22 Mar 2024法庭線#3226
元朗7.21｜一白衣人認暴動還押 第九人罪成 涉向閘內挑釁、用藤條襲擊
In the Yuen Long 7.21 attack case, four more white-clad men were charged with rioting and other offences four years later. One of them, Tang Siu-hung, pleaded guilty at the District Court on Friday (22nd) and was remanded until 18 April for sentencing. He was the ninth white-clad man to be convicted and was reported to have no triad background.
The case stated that Tang pointed from outside the gate at the black-clad people inside and repeatedly shouted “Come over here” to taunt them. On two other occasions, he waved beside the turnstile to signal other white-clad men to enter. He cursed and shouted “I’ll hit you”, threatening to attack those inside the gate; he also assaulted people inside and used a rattan cane to attack people outside.
In mitigation, the defence said Tang had seen a female passer-by lying on the ground and had gone over to “show concern to some people”. It said he was now living in faith and understood that he had used the wrong way to express his demands. The defence also referred to Tang being assaulted in prison, having his belongings taken, and family photographs torn up. The judge asked whether there was any case supporting these matters as mitigation; the defence said there was not, describing them only as grounds for mitigation taken as a whole.
元朗 7.21 襲擊 ，事隔 4 年後再多 4 名白衣人被落案起訴暴動等罪，其中一人周五（22 日）在區院認罪，還押至 4 月 18 日判刑。他是第九名白衣人罪成，報稱無三合會背景。
案情指 ，被告鄧兆雄在閘外指向閘內黑衣人，多次大聲叫喊 「過嚟吖」作挑釁；另兩度在閘機旁招手，示意其他白衣人入閘。他曾指罵、叫喊「打你呀」，威嚇攻擊閘內的人，並曾在閘內襲擊，在閘外則用藤條襲擊。
辯方求情指，被告曾看到女途人倒地，都有上前「對一啲人展出關心」，稱他現時活在信仰中，已知用錯方法表達訴求。辯方求情提及鄧於獄中被打、搶走用品及撕掉家人相片，官關注有沒有案例支可構成求情，辯方指沒有，稱僅為整體的求情理由。
18 Mar 2024獨媒#3198
【元朗7.21】控方稱「吹雞」指召集人 可用於添丁時叫村民恭賀 官認為屬「黑社會術語」
In the 21 July 2019 Yuen Long incident, former Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting and six men are charged with rioting. The trial entered its 31st day today (the 18th). Lam earlier called then Yuen Long District Council member Zachary Wai Yin Wong to testify, and the witness was cross-examined by the prosecution today. Wong previously said that, in village affairs, he understood “blow the whistle” to mean “showing force”. The prosecution asked: “Could ‘blow the whistle’ mean calling other people together, and not necessarily ‘showing force’?” Judge Chan Kwong-chi considered that the witness was unable to answer. The prosecution then asked: “If the chairman of a rural committee had a new baby, could he ‘blow the whistle’ to call villagers to come and congratulate him?” Judge Chan said the concept was mistaken and disallowed the question, saying: “Everyone knows, and also believes, that ‘blow the whistle’ has a bit of triad jargon to it and carries a special meaning.” Judge Chan stressed: “I am not saying this based on the testimony of an expert witness. Everyone knows that ‘blow the whistle’ has a special meaning. If these two concepts ... are combined and you say that even eating poon choi involves ‘blowing the whistle’, with respect, that is somewhat laughable.” The prosecution responded: “I am really sorry; I often tell my friends to ‘blow the whistle’ for a meal.” Judge Chan said: “Whether in films or stories, jargon that is not used by ordinary people has been transformed into so-called language commonly used by Hong Kong or Cantonese people, with what ‘Mark Gor’ says also becoming everyday language.” (“Mark Gor” is the character played by Chow Yun-fat in the film A Better Tomorrow.)
