13 Jun 2025法庭線#6915
反修例六年 至少44人被律政司刑罰覆核 案發時未成年14人多改判拘留式刑罰
Six years after the anti-extradition bill protests, about 3,000 people have been prosecuted. For some, the end of a trial did not mean the case was over. According to Department of Justice figures and a review by The Witness, the Department of Justice has sought sentence reviews in at least 30 cases involving 44 defendants, 14 of whom were underage when the offences were committed.
The Department of Justice successfully secured revised sentences for 32 of them. More than half were sentenced to imprisonment or had their prison terms increased, while a further 30% had orders such as probation orders changed to custodial sentences, including admission to a training centre. Some underage defendants had their care or protection orders changed to community service and probation orders, resulting in criminal records.
The Court of Appeal largely agreed with the Department of Justice’s grounds for review, stating that the social background at the time of the offences had to be considered when the trial court imposed sentence. Where the charges and facts were serious, considerations of rehabilitation became relatively insignificant compared with the public interest. In unlawful assembly cases, the Court of Appeal also clarified the precedent in the Joshua Wong case, stating that it had never ruled that a more punitive and deterrent sentence should not be imposed where there was no actual violence.
反修例 6 周年，至今約 3,000 人被起訴。對部分人而言，審訊結束不等於案件告終。據律政司數字及《法庭線》翻查，律政司至少就當中 30 宗案提出刑罰覆核，涉及 44 名被告，當中 14 人案發時未成年。
律政司成功覆核當中 32 人的刑罰，他們逾半被改判監或者加監，另有 30 % 由感化令等改為判入勞教中心等拘禁式刑罰。有未成年被告由兒童保護令，改判社會服務令及感化令，並改為留有案底。
上訴庭大多認同律政司的覆核理據，指原審判刑時要考慮案發社會背景、若控罪和案情嚴重，更生的考慮相對公眾利益變得微不足道。就非法集結案，上訴庭亦釐清「黃之鋒案」判例，指該案從未裁定，沒有實質暴力行為就不應處以較具懲罰和阻嚇性的刑罰。
12 Jun 2025法庭線#6898
23條｜22歲男子被指於X、IG發布煽動帖文 控方指不排除有額外控罪 案件押後再訊
A 22-year-old man was accused of posting seditious content on X and Instagram between June last year and April this year. He was charged under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance with “knowingly publishing a publication with seditious intention”. The case came before the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts again on Thursday (12th).
22 歲男子被指於去年 6 月至今年 4 月期間，於 X 和 Instagram 發布煽動帖文，被控《維護國安條例》下的「明知而發布具煽動意圖的刊物」罪，案件周四（12 日）於西九龍裁判法院再提堂。
控方指，案件經警方調查後，發現被告曾發布更多內容，申請押後待索取法律意見，又指預計「非常大機會有額外控罪」。被告由當值律師代表，指不反對控方申請，另申請保釋。《國安法》指定法官、總裁判官蘇惠德考慮後，拒絕其保釋申請，被告繼續還押。案件押後至 7 月 9 日再訊。
12 Jun 2025法庭線#6899
社民連4人被指無牌籌款等 12傳票罪成共罰1.26萬元 官指無字黑布可符招貼定義
Between April and May 2023, League of Social Democrats chairperson Chan Po-ying, vice-chairpersons Chow Ka-fat and Yu Wai-pan, and one other person set up street booths in Causeway Bay and Wan Chai, where they distributed publications printed with donation QR codes and displayed black cloth banners. They faced a total of 12 summonses for “unlicensed fundraising” and “displaying bills or posters without permission”. On Thursday (12th), they were convicted at Eastern Magistrates’ Courts. Chan Po-ying was fined HK$6,600, while the other three defendants were fined between HK$1,000 and HK$3,000.
Magistrate Wat Lai-man said that the freedoms of demonstration and expression were not absolute and could be subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. She found that the defendants had caused a nuisance by setting up street booths and hanging black cloth on the pavement. Although the black cloth contained no written words, the defendants had chanted slogans through loudspeakers. Taken in context, she considered that the black cloth was capable of expressing political views and therefore fell within the definition of a “bill or poster”.
