24 Oct 2024法庭線#4175
通州街公園露宿者案 意圖妨礙司法公正罪成男警梁飛鵬提上訴 累計3警提上訴
Eight police officers were charged with assaulting homeless people, smashing their belongings and falsely accusing them of possessing drugs while on duty in February 2020, when they carried out two anti-drug operations at Tong Chau Street Park. Six of them—Sergeant Lam Wah-ka and officers Leung Fei-pang, Pong Chun See, Mok Chi-shing, Wan Pak-sze and Chan Sau-yip—were convicted of intending to pervert the course of justice. After the two convicted officers Pong Chun See and Wan Pak-sze filed appeals against their convictions and sentences last Friday (18th), the day after sentencing, another officer, Leung Fei-pang, has also filed an appeal.
Of the three officers who filed appeals, Leung Fei-pang and Pong Chun See were sentenced to two years and one month in prison, while Wan Pak-sze was sentenced to three years and one month. The Judiciary website shows that Leung and Pong Chun See will apply for bail pending appeal at a hearing on 7 November 2024, which is expected to last 15 minutes.
8 名警員被控於 2020 年 2 月執勸期間，即兩度進行反毒品行動掃蕩通州街公園時，對露宿者施襲、砸爛家當、誣衊藏毒；當中 6 人即警長林華嘉，警員梁飛鵬、龐雋詩、莫志成、尹栢詩、陳守業被裁定意圖妨礙司法公正罪成。繼兩名罪成警員龐雋詩、尹栢詩於上周五（18 日），即判刑翌日提出定罪及判刑上訴後，再有一名警員梁飛鵬提上訴。
3 名提上訴的警員，梁飛鵬及龐雋詩被判囚 2 年 1 個月，尹栢詩則被判囚 3 年 1 個月。司法機構網頁顯示，梁及龐將在 2024 年 11 月 7 日，就上訴期間申請保釋聆訊，料需時 15 分鐘。
23 Oct 2024法庭線#4169
通州街公園露宿者案 罪成警員龐雋詩、尹栢詩 判刑翌日即提上訴
Eight police officers were charged with assaulting homeless people, smashing their belongings and falsely accusing them of possessing drugs while on duty in February 2020, when they carried out two anti-drug operations at Tongzhou Street Park. Six of them—Police Sergeant Lam Wah-ka, and police officers Leung Fei-pang, Pong Chun See, Mo Chi-shing, Wan Pak-sze and Chan Sau-yip—were found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
High Court records show that the two convicted officers, Pong Chun See and Wan Pak-sze, lodged appeals against their convictions and sentences last Friday (the 18th), the day after they were sentenced. They were sentenced to 2 years and 1 month and 3 years and 1 month in prison, respectively. Judiciary website information shows that Pang will appear on November 7 this year for a hearing on an application for bail pending appeal, which is expected to last 15 minutes.
8 名警員被控於 2020 年 2 月執勸期間，即兩度進行反毒品行動掃蕩通州街公園時，對露宿者施襲、砸爛家當、誣衊藏毒；當中 6 人即警長林華嘉，警員梁飛鵬、龐雋詩、莫志成、尹栢詩、陳守業被裁定意圖妨礙司法公正罪成。
高等法院資料顯示，兩名罪成警員龐雋詩、尹栢詩於上周五（18 日），即判刑翌日提出定罪及判刑上訴。二人分別被判囚 2 年 1 個月及 3 年 1 個月。司法機構網頁顯示，龐將在今年 11 月 7 日就「上訴期間申請保釋」聆訊，料需時 15 分鐘。
17 Oct 2024法庭線#4155
通州街公園露宿者案 6警罪成判囚2年1個月至3年5個月 警長因最高級加刑半年
Eight police officers were charged with assaulting homeless people, smashing their belongings and falsely accusing them of possessing drugs while on duty in February 2020, when they twice conducted anti-drug operations at Tong Chau Street Park. Six of them—Police Sergeant Lam Wah-ka, officers Leung Fei-pang, Pong Chun See, Mok Chi-shing, Wan Pak-sze and Chan Sau-yip—were convicted of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice and were sentenced on Thursday (the 17th) to between 2 years 1 month and 3 years 5 months in prison.
