，並附上「唔好傳！千祈唔好傳！」字眼，涉違反「起底」禁制令。他早前承認藐視法庭，被判監禁 28 日，緩刑一年。
法官高浩文周二（8 日）頒布判詞指，認為被告非公眾人物，不會引起太多關注，加上品格良好，相信今次只是單一事件，亦非同類案件中最嚴重。法官提到，被告事發後一度被捕，其後獲准保釋，亦沒有接受進一步刑事調查，可理解他預料事件已告一段落。官指，律政司事隔兩年提控，屬過度延誤，亦為被告帶來壓力，接納此為求情因素。
On 11 November 2019, a traffic police officer fired a live round at a male student in Sai Wan Ho. A 34-year-old man was accused of disclosing on Facebook the personal information of the officer who fired the shot and his family, accompanied by the words “Don’t share! By all means don’t share!”, in breach of an injunction prohibiting doxxing. He earlier pleaded guilty to contempt of court and was sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment, suspended for one year.
In a judgment handed down on Tuesday (8th), Judge Ko Wai-man said the defendant was not a public figure and would not attract much attention. Given his good character, the judge believed this was an isolated incident and not the most serious case of its kind. The judge noted that the defendant had been arrested after the incident and subsequently granted bail, and had not been subject to further criminal investigation, so it was understandable that he expected the matter to have ended. The judge said the Department of Justice’s decision to bring the prosecution two years later amounted to excessive delay and had caused the defendant stress, accepting this as a mitigating factor.
8 Aug 2023獨媒#8161
Man Says National Security Police Threatened to Treat Him as Riot Accomplice if He Did Not Testify Against Lam Cheuk-ting; Police Decline Comment
前立法會議員林卓廷因元朗7.21襲擊案被控暴動罪，一名男子在YouTube稱曾在早前白衣人暴動案以「控方證人」身份指證白衣人，而他稱上月29日被警方國安處上門要求他出庭指證林卓廷，否則控告他暴動罪，他又稱其滙豐銀行戶口及後遭凍結。該男子在影片表示，目前已逃難至英國倫敦，並正申請政治庇護。警方回覆《獨媒》指有關案件已進入司法程序，警方不作評論；匯豐發言人表示被凍結戶口的傳聞「內容並未經證實」，但基於客戶保密原則，不便評論個案。
Former Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting has been charged with rioting over the Yuen Long 7.21 attack. A man said on YouTube that he had previously testified as a prosecution witness against white-clad men in the earlier riot case, and that on the 29th of last month, officers from the Police National Security Department visited him and demanded that he testify against Lam Cheuk-ting, otherwise he would be charged with rioting. He also said that his HSBC bank account was subsequently frozen. In the video, the man said he had fled to London, United Kingdom, and was applying for political asylum. The police told The Independent Media that the case had entered judicial proceedings and that they would not comment. An HSBC spokesperson said that the claim about the frozen account was “unsubstantiated”, but declined to comment on the individual case on the grounds of customer confidentiality.
8 Aug 2023光傳媒#8166
18 lawmakers urge appeal for days; Ronny Tong says pressuring court is inadvisable
高等法院早前拒絕就禁止傳播反修例歌曲《願榮光歸香港》批出臨時禁制令，多名立法會議員要求政府盡快上訴，最終律政司昨日（7日）提出上訴。行政會議成員、資深大律師湯家驊今天在電台節目稱，向法庭施壓並不可取，希望議員克制。《光傳媒》統計，連日來至少有18名議員在網上或報章敦促政府上訴，吳秋北甚至提出司法改革。
The High Court earlier refused to grant an interim injunction banning the dissemination of the anti-extradition bill song “Glory to Hong Kong”. Several Legislative Council members urged the government to appeal as soon as possible, and the Department of Justice eventually filed an appeal yesterday (7th). Executive Council member and Senior Counsel Ronny Tong said on a radio programme today that pressuring the court was inadvisable, and hoped lawmakers would exercise restraint. Light Media counted at least 18 lawmakers who had urged the government to appeal online or in newspapers in recent days. Stanley Ng even proposed judicial reform.