The magistrate also said that, if the defendants had merely intended to express their views, they could have removed the QR codes and bank details from the publications. However, the payment platform linked to the QR code remained active at the time of the offences. Even though the League of Social Democrats’ HSBC bank account had been suspended and the funds could not be withdrawn, that did not mean the defendants had not been carrying out fundraising activities.
2023 年 4 至 5 月期間，社民連主席陳寶瑩、副主席周嘉發和余煒彬等 4 人，在銅鑼灣及灣仔擺街站派發印有捐款二維碼的刊物、展示黑布，被控「無牌籌款」及「未經准許展示招貼或海報」共 12 項傳票罪，周四（ 12 日）在東區裁判法院被裁定罪成，其中陳寶瑩被判罰款 6,600 元，另外 3 人判罰款 1,000 至 3,000 元。
裁判官屈麗雯指，示威及言論自由非絕對，法律可施加合理限制，指被告在行人路擺街站、掛黑布，造成滋擾。雖然黑布沒展示文字，但被告以揚聲器高呼口號，從上文下理了解，認為黑布可表達政見，符合「招貼」定義。
官又指，若被告單純想表達意見，大可刪除刊物上的二維碼及銀行資料，惟二維碼連接的付款平台在案發時仍活躍，即使社民連匯豐銀行戶口被停用，無法提取款項，都不等於被告沒進行籌款活動。
12 Jun 2025法庭線#6901
反修例六年 街頭事件案件數據分析 近2400人被控13類罪名 未完的案有哪些？
Six years after the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Movement, police say more than 10,000 people were arrested and nearly 3,000 prosecuted, but have not provided a breakdown by offence. Over the past several years, The Witness has tracked riot cases. This year, it expanded its scope to compile and analyse more than 2,000 court cases involving different charges that arose from street incidents, using data to review the largest and longest-running social movement in Hong Kong to date.
On 9 June 2019, the Civil Human Rights Front organised a large march against amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. Some protesters who remained at the “bottom of the LegCo building” in the early hours were charged with unlawful assembly, marking the beginning of a series of cases. The government initially refused to withdraw the bill, while society began pressing for the “five demands”. Demonstration-related clashes gradually intensified, reaching a peak in November — on one day of the clashes at the Polytechnic University, 242 people were charged with rioting.
The reporters counted the most common charges and found that the Department of Justice most frequently brought charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, possession of instruments fit for unlawful purposes, assaulting or obstructing police, and possession of offensive weapons, involving more than 2,350 person-charges in total. Tracking 2,382 defendants across 13 categories of offences, the reporters found that 71% were convicted of at least one offence. Of the 1,285 people sentenced to imprisonment, most received terms of less than one year; 29 had aggregate sentences of six years or more.
Six years on, dozens of cases remain unresolved. The second anti-terrorism legislation case involving explosives has already been heard for more than 100 days and is continuing, while the final PolyU riot case will go to trial next year. Some cases have entered the appeal stage. The 7.1 LegCo riot case involving Wong Chung-yeung, Hiu Laam Suen and others is scheduled to be heard in December this year, while the 7.21 case involving people who were not wearing white shirts remains awaiting a hearing date.
反修例運動至今 6 年，警方指拘捕逾一萬人，檢控近 3,000 人，但未提供罪行分類數字。《法庭線》過去數年追蹤暴動案件，今年擴大範圍，整理及分析超過 2,000 宗在街頭發生、涉及不同控罪的法庭案件，用數據回顧這場至今規模最大、歷時最長的社運。
2019 年 6 月 9 日，民陣發起反修訂《逃犯條例》大遊行，有示威者凌晨逗留立法會「煲底」被控非法集結，揭開連串案件序幕。政府起初拒撤回草案，社會醞釀爭取「五大訴求」，示威衝突漸變激烈，至 11 月達至高峰——理大衝突的其中一天有 242 人被控暴動。
記者統計最常見的控罪，發現律政司起用暴動、非法集結、管有非法用途工具、襲警／阻差，以及管有攻擊性武器的次數最多，共逾 2,350 人次被控。記者亦以 13 類控罪追蹤到 2,382 名被告，發現當中 71% 人至少一罪成；而被判囚的 1,285 人之中，大部分刑期在一年以下，當中 29 人的總刑期達至 6 年或以上。
6 年過去，未完的案仍有數十宗。涉及爆炸品的反恐條例第二案已審逾 100 天，仍在繼續，而最後一宗理大暴動案明年開審。部分進入上訴階段，王宗堯、孫曉嵐等人的 71 立法會暴動案排期今年 12 月審理，林卓廷等人的 721 非白衣人案則尚待排期。
11 Jun 2025法庭線#6888
反恐第二案｜第四被告稱被警員打胸口、踩膝蓋 「有意無意」展示配槍逼簽記事冊
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train carriage. The Telegram channel “92 Lots” later claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, while one other person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 114th day at the High Court on Wednesday (11th).