District Court judge Kit Yee (1971) Cheung said the public had certain expectations of and trust in the police force, but the defendants had abused their authority and falsely accused innocent members of the public. Their conduct brought shame on the force and caused the public to lose confidence in its impartiality. The judge stressed that although the charge against the homeless man “Ah Sap” was ultimately withdrawn, it could not be overlooked that the defendants’ false allegation of drug possession meant that “an innocent person was prosecuted and went through unnecessary legal proceedings.”
The judge increased the sentences because the defendants had acted together, while allowing discretionary reductions because they had good backgrounds, had previously served the public in the police force and had experienced pressure while awaiting trial. The police sergeant received an additional six-month sentence because he was the highest-ranking officer at the scene, failed to stop the conduct and participated in it.
8 名警員被控於 2020 年 2 月執勸期間，即兩度進行反毒品行動掃蕩通州街公園時，對露宿者施襲、砸爛家當、誣衊藏毒；當中 6 人即警長林華嘉，警員梁飛鵬、龐雋詩、莫志成、尹栢詩、陳守業被裁定意圖妨礙司法公正罪成，周四（17 日）被判囚 2 年 1 個月至 3 年 5 個月。
區院法官張潔宜指市民對警隊有一定期望和信任，各被告濫用職權，誣告無辜市民，行為令警隊蒙羞，亦令公眾對警隊的公正性失去信心。官強調露宿者「阿十」最終雖獲撤控，但不能忽略被告誣衊藏毒令「無辜的人曾被檢控，經歷不必要的法律程序。」
官因各被告夥同犯案而加刑，另因被告背景良好、過往於警隊服務市民、候審期間的壓力而酌情減刑。警長被告則因是現場職級最高人員，沒阻止更參與其中而被額外加刑 6 個月。
4 Oct 2024法庭線#4120
七一刺警案後連登倡「插小腸」 男子煽惑傷人罪成 官：不能抹煞有人被煽動風險
On the night of the 2021 July 1 police stabbing in Causeway Bay, a 23-year-old renovation worker was accused of posting comments on LIHKG including “fucking stab his father and mother to death” and “next time, the area in the middle of the body where the small intestine is should be stabbed”. He was charged with one count of inciting another to wound with intent. The man denied the charge and was convicted on Friday (4th) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, sitting as the District Court.
Acting Judge CHAN Wai-mun said that an atmosphere of hostility towards the police prevailed in society at the time, and July 1 was a sensitive date with a relatively high level of risk. The defendant’s comments had a cumulative effect that strengthened their inciting impact. His suggestion that police officers should be attacked in the more vulnerable small-intestine area left a deep impression, and it could not be ruled out that someone would be incited to commit an offence in the manner he suggested.
Regarding the defendant’s evidence that he was not hostile towards the police while publishing the comment “fucking stab his father and mother to death”, the judge described his testimony as “a big lie”. The judge also said the defendant had turned a blind eye to photographs reflecting what had happened that day, deliberately downplayed the more serious aspects and minimised his remarks about harming police officers. The case was adjourned to November 1 for mitigation and sentencing, and the defendant was remanded in custody.