7 Aug 2023法庭線#8154
High Court refuses to grant injunction banning “Glory to Hong Kong”; Department of Justice lodges appeal
律政司就《願榮光歸香港》申請禁制令案，禁止公眾播放或彈奏歌曲《願榮光》，高等法院法官陳健強 7 月 28 日頒下判詞，拒絕批出臨時禁制令。律政司周一（7 日）表示，律政司司長決定就判決提出上訴，已向法庭呈交上訴許可申請。
發言人表示，原訟法庭不批出臨時禁制令，不是因為有關行為合法，而是因為法庭認為即使沒有禁制令，有關行為本身已構成刑事罪行，故不信納禁制令有真正功用。法庭又指，禁制令的執行程序，可能會與《香港國安法》檢控程序有衝突，律政司司長認為有需要上訴申明觀點，並請求上訴法庭考慮頒布臨時禁制令。
In the Department of Justice’s application for an injunction to prohibit the public from playing or performing the song “Glory to Hong Kong”, High Court judge Anthony Kin Keung Chan handed down a judgment on 28 July refusing to grant an interim injunction. The Department of Justice said on Monday (7th) that the Secretary for Justice had decided to appeal against the judgment and had filed an application for leave to appeal with the court.
A spokesperson said the Court of First Instance’s refusal to grant an interim injunction was not because the conduct concerned was lawful, but because the court considered that the conduct itself already constituted a criminal offence even without an injunction, and therefore was not satisfied that an injunction would serve a real purpose. The court also said that enforcement proceedings for the injunction might conflict with prosecution proceedings under the Hong Kong National Security Law. The Secretary for Justice considered it necessary to appeal to state the position and asked the Court of Appeal to consider granting an interim injunction.
4 Aug 2023法庭線#8145
Volunteer first-aider jailed 3 years 3 months for rioting denied leave to appeal; judge says adverse inference is “inescapable”
2019 年 10 月 1 日國慶，大批示威者在黃大仙集結，11 人暴動罪成，分別被判入教導所及判囚 3 年至 3 年 3 個月。案發時 24 歲的義務急救員不服定罪申請上訴，周五（4 日）在高院處理。上訴庭聽畢雙方陳詞，駁回上訴申請，將於 6 個月內頒布理由。
上訴方指，上訴人到場進行人道救援，其背包內大部分是急救用品，沒有鼓勵他人破壞社會安寧。法官彭寶琴質疑，上訴人意圖提供醫療援助，令參與暴動者無後顧之憂，「唔可以推論佢有參與暴動嘅造意咩？」。法官彭偉昌亦指，上訴人在暴動現場，提供有風險的服務，「你可以話淨係救人，但好難推論，不利推論係呼之欲出」。
On National Day, 1 October 2019, a large number of protesters gathered in Wong Tai Sin. Eleven people were convicted of rioting and were respectively sentenced to a training centre or imprisonment ranging from three years to three years and three months. A volunteer first-aider, who was 24 at the time of the incident, challenged his conviction and applied for leave to appeal. The application was heard in the High Court on Friday (4th). After hearing submissions from both sides, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application and said it would deliver its reasons within six months.
The defence argued that the appellant had attended to provide humanitarian assistance, and that most of the items in his backpack were first-aid supplies; he had not encouraged others to disrupt public order. Judge Pang Po-kin questioned whether the appellant’s intention to provide medical assistance meant that those taking part in the riot could act without concern, asking: “Can it not be inferred that he intended to participate in the riot?” Judge Pang Wai-cheong also said that the appellant had provided a risky service at the scene of the riot. “You can say he was only saving people, but it is difficult to draw any other inference; the adverse inference is staring one in the face,” he said.
3 Aug 2023法庭線#8135
Man jailed for 7 years for trying to seize police gun; sentencing appeal dismissed
2019 年 10 月 13 日「十八區開花」，數名男女被指在旺角「搶犯」及「飛踢」警員。當中一名 31 歲男子企圖搶劫、襲警等罪成，判囚 7 年，為區域法院審理的反修例案件中，判刑最重的示威者。被告早前不服判刑提上訴被拒。
上訴庭法官彭偉昌、彭寶琴周四（3 日）頒下判詞指，就上訴方質疑原審錯誤引用案例，指上訴人與另一涉案男子共同犯罪，認為 7 年監禁屬過重。法官認為原審在審視證供後肯定他們屬夥同犯罪，上訴庭沒干預理由。
法官認為，上訴人目的是傷害警員和搶槍，案發於社會大規模騷擾期間，加上案情嚴重，重判在所難免；又指原審參考持械行劫案例作判刑是「無可批評」，即使不參考該案例，判囚 7 年「雖然不短也絕非明顯過重」，故此駁回上訴，維持原判。
During the “blossom across 18 districts” protests on 13 October 2019, several men and women were accused of attempting to snatch a suspect and of launching flying kicks at police officers in Mong Kok. A 31-year-old man was convicted of attempted robbery, assaulting police and other offences, and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He was the protester given the heaviest sentence in an anti-extradition-bill case heard by the District Court. He earlier appealed against the sentence, but the appeal was dismissed.