The fourth defendant Christopher Ka Tsun Cheung testified that officers broke into his home and punched him in the chest when he was arrested. He said officers later forced him to sign a police notebook confirming that he had said under caution that he was “not involved in making bombs” and that someone was “testing some explosives” at a unit in Wang Cheong Building. Cheung denied making those statements and said an officer “intentionally or unintentionally” displayed the service pistol at his waist and threatened him, saying: “Just try not signing.”
Cheung also said that an officer had stamped on his left knee during the arrest. Afterward, he was taken from his residence to a police station and an office for investigation. During that time, his left leg hurt and he “could not put it on the ground”, requiring support from officers. He still needed physiotherapy while on remand, and his knee occasionally remains painful. His gait and pelvis have also been affected.
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周三（11 日）於高院踏入第 114 天審訊。
第四被告張家俊出庭作供，指他被捕時曾遭警員破門入屋、拳打胸口等，警員其後強迫他簽署記事冊，確認在警誡下稱自己「無份整炸彈」、有人在宏創坊單位「試緊啲炸藥」等。張否認曾說過這些內容，並指當時警員「有意無意」地展示腰間配槍，威嚇說「你試吓唔簽？」
張又指，被捕時有警員曾踩他左膝，其後他被帶離住所，往警署及辦公室調查，期間左腳感痛楚「唔可以掂地」，需警員攙扶。他在還押期間仍需接受物理治療，現時膝蓋偶爾會感到痛楚，步姿及盤骨亦受影響。
11 Jun 2025法庭線#6896
FB發帖被指不當遭革職 官中教師覆核勝訴 政府上訴指帖文鼓吹暴力
A government-school teacher was accused of posting inappropriate comments targeting the police on Facebook during the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement. Following a disciplinary hearing, she was found to have engaged in misconduct and was dismissed by the Civil Service Bureau. She earlier sought a judicial review, arguing that the authorities had wrongly found her to have engaged in misconduct, and won. The Civil Service Bureau, dissatisfied with the decision, lodged an appeal, which began at the High Court on Tuesday (10th).
The government argued that the teacher’s conduct was serious and openly disregarded government guidelines. It said the public expected teachers to nurture the next generation, not advocate violence, while her posts deepened social divisions and had to be dealt with seriously. The government also argued that the decision could not be considered unreasonable merely because the teacher faced financial difficulties after being dismissed.
The defence argued that the teacher had performed well during her 27 years as a civil servant, and that dismissal had dealt her a severe blow. She had lost her retirement benefits and developed depression. It also argued that the bureau had not given reasons for its decision or considered other disciplinary options, such as compulsory retirement, causing her injustice. After hearing submissions from both sides, the three judges of the Court of Appeal said they would deliver their judgment within nine months.