2021 年銅鑼灣七一刺警案當晚，23 歲裝修工被指在「連登」發布「插撚死佢老豆老母」、「下次應該插身體中間小腸嘅部位」等留言，被控一項「煽惑他人有意圖而傷人」罪。該男子否認控罪，周五（4 日）在西九龍裁判法院（暫代區院）被裁定罪名成立。
暫委法官陳慧敏指，當時社會瀰漫仇警氛圍，加上 7 月 1 日是風險較高的敏感日子，被告的留言產生累積效應，加強煽動效果，其建議傷害警員身體較脆弱的小腸位置，令人留下深刻印象，不能抹煞有人會被煽動以其建議方式犯案。
就被告供稱不仇警，同時發布「插撚死佢老豆老母」留言，法官形容被告的供詞是「一則大謊話」，又指被告對當日反映事實的相片視而不見，故意避重就輕，淡化傷害警員的言論。案件押後至 11 月 1 日求情及判刑，被告須還押。
13 Sept 2024法庭線#4044
通州街公園露宿者案 6警妨礙司法公正罪成保釋候判 判詞詳述屈藏毒過程
Eight police officers were accused of assaulting homeless people, smashing their belongings and falsely alleging drug possession while on duty in February 2020, when they twice conducted anti-drug operations at Tongzhou Street Park. On Friday (the 13th), District Court judge found Sergeant Lam Wah-ka and five officers—Leung Fei-pang, Pong Chun See, Mok Chi-shing, Wan Pak-sze and Chan Sau-yip—guilty of intending to pervert the course of justice. Lam thanked his family and colleagues for their support outside the court (see video in the full article).
Regarding the conduct of the six convicted officers, the judgment detailed how three officers falsely accused homeless man Lai Man-sap of possessing drugs. It said that when they handcuffed Lai, there was nothing in either of his hands. They later placed a “white object” found in another tent into a black container held by an officer. However, the three officers stated in their notebooks and other records that Lai possessed a black plastic box containing drugs. The judge said the fabrication was necessarily misleading and inevitably tended to pervert the course of justice.
The convicted officers also covered two CCTV cameras in the park. One was related to the search of Lai Man-sap’s tent, while the other was related to the operation to arrest Yuen Man-shan. The judgment said the only reasonable inference was that the officers must have anticipated that members of the team would engage in improper or unlawful conduct, such as fabricating or destroying evidence, and found them guilty. The six will return to court on October 8 for mitigation and sentencing. They remain on bail and are barred from leaving Hong Kong.
As for officer Kwok Chin-sing, who was accused of kicking and punching homeless people and smashing their belongings, and officer Hon Ting-kwong, who watched from the side without preventing the offences, both were found not guilty. Neither applied for costs.
8 名警員被控於 2020 年 2 月執勸期間，即兩度進行反毒品行動掃蕩通州街公園時，對露宿者施襲、砸爛家當、誣衊藏毒；警長林華嘉及 5 名警員梁飛鵬、龐雋詩、莫志成、尹栢詩、陳守業周五（13 日）在區院被裁定意圖妨礙司法公正罪成。林華嘉在法院外感謝家人、同事支持（見內文影片）。
就 6 名罪成警員的涉案行為，判詞詳述 3 警員誣衊露宿者黎民十藏毒的過程，指他們將黎鎖上手銬時，黎雙手沒任何東西，但其後他們將另一帳幕搜出的「白色物件」，放入警員手中的黑色容器，而 3 警在記事冊等紀錄卻指黎持有載有毒品的黑色膠盒，官指 3 人捏造必然誤導，亦必然傾向妨礙司法公正。
罪成警員亦分別遮蓋公園內兩處 CCTV 鏡頭，一處與搜查黎民十帳幕有關，另一處鏡頭與拘捕阮文山的行動有關。判詞指，唯一合理推論是，警員必然預期隊員會作出不當或不合法的行為，例如揑造證據、銷毀證據等，裁定他們罪成。6 人押後至 10 月 8 日求情及判刑，他們續准保釋，期間不得離港。
至於被指控對露宿者拳打腳踢、砸爛家當的警員郭展昇，以及在旁觀看、無阻止犯案的警員韓廷光，則獲裁定罪名不成立；兩人無訟費申請。
19 Jul 2024法庭線#3832
7.14新城市衝突｜警員受傷索償 涉警方一案暫攔置 涉示威者案一人以15萬元和解
Police–civilian clashes occurred at Sha Tin New Town Plaza on 14 July 2019. Two plain-clothes police officers said they were injured after being attacked by protesters that night. One officer subsequently sought damages from two protesters who admitted rioting offences and from the Commissioner of Police. The case involving the Police Force was originally scheduled for trial in the High Court in early July. The parties were granted a stay of the trial pending the conclusion of the damages claim involving the protesters.