2019年7.21元朗事件中，前立法會議員林卓廷與6男被控暴動罪，今（18日）踏入第31天審訊，林卓廷早前傳召時任元朗區區議員黃偉賢作供，他今接受控方盤問。黃早前稱，理解鄉事說「吹雞」指「曬馬」。控方問：「『吹雞』意思可能係召集其他人，唔一定係『曬馬』？」法官陳廣池認為證人無法回答。控方再問：「如果鄉事委員會主席添丁，係咪可以『吹雞』叫村民嚟恭賀？」陳官認為概念有錯，故不批准問題：「大家知道，亦都相信『吹雞』有少少黑社會術語，有特殊意思。」陳官強調：「我唔係話畀緊專家證人口供，大家知道吹雞有特殊意思。如果將呢兩個概念⋯⋯話食盆菜都『吹雞』，恕我直言，有少少貽笑大方。」控方回應：「真係唔好意思，我成日都叫朋友『吹雞』食飯。」陳官表示：「電影又好，故事又好，將不是普通人嘅術語，變化咗所謂香港或者廣東人常用嘅（用語），將『Mark哥』講啲嘢都變咗日常用語。」（「Mark哥」為電影《英雄本色》中，周潤發所飾演的角色。）
14 Mar 2024法庭線#3177
7.21非白衣人案｜林卓廷指當晚多人看直播信有人報警 官問開唔開心
Former Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting and six other “non-white-shirt” defendants, charged with taking part in the riot at Yuen Long Station on 21 July, began the 29th day of their trial at the District Court on Thursday (14th). The prosecution questioned why Lam did not call the police again after arriving at the scene. Lam reiterated that he was unable to attend to everything at once, and said a colleague had told him that hundreds of thousands of people were watching the livestream, leading him to believe someone had called the police.
Judge Chan Kwong-chi asked Lam, “Were you happy?” Lam said, “I wasn’t happy. This shouldn’t have happened. I was beaten until my mouth was split open and bleeding—what was there to be happy about?” The judge clarified that he was not asking whether Lam was happy that people had seen him being beaten, but whether he was happy that hundreds of thousands of people had watched the livestream. Lam replied, “I wasn’t happy at all. Why would I be happy that so many people watched something like this happen?”
Lam also admitted that he had joined others in chanting “Hong Kong people, keep it up”, but later felt it was inappropriate and stopped after thinking that someone might “make an issue of it”. The prosecution also questioned Lam over having referred to the people inside the gates as “brothers”, asking, “White-shirted people are technically also citizens. Did you tell your brothers not to hit [people]?” Lam said, “How could I call him my brother? He was hitting me. Wouldn’t that be too absurd?” The trial continues on Friday.
前立法會議員林卓廷與另外 6 名「非白衣人」，被控參與 721 元朗站暴動，周四（14 日）在區院展開第 29 天審訊。控方質疑林到場後為何不再報警，林重申因分身不暇，又指同事告知有幾十萬人看直播，相信有人報警。
法官陳廣池問林，「你開唔開心呀？」林稱，「我唔開心呀，呢件事唔應該發生，俾人打到個嘴穿晒流緊血，有咩咁開心呀？」官澄清再問，「唔係問睇到你俾人打都開心，係問你開唔開心有幾十萬人睇直播」。林答稱「我一啲都唔開心，發生啲咁嘅事多人睇，點解開心呀？」
林另承認，曾隨他人叫過「香港人加油」口號，其後覺不適合，並想起或有人「造文章」所以停止。控方又質疑林曾稱閘內人為「兄弟」，而「白衣人技術上都叫市民，你有冇叫兄弟唔好打？」林稱，「點會叫佢兄弟？佢打緊我，會唔會太過荒謬？」審訊周五續。
12 Mar 2024法庭線#3159
7.21元朗｜4白衣人事隔4年被控暴動 一人擬不認罪
Four “white-clad men” have been charged with rioting and other offences over the 7.21 Yuen Long attack. Three appeared at the District Court on Tuesday (12th). One said he intended to plead not guilty. His senior counsel said he might wait until after the hearing of a co-defendant who intends to plead guilty before deciding whether to change his plea. Judge Ko King-shiu warned that this might affect any guilty-plea reduction, and counsel said he maintained the current intended not-guilty plea.
The other two defendants said they needed time to seek legal advice, with one indicating that plea negotiations with the prosecution might be involved. The judge adjourned the case until 11 April for a further hearing. One defendant was allowed to continue on bail, while the other two made no bail applications and remained remanded in custody.