一名官校教師被指 2019 年反修例運動期間，在 Facebook 發表針對警方的不當言論，經紀律聆訊後被裁定行為不當，遭公務員事務局革職。她早前提出司法覆核，指當局錯誤裁定她行為失當，獲判勝訴。公務員事務局不服決定提上訴，周二（10 日）在高等法院開庭處理。
政府方指，教師的行為嚴重，公然漠視政府指引，又指公眾期望教師培育下一代，非鼓吹暴力，惟其帖文加深社會分歧，當局必須嚴肅跟進。政府方又指，教師不能因被革職面對經濟困難，便說局方決定不合理。
答辯方則指，教師任公務員 27 年間表現良好，革職對她造成嚴重打擊，除失去退休福利，亦患上抑鬱症，又指局方作決定時沒給予解釋，亦沒考慮其他處分方案，例如強制退休，對她造成不公。上訴庭 3 位法官聽畢雙方陳詞，將於 9 個月內頒判詞。
11 Jun 2025法庭線#6897
反恐第二案｜第四被告稱被警員打胸口、踩膝蓋 「有意無意」展示配槍逼簽記事冊
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in a Lo Wu MTR train carriage. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Lots” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, while one remaining person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 114th day on Wednesday (the 11th).
The fourth defendant Christopher Ka Tsun Cheung testified that, when he was arrested, police officers broke into his home and punched him in the chest, among other things. He said officers later forced him to sign a police notebook confirming that, under caution, he had said he “had no part in making the bombs” and that someone was “testing some explosives” at a unit in Wang Chong Fong. Cheung denied saying these things and said the officers “intentionally or unintentionally” displayed the service pistols at their waists to intimidate him, saying, “You try not signing?”
Cheung also said that, during his arrest, a police officer stepped on his left knee. After he was taken from his residence to a police station and offices for investigation, his left leg hurt and he “could not put it on the ground”, requiring support from police officers. He continued to receive physiotherapy while on remand. His knee still occasionally hurts, and his gait and pelvis have also been affected.
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周三（11 日）於高院踏入第 114 天審訊。
第四被告張家俊出庭作供，指他被捕時曾遭警員破門入屋、拳打胸口等，警員其後強迫他簽署記事冊，確認在警誡下稱自己「無份整炸彈」、有人在宏創坊單位「試緊啲炸藥」等。張否認曾說過這些內容，並指當時警員「有意無意」地展示腰間配槍，威嚇說「你試吓唔簽？」
張又指，被捕時有警員曾踩他左膝，其後他被帶離住所，往警署及辦公室調查，期間左腳感痛楚「唔可以掂地」，需警員攙扶。他在還押期間仍需接受物理治療，現時膝蓋偶爾會感到痛楚，步姿及盤骨亦受影響。
10 Jun 2025法庭線#6887
涉未經授權助鄒家成寄投訴信罪成 助理律師向終院申上訴許可
In May 2023, Owen Chow Ka-shing, who was remanded in custody in the “47-person case”, was alleged to have sent, through a lawyer and without authorisation, a complaint letter to the Office of The Ombudsman. The letter complained that the Correctional Services Department had damaged and refused two Buddhist books sent in by his relatives and friends. Chow and a female lawyer were convicted of “taking an unauthorised article out of prison”. Chow was sentenced to three days’ imprisonment and the lawyer was fined $1,800. The two appealed. High Court Judge Cheung Wai-ling upheld the convictions but changed Chow’s sentence to the same $1,800 fine. The latest entry on the Court of Final Appeal website shows that the lawyer involved has applied for leave to appeal to the top court. The Judiciary’s website does not yet show a hearing date.
2023 年 5 月，因「47 人案」還押的鄒家成，被指未經授權下，透過律師寄出予申訴專員公署的投訴信，投訴懲教署損毀及拒絕其親友送入的兩本佛學書籍。鄒與一名女律師被裁定「將未經授權的物品攜離監獄」罪成，鄒判囚 3 日，律師罰款 1,800 元。二人不服上訴，高院法官張慧玲維持定罪裁決，但改判鄒同樣罰款 1,800 元。
終審法院網頁最新顯示，涉案律師已向終院提出上訴許可申請。司法機構網頁暫未顯示聆訊日期。
9 Jun 2025法庭線#6882
反恐第二案｜首被告供稱被警員打傷眼 控方引醫療報告指沒受創 被告否認誣捏
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Lots” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, while one other person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 112th day on Monday (9th).