High Court deputy judge Chun Man (Judge) Leung handed down a judgment on Friday (19th) giving supplementary reasons. The judge said the plaintiff police officer had not disclosed throughout that another damages action was being conducted at the same time, and it was difficult to understand why different lawyers had been engaged to handle the two matters separately, describing the situation as “unusual and regrettable”. The judgment also disclosed that, in the other case, one protester defendant had settled out of court for HK$150,000, while the court was assessing the damages payable to another.
According to the writ of summons, when seeking damages from the Police Force, the officer alleged that the Police had failed to conduct an appropriate assessment of the situation before deploying officers to the scene, leaving them outnumbered and causing injuries to his face, body and eyes.
2019 年 7 月 14 日，沙田新城市廣場發生警民衝突。兩名便衣警稱當晚受示威者襲擊受傷。一警員先後向兩名承認暴動罪的示威者，以及警務處長索償。涉及警務處的案件原定 7 月初在高院開審，雙方獲准擱置審訊，待涉及示威者的索償案完結。
高院暫委法官梁俊文周五（19 日）頒判詞補充理由，指原告警員一直沒披露有另一宗索償訴訟同時進行，難以理解為何會聘用不同的律師各自處理，形容情況「特殊和令人遺憾」。判詞又透露在另案中，有示威者被告以 15 萬元庭外和解，另一人則正由法庭評定賠償額。
翻查入稟狀，警員向警方索償時指，警方委派警員到場前沒作適當形勢評估，令他們寡不敵眾，致他的臉部、身體及眼睛受傷。
26 Jun 2024法庭線#3737
認TG、FB披露議員及警員資料 25歲學生判緩刑2年
A 25-year-old student who posted the personal data of Legislative Council members and police officers in Telegram and Facebook groups earlier pleaded guilty to four counts of disclosing personal data without the consent of the data subjects. He was sentenced at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Wednesday (26th) to three months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.
Magistrate Jason Siu Ming Wan said the facts of the case were serious and imprisonment was inevitably one of the appropriate options, but the offences were committed when the social movement was not at its most intense and the potential risks caused were lower. Taking into account the positive background report and the defendant’s history of autism, among other factors, the magistrate ultimately imposed a suspended sentence.
一名 25 歲學生涉於 Telegram 及 Facebook 群組發布立法會議員、警員的個人資料，早前承認 4 項「未獲資料當事人同意下披露其個人資料」罪，周三（26 日）於西九龍裁判法院被判監禁 3 個月、緩刑 2 年。
裁判官溫紹明指，本案案情嚴重，監禁必然是合適選項之一，但案發時並非社運最激烈時候，引起的潛在風險較低。另考慮被告背景報告正面，曾患自閉症等，最後判處緩刑。
7 May 2024法庭線#3495
27歲男被指與2人製炸彈、TG曾揚言「炸狗屋」 控方指沒爆炸仍構成串謀犯案
A 27-year-old unemployed man allegedly joined a laboratory assistant and an electrical technician in testing an improvised explosive device at a secluded location on Siu Leng Shui Road, Tuen Mun, in December 2019, but the attempt failed. The man was arrested at the scene and charged with one count of conspiracy to cause an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious damage to property. He has been remanded in custody for more than four years. The case opened at the High Court on Tuesday (the 7th), after a seven-member jury was empanelled. The man pleaded not guilty and went on trial.
The prosecution alleged that the defendant and others threatened in a Telegram group to make bombs and place them at “rb” and to bomb the “dog house”, and said that “1kg can blow up a water cannon vehicle”. When arrested, the defendant was found carrying mercury powder allegedly intended as a raw material for a bomb. Under caution, he said he was only testing a smoke bomb.