元朗 7.21 襲擊 4 名「白衣人」被落案起訴暴動等罪，當中 3 人周二（12 日）在區院應訊，一人稱擬不認罪，其代表大狀稱或待同案擬認罪被告聆訊後，再看會否更改答辯意向；法官高勁修提醒，屆時或影響認罪扣減，大狀稱保留現時擬不認罪答辯。
另外兩被告則稱，需時索法律意見，一人指或涉與控方認罪商討。法官押後至 4 月 11 日再訊，一人續准擔保，另外兩人沒保釋申請，繼續還押。
7 Mar 2024法庭線#3120
首宗721白衣人暴動案上訴 「飛天南」已服畢刑期 坐被告欄外聽審
In the first case involving white-shirted men accused of the 7.21 attack in Yuen Long, seven defendants were convicted and one acquitted. The High Court’s Court of Appeal on Thursday (the 7th) dealt with conviction and sentencing appeals by Tang Wai-sam, Ng Wai-nam, Tang Ying-pan and Alex Lap Kee Choi, as well as the Department of Justice’s appeal by way of case stated against the acquittal of first defendant Zhirong Wang. Ng Wai-nam and Tang Ying-pan have completed their sentences. Ng and Wong sat together outside the dock.
Tang Wai-sam said his former legal representatives had allegedly provided incorrect legal views, saying that self-defence could not be used as a defence, resulting in an unfair trial. Ng Wai-nam said he had acted as a “peacemaker” at the time, prompting the judge to ask: “A peacemaker wouldn’t join in beating people, would they?” Tang Ying-pan said his conduct did not constitute a breach of the peace. The judge questioned whether carrying a stick amounted to possessing a weapon, asking: “Does that count as rioting? You tell me.” Tang’s representative said: “No.” Alex Lap Kee Choi will continue making submissions on Friday.
As for Zhirong Wang, the Department of Justice said there were six significant pieces of circumstantial evidence in the case that clearly identified Wong’s participation in the riot. It said that if the appeal were allowed, it hoped the matter could be remitted to the trial District Court judge, Eddie Chor Man Yip, for a fresh determination.
元朗 7.21 襲擊首宗白衣人案，7 被告罪成，一人罪脫。高院上訴庭周四（7 日）處理鄧懷琛、「飛天南」吳偉南、鄧英斌及蔡立基的定罪及刑期上訴；以及律政司就首被告王志榮無罪裁決的案件呈述上訴。吳偉南、鄧英斌已完成服刑。吳與王一併坐在被告欄外。
鄧懷琛指，原法律代表涉提供錯誤法律觀點，稱不可用「自衛」抗辯，釀審訊不公。吳偉南則稱當時任「和事佬」，被官質疑「和事佬唔會加入埋打人㗎嘛？」鄧英斌則稱其行為不構成破壞社會安寧，官質疑攜棍涉持武，「咁樣係咪暴動呢？你話係咪呢？」鄧的代表稱「唔係」。蔡立基將於周五繼續陳詞。
至於王志榮，律政司指案中有 6 個重大環境證供，能清晰辨認王參與暴動，指若上訴得直，望可交予原審區院法官葉佐文重新裁決。
14 Dec 2023法庭線#2665
7.21非白衣人案｜林卓廷申撤保釋獲准 獲退兩萬元擔保金 明年3月續審
Former Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting and six other “non-white-shirted people” were charged with rioting at Yuen Long Station on 21 July 2019. They were ruled last month to have a case to answer, with the defence case adjourned to March 2024. Lam, who had been granted bail, applied to withdraw his bail at the District Court on Thursday (14th). The prosecution did not object, and Judge Chan Kwong-chi approved the application and ordered the return of the HK$20,000 bail money.
Lam was represented by barrister Kwan Chi-hang, who said he had written to the court last week to apply for the bail to be withdrawn. The judge asked why the application had not been made on 23 November 2023, when the case was ruled to have a case to answer, saying, “then there would have been no need to specially convene a hearing now.” Kwan replied that the decision was made only after discussing it with Lam following the ruling that there was a case to answer.
The judge then turned to the prosecution representative, Senior Public Prosecutor Wei Min Cheng of the Department of Justice, saying, “I believe the prosecution has no reason, and also no right, to object.” Cheng agreed. When leaving the courtroom, Lam waved to his legal representatives and said, “Thank you very much.” Lam is also currently remanded in custody in connection with, among other cases, the case involving the 47 people in the pro-democracy primary.