Court of Appeal judges Pang Wai-cheong and Pang Po-kam handed down their judgment on Thursday (the 3rd), saying the appellant had challenged the trial court’s allegedly erroneous reliance on case law. The appellant argued that he and another man involved in the case had committed the offences jointly and that seven years’ imprisonment was excessive. The judges said the trial court had, after examining the evidence, found that they had acted together, and that there was no reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene.
The judges said the appellant’s purpose was to injure police officers and seize a firearm, and that the offences occurred during a period of large-scale social disturbance. Given the seriousness of the case, a heavy sentence was unavoidable, they said. They also said the trial court’s reference to armed robbery cases in determining the sentence was “unassailable”. Even without reference to those cases, a seven-year sentence, “although not short, was by no means manifestly excessive”. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the original sentence upheld.
3 Aug 2023法庭線#8136
Affiliated union members handed out masks at street booth; four fined HK$6,000 each for violating gathering restrictions
2020 年 5 月 6 日，職工盟屬會「建築地盤職工總會」，於金鐘海富天橋設「金鐘和你 Lunch 之攞物資」街站，派發口罩等防疫物資，之後被票控。4 人包括工會幹事林小薇，否認一項「參與受禁羣組聚集」，裁判官王證瑜周四（3 日）在區院（暫代裁院）裁定所有傳票罪名成立，所有被告罰款各 6,000 元。
裁判官指，涉案街站於當眼位置展示標語如「光復地盤」、「工會戰線」，又重複播放關於「抗爭」等內容的錄音，選址亦非可接觸較多市民的地方，裁定涉案聚集並非旨在防疫，不獲法例豁免。裁判官又指，限聚令僅限制集會形式，並無限制表達訴求的內容，加上即使被告行使集會、結社自由，亦毋需參與多於 4 人的聚集，故控罪已平衡社會利益和個人權利。
官另質疑，政府於案發後數日便放寬至 8 人限聚，被告卻不選擇於較遲日子聚集。
On 6 May 2020, the Construction Site Workers General Union, an affiliated union of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, set up a street booth titled “Admiralty With You Lunch: Collecting Supplies” at the Admiralty Harcourt Road footbridge and handed out masks and other anti-epidemic supplies. They were subsequently prosecuted. Four people, including union officer Lam Siu-wai, denied one charge of “participating in a prohibited group gathering”. Magistrate Edward Ching Yu Wong ruled at the District Court, sitting in place of the Magistrates’ Court, on Thursday (the 3rd) that all the summons charges were proven, and fined each defendant HK$6,000.
The magistrate said the street booth displayed slogans such as “Reclaim the Construction Sites” and “Union Front” in prominent positions, and repeatedly played recordings referring to “resistance” and other content. The location was also not a place where more members of the public could be reached. The magistrate ruled that the gathering was not intended to prevent disease and was not covered by the statutory exemption. The magistrate also said the gathering restriction only limited the form of gatherings and did not restrict the content of people’s expressions of their demands. Moreover, even if the defendants were exercising their freedoms of assembly and association, they did not need to participate in a gathering of more than four people. The charge therefore struck a balance between the public interest and individual rights.
The magistrate also questioned why the defendants had not chosen to hold the gathering at a later date, given that the government relaxed the gathering limit to eight people just days after the incident.
1 Aug 2023法庭線#8121
Aug 29 Sham Shui Po | Seven convicted of rioting; three men jailed for 24 to 32 months, four defendants under 21 sent to training centre
2019 年 8 月 29 日，深水埗警署外有市民聚集，及後發生警民衝突，8 人被控暴動等罪。當中 7 人不認罪，其中一人早前獲裁不宜受審、當庭釋放，餘下 6 人罪成，連同開審前認罪的被告，法官王詩麗周三（2 日）在區域法院判當中 3 名成年被告監禁 24 至 32 個月，另外 4 名仍未滿 21 歲的被告入教導所。
法官判刑時指，案發於人煙稠密的深水埗，現場有人於馬路噴漆、阻塞交通、於馬路飛奔，影響他人。示威者又以鐳射筆照射警署，大聲辱罵警員，其行為針對警署，公然挑戰執法者。而眾被告有所準備，帶備口罩、急救用品、防毒面具、電筒及鐳射筆到場犯案。但法官接納根據本案暴動範圍、人數、時間，認為嚴重性較同類案件低。
On 29 August 2019, members of the public gathered outside Sham Shui Po Police Station, followed by clashes between police and the public. Eight people were charged with rioting and other offences. Seven pleaded not guilty; one was earlier found unfit to stand trial and released in court. The remaining six were convicted. Together with the defendant who pleaded guilty before trial, three adult defendants were sentenced by Judge Wong Si-lai at the District Court on Wednesday (the 2nd) to between 24 and 32 months’ imprisonment, while four defendants who were still under 21 were sent to a training centre.