The prosecution stressed that the reason no explosion occurred and no harm was caused to life or property was only that the defendant was “arrested by police in time” before carrying out the plan. It argued that they had nevertheless agreed to place the bomb, thereby constituting a conspiracy offence.
27 歲無業男子涉於 2019 年 12 月，聯同實驗室助理和電器技工，在屯門小冷水路一偏僻處試驗土製爆炸裝置但失敗。男子當場被捕，被控一項「串謀導致性質相當可能會危害生命或對財產造成嚴重損害的爆炸」罪，還押至今逾 4 年。案件周二（7 日）在高等法院，選出 7 人陪審團開審，男子不認罪受審。
控方案情指，被告與其他人在 Telegram 群組揚言製作炸彈放在「rb」和炸「狗屋」，又指「1kg 可以爆水炮車」。被捕時被告身上搜出被指是炸彈原材料的水銀粉末，他在警誡下聲稱僅試驗煙霧彈。
控方強調本案之所以沒有爆炸發生，沒構成生命或財產損害，僅因被告在實行計劃前「及時被警方拉咗」，他們仍有協議放炸彈，構成串謀犯案。
19 Feb 2024法庭線#2993
運紅酒變汽油彈｜男生罪成提上訴被駁回 官同意原審違緘默權利、但沒致定罪不穩
In April 2020, a 21-year-old tertiary student was found with two suspected petrol bombs near Kwai Chung Police Station and charged with possessing offensive weapons in a public place. At trial, the defence challenged a police sergeant’s account as “staging and directing his own performance” to frame the defendant. The trial magistrate ruled that there was no evidence proving that the sergeant had set him up. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction and sentence, but High Court acting judge Anthony Kai On Kwok handed down a judgment on Monday (19th), dismissing his conviction appeal.
The appellant argued that the trial court had erred in finding that there was no evidence supporting the defence’s allegation that the sergeant had set him up. The judge said the evidence of the non-testifying intermediary “A” was hearsay, and agreed with the trial court that the key issue was whether the appellant knew that he was carrying petrol bombs.
Regarding the trial court’s finding that the appellant had been evasive when questioned by police, the judge held that it was wholly impermissible to draw any adverse inference against the defendant merely because he had not directly stated his belief to police officers during questioning, saying that “the approach had clearly crossed the line”. However, the judge considered this only one of the reasons why the trial court rejected the defendant’s evidence and said it did not render the conviction unsafe. The judge also noted that the defendant had assisted the police and ruled that he was entitled to a one-month reduction in sentence.
2020 年 4 月，21 歲大專男生在葵涌警署附近，被搜出兩支疑似汽油彈，被控在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器罪。辯方於原審時質疑警長「自編自導自演」，設局陷害被告，原審裁判官則裁決指沒有證據證明警長設局。被告受審後被裁定罪成，判監 14 個月，被告不服定罪及判刑提上訴，高院暫委法官郭啟安周一（19 日）頒下判詞，駁回其定罪上訴。
上訴方爭議，原審認為辯方指控警長設局一事沒有證據可以支持屬錯誤。法官指，沒出庭的中間人「A」證供為傳聞證供，並同意原審所指，最關鍵是上訴人是否知悉當時攜有汽油彈。
就原審指，上訴人於警察查問時支吾以對；法官認為，原審絕不可能，因被告沒在被查問時，直接向警員說出其信念，而對被告作出任何不利推論，指「有關做法明顯已經逾越了紅線」，但認為這只是原審拒納被告證供的其中一個理由，沒有導致定罪不穩妥。另官指，被告曾向警方提供協助，裁定可獲減刑一個月。
17 Jan 2024法庭線#2830
警不展示編號被裁違人權法 警上訴爭議新證據 上訴庭剔除部分、准警再回應
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.
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。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