前立法會議員林卓廷與另外 6 名「非白衣人」，被控 2019 年 7 月 21 日在元朗站暴動案，上月被裁定表證成立，押後 2024 年 3 月展開辯方案情。獲保釋的林周四（14 日）在區院申請撤回保釋，控方不反對，獲法官陳廣池批准，並發還兩萬元擔保金。
林由大律師管致行代表，表示上周去信法庭申請撤銷保釋。法官問，為何不在 2023 年 11 月 23 日表證成立當天提出，「就唔使（而家）特登開庭」。管答，是表證成立之後方與林討論，再有此決定。
官轉問控方代表、律政司高級檢控官程慧明，「相信控方無理由，亦都無權反對啦」。程同意。退庭時，林對其法律代表揮手指「唔該晒」。目前林另亦因民主派初選 47 人等案還押。
23 Nov 2023法庭線#8692
7.21非白衣人案｜法官陳廣池裁定 林卓廷等7被告暴動罪表證成立 7人均擬作供
Former Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting and six other “non-white-shirt” defendants were charged with rioting at Yuen Long Station on 21 July 2019. On Thursday (23rd), the 22nd day of the trial at the District Court, Judge Chan Kwong-chi ruled that a prima facie case had been established against all seven defendants on the riot charges and that they had a case to answer. The trial was adjourned to 5–28 March 2024, when the defence cases are expected to begin.
The defence said that all seven defendants intend to testify. Lam intends to call five additional defence witnesses, one of whom has been granted an anonymity order. The third defendant intends to call one additional witness. The other five defendants will call no witnesses.
The judge at one point said he was “not in favour” of and that it was “not ideal” to schedule the trial period as proposed. Lam’s side said he was involved in a case in the Court of First Instance, where closing submissions would be made on 29 November. The judge then said, “Then it must be given back to the Court of First Instance.” That case is the pro-democracy primary election 47-person case, in which Lam is charged with conspiracy to subvert state power. He and 15 other defendants have pleaded not guilty.
前立法會議員林卓廷與另外 6 名「非白衣人」，被控 2019 年 7 月 21 日在元朗站暴動，周四（23 日）在區院展開第 22 天審訊，法官陳廣池裁定，7 名被告暴動罪表證成立，需要作出答辯。案件押後至 2024 年 3 月 5 日至 28 日續審，料屆時開始辯方案情。
辯方指，7 名被告均擬出庭作供。林擬另傳召 5 名辯方證人，其中一證人獲批匿名令；第三被告擬另傳一名證人。其餘 5 名被告則不傳證人。
法官一度指對審期「唔贊成亦都唔理想」。林卓廷一方指，他涉及高院原訟庭一宗案件，將於 11 月 29 日作結案陳詞。法官即稱，「咁一定要畀返原訟庭啦。」該案為民主派初選 47 人案，林被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪，他與另外 15 被告不認罪。
16 Nov 2023法庭線#8654
7.21非白衣人案｜監察CCTV兩警多次匯報聚集、打鬥 警區覆「得啦」、「處理緊」
The prosecution successively called two plainclothes officers stationed at Yuen Long Station to monitor CCTV to testify. Based on the evidence given in court so far, the two officers repeatedly reported gatherings and fights to the Yuen Long Police District operations room. The earliest report was made shortly after about 9:30pm that night, when a sergeant noticed that “there were more people, and more gatherings”, and made a report. After 10:30pm, he noticed fighting and reported it more than 10 times.
The other officer testified that at around 10pm he “saw people in white shirts carrying sticks and shields” entering the station. When chasing and fighting broke out at 10:40pm, he made a report. At about 10:48pm, he reported again after seeing many people gathered in the middle of the concourse and several white-shirted people outside the turnstiles. The two officers quoted several replies from the operations room, including: “We know, that’s enough, OK?” and “We know, we’re handling it.”
During defence questioning, reports cited by the officers stated that three uniformed police officers arrived at the station at 10:52pm. They found about 100 white-shirted people “shouting and calling for a fight”. The three officers withdrew after requesting assistance. According to earlier evidence in court, the Rapid Response Team was instructed to go to Yuen Long Station at around 11pm and arrived about 15 minutes later. The case continues on Friday.