In sentencing, the judge said the incident took place in densely populated Sham Shui Po. People sprayed paint on the road, obstructed traffic and ran along the road, affecting others. Protesters also shone laser pointers at the police station and loudly abused police officers. Their conduct targeted the police station and openly challenged law enforcement. The defendants had also made preparations, bringing masks, first-aid supplies, gas masks, torches and laser pointers to the scene to commit the offences. However, the judge accepted that, based on the scope, number of people involved and duration of the riot in this case, its seriousness was lower than that of similar cases.
31 Jul 2023法庭線#8110
Student admits Telegram incitement to arson, jailed for 2 years; sentence reduced from 4-year starting point
21 歲男學生被指於 2020 年，分別透過兩個 Telegram 群組發表煽惑縱火的言論，事隔兩年後被起訴。他周一（31 日）在區域法院承認兩項「煽惑他人縱火罪」，案情指被告於 2 個 Telegram 公開群組內留言，曾與其他人討論使用槍械和汽油彈，包括「用好汽油彈先用真槍」、「我哋掟火魔，最多都係用布袋彈……用槍真係一次性」等，又建議使用「火魔」及磚頭等。
辯方求情指，被告自幼患過度活躍症，2019 年社會事件令病情惡化，因熱愛香港和對民主制度有執著，誤以為使用暴力可達到心中理想，現時已明白訴諸錯誤方法。法官姚勳智判刑時指，被告並非群組管理員及不涉大量留言，考慮其背景等因素後已下調量刑，終判囚 2 年。
A 21-year-old male student was accused of posting inciting remarks about arson in two Telegram groups in 2020 and was charged two years later. He pleaded guilty on Monday (the 31st) in the District Court to two counts of inciting others to commit arson. The case stated that the defendant posted messages in two public Telegram groups and discussed using firearms and petrol bombs with others, including: “Use good petrol bombs first, then real guns” and “We throw fire bombs; at most, we use beanbag rounds… using guns is really a one-off.” He also suggested using “fire bombs” and bricks, among other things.
In mitigation, the defence said the defendant had suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder since childhood. His condition worsened during the 2019 social incidents, and because of his love for Hong Kong and fixation on the democratic system, he mistakenly believed that violence could achieve his ideals. He now understood that he had resorted to the wrong methods. Judge Yiu Hin-chi said at sentencing that the defendant was neither a group administrator nor involved in a large number of posts. Having taken his background and other factors into consideration, the court had already reduced the sentence, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.
31 Jul 2023法庭線#8111
Social worker jailed for 21 days, suspended for one year, over naming Sai Wan Ho shooting officer; judge hopes similar cases can conclude
2019 年 11 月 11 日，一名交通警在西灣河以實彈向男學生開槍。36 歲男社工被指於 2020 年 6 月 2 日，在 Facebook 發帖公開開槍警全名，稱「冇人知你叫 XXX（開槍警全名）」，涉違反「起底」禁制令及匿名令。他周一（31 日）於高等法院承認藐視法庭，法官高浩文判被告監禁 21 日，緩刑 12 個月，兼向律政司支付 5 萬元訟費。
律政司一方表示，被告在得悉有關匿名令的新聞下，仍然公開披露開槍警全名，認為應判處即時監禁。被告方則求情指，被告同情被槍擊學生，當男生被控搶劫後感憤怒，已明白自己行為愚蠢，希望向法庭及開槍警致歉。
律政司一方指，本案屬同類案件中最後一宗處理的案件，希望透過法庭判刑，遏止此等行為。法官在判詞中則指，希望同類案件可告一段落。
On 11 November 2019, a traffic police officer fired live rounds at a male student in Sai Wan Ho. A 36-year-old male social worker was accused of posting the full name of the officer who fired the shot on Facebook on 2 June 2020, saying, “No one knows your name is XXX (the full name of the officer who fired the shot),” allegedly breaching an anti-doxxing injunction and an anonymity order. He admitted contempt of court at the High Court on Monday (the 31st). Judge Ko Ho-man sentenced him to 21 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and ordered him to pay HK$50,000 in costs to the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice said the defendant had publicly disclosed the officer’s full name despite learning from news reports about the anonymity order, and argued that immediate imprisonment should be imposed. The defence said in mitigation that the defendant sympathised with the student who had been shot and felt angry when the student was charged with robbery. He now understood that his conduct had been foolish and wished to apologise to the court and the officer who fired the shot.
The Department of Justice said this was the final case of its kind to be dealt with and hoped the sentence would deter such conduct. In his judgment, the judge said he hoped similar cases could come to an end.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