The first defendant, Ho Cheuk Wai, previously testified that he was subjected to physical force by police at a police station after his arrest, and that his forehead was knocked against the corner of a table, causing pain to his eye. The prosecution produced Ho’s medical report, which showed that he was taken to hospital after his arrest and that examinations found no damage to his vision, visual field or optic nerve, assessing that his eye had suffered no trauma. When Ho attended a follow-up appointment six months later, a narrowed visual field was found, but the doctor ruled out trauma as the cause. Ho confirmed the contents of the report but denied falsely claiming that police had injured his eye.
The prosecution also pointed out that Ho was injured in an assault while on remand two years after his arrest and sought medical attention for eye pain. It suggested that Ho had deliberately avoided mentioning the injury sustained in custody when giving evidence and had shifted responsibility for his eye injury onto the police by fabricating an allegation that they had assaulted him. Ho disagreed, stressing that the assault by a fellow inmate while on remand was unrelated to the present case. The prosecution completed nine days of cross-examination. The trial will continue on Tuesday.
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周一（9 日）於高院踏入第 112 天審訊。
首被告何卓為早前供稱，他被捕後在警署內遭警員以武力對待，額角被撞落檯角致眼睛疼痛。控方展示何的醫療報告，顯示他在被捕後送院，檢查發現視力、視野、視神經等沒有受損，評估其眼睛沒受創傷；半年後何覆診時發現視野收窄，醫生排除是由創傷造成。何確認報告內容，但否認訛稱眼睛被警員打傷。
控方又指出，何被捕後兩年，在還押期間被打傷，因眼痛求診，質疑何作供時刻意避談還押時受傷，將眼睛受傷的責任推卸到警方，誣捏警方毆打他。何不同意，強調還押期間被囚友襲擊與本案無關。控方完成 9 天盤問，審訊周二續。
9 Jun 2025法庭線#6883
10.6灣仔｜兩男暴動無罪發還、罪成候判 1被告曾任李予信助理、李到場旁聽眼通紅
On 6 October 2019, the day after the anti-mask law took effect, netizens organised the “Rally Against Authoritarianism and the Emergency Law”. Five people, including a boy who was 15 at the time of the incident, were charged with rioting and were found not guilty after trial. The Court of Appeal allowed the Department of Justice’s appeal, quashed the acquittals and remitted the case for reconsideration by the trial court. The two defendants reopened their defence cases and gave evidence. On Monday (9th), the District Court found them guilty. They were remanded until the 25th of this month for sentencing together with three others who had pleaded guilty earlier.
The defendant, now 31, was formerly an assistant to Yue Shun Lee. He raised a thumb towards the public gallery, while Yue Shun Lee also attended the hearing and waved to him. Lee left the court with reddened eyes. Acting Judge Ko Wai-hung rejected the two men’s respective claims that they had gone to buy a birthday present for the defendant’s mother and that they had overslept while travelling by vehicle, criticising the evidence as contrary to common sense and difficult to believe.
The judge said that although he did not accept a police officer’s evidence that he had seen the boy throw a petrol bomb, he found that the boy and the other defendant had remained at the scene. The only and irresistible inference was that they had bolstered the crowd’s presence and encouraged and supported the other rioters.
2019 年 10 月 6 日，《禁蒙面法》生效後翌日，網民發起「反極權反緊急法大遊行」，5 人包括一名案發時 15 歲男生被控暴動，經審訊後獲裁罪名不成立。上訴庭裁定律政司上訴得直，撤銷無罪裁決，發還原審重新考慮。兩名被告重開辯方案情、出庭作供，周一（9 日）在區域法院被裁定罪成，與早前認罪的 3 人一併押至本月 25 日判刑。
現年 31 歲的被告曾任李予信的助理，他向旁聽席高舉拇指，李予信亦有到場旁聽，向對方揮手。李離開法院時雙眼通紅。暫委法官高偉雄拒絕接納兩人分別供稱，到場購母親生日禮物及乘車睡過頭，批評供詞不符常理、難以相信。
官指，雖然不接納警員稱目睹男生投擲汽油彈，但認為他與另一被告逗留現場，唯一及無可抗拒的推論，是壯大人群聲勢，鼓勵、支持其他暴動者。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