控方先後傳召駐元朗站監察閉路電視的兩名便衣警作供。綜合目前庭上證供，兩人多次向元朗警區行動室匯報聚集、打鬥，最早一次匯報是當晚約 9 時半後，警長指留意到「人群多咗，聚集多咗」，遂作匯報；至 10 時半後 ，他發現有打鬥，曾匯報逾 10 次。
另一警員則供稱，10 時許「見到白衫揸棍揸牌」進站，至 10 時 40 分有追逐、打鬥發生，遂作匯報；約 10 時 48 分，大堂中間有多人聚集，閘機外有多名白衣人，他再匯報。兩警引述行動室數次回覆，分別稱「我哋知道㗎啦，得啦 OK 啦」、「知道我哋處理緊」等等。
據辯方盤問時引述警員匯報，10 時 52 分有 3 名軍裝警到站，當時發現已約 100 白衫人「叫囂、喊打」，3 人求援後撤退。據早前庭上證供，快速反應部隊約 11 時獲指示前往元朗站，約於 15 分鐘後到達。案件周五續。
14 Nov 2023法庭線#8644
7.21非白衣人案｜快速應變部隊指揮官：無印象警員曾匯報 站內多人叫囂喊打
Under questioning by the defence, Lee said he was instructed at about 11 p.m. that night to go to the station to provide assistance, but did not remember the actual content of the instruction. He led his team to arrive at about 11:15 p.m. The defence noted that MTR had made two calls for police assistance that night, reporting fights, and that a uniformed officer who had attended the scene had reported observing about 100 white-shirted people shouting and calling for violence. Lee said he had no recollection of these matters.
The defence played CCTV footage which it said showed that, before the police reached the concourse via the escalator at Exit G, white-shirted people left via the adjacent escalator but subsequently turned back. Lee identified himself as the white-shirted officer leading the group up the escalator, but said he had not noticed anyone nearby at the time, nor noticed that they were carrying sticks and wearing gloves. “When I was running, I was looking at the steps because I was afraid of falling, so I couldn’t see what was beside me.”
Lee subsequently agreed that, when he was instructed to go to the scene, he already knew that many white-shirted people had gathered, and therefore more than 20 officers had to be deployed. He also agreed that they might have engaged in violent acts. The defence further said that, as Lee went up the escalator, he was holding his police baton against his shoulder, indicating that he believed they needed to remain on guard; Lee agreed. The case continues on Wednesday.
辯方盤問下，李稱當晚約 11 時接指示到站協助，但稱不記得指示的實際內容，而他帶隊約 11 時 15 分到場。辯方問及港鐵當晚曾作出兩個報警求助，指有人打鬥，而有曾到場的軍裝警匯報亦提及觀察到約 100 名白衫人士叫囂、喊打；李均稱無印象。
辯方播閉路電視片段，指顯示警沿 G 出口扶手電梯到達大堂前，有白衫人從旁邊的扶手電梯離開，但其後調頭。李認出自己是帶頭走上電梯的白衫警，但指當時沒留意到旁邊有人，亦無留意他們持棍、戴手套，「我跑嗰時望住啲梯級驚跌親，所以側邊啲嘢我睇唔到。」
李其後同意，獲指示到場時，已知悉有不少白衣人聚集，故需派出 20 名以上的警員，又同意他們有可能有暴力行為。辯方又指，李走上扶手電梯時手持警棍放膊頭，顯示他認為要有戒備狀態；李同意。案件周三續。
13 Nov 2023法庭線#8641
7.21非白衣人案｜元朗站主任：曾向車站警務室求助 軍裝警着「照程序做」求助
Senior station management officer E, who was granted anonymity, testified that at 10:43 p.m. that night, he saw from the control room’s CCTV that more than 10 people were arguing near Exit F. As he “felt it was more serious”, he called the police room at the station for help. A uniformed police officer subsequently went to the station control room and told him to “follow procedure”, after which he notified the MTR Operations Control Centre and requested that the police be called.
E confirmed that two plainclothes police officers had been monitoring the CCTV in the control room since the afternoon. As he did not know their mission, he said he “would not disturb them”. During cross-examination, the defence asked whether the plainclothes officers had reacted when the dispute occurred. E said, “Not according to my recollection.” E also said that from 10:56 p.m. that night, he was busy answering calls in the control room, so he was unaware of the situation in the station and did not notice the plainclothes officers. The case will continue on Tuesday.
獲准匿名的高級車站管理主任 E 供稱，當晚 10 時 43 分，從控制室的閉路電視看到 F 出口附近約有 10 多人爭執，因「覺得比較嚴重」，遂致電站內警務室求助，一名軍裝警員其後到車站控制室，著他「照程序做」，他遂通知港鐵車務控制中心，要求報警。
E 確認，由下午開始控制室內有兩名便衣警監察閉路電視，由於他不知兩人的任務，故「唔會騷擾」。辯方盤問時問，當爭執事件發生，便衣警有否反應？E 指，「我記憶中就無」。E 又指，當晚 10 時 56 分起開始在控制室忙於接聽電話，故不清楚站內情況，亦無留意便衣警。案件周二續。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
