19 Feb 2025法庭線#4534
反恐第二案｜第六被告警誡下稱「五飛同西瓜有份整炸彈」 警否認曾勸誘合作
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 the remaining person was charged with attempting to manufacture explosives. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 55th day on Wednesday (19th).
An officer from the Organised Crime and Triad Bureau who arrested sixth defendant Cheung Cheuk-ki testified that Cheung said under caution, “I only know that Ng Fei and Sai Gwa were involved in making bombs,” and voluntarily provided her phone and Telegram password.
The defence alleged that, when police arrested Cheung, they induced her by saying, “If you cooperate with us, nothing will happen,” “You should also think about your family,” and “Your boyfriend has been caught red-handed inside the unit. I advise you to cooperate with the police.” The defence said Cheung provided the password as a result and had not said anything under caution. The officer denied all the allegations. The trial will continue on Thursday.
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（19 日）於高等法院踏入第 55 天審訊。
控方傳召拘捕第六被告張琸淇的有組織罪案及三合會調查科警員，他供稱張在警誡下稱「我淨係知五飛同西瓜有份參與整炸彈」，並自願提供電話和 Telegram 應用程式密碼。
辯方指，警方拘捕張時，誘導她「同我哋合作嘅話，就會冇事」、「你都要諗吓你屋企人」、「你個男朋友喺單位裏面斷正喇，我都勸你同差人合作」等，張因此提供密碼，並不曾在警誡下說過任何話。警員一概否認。審訊周四續。
18 Feb 2025獨媒#4525
許智峯、妻子及母親在港財產被沒收 政府：法庭依法採取行動
Wanted former Legislative Council member Hui Chi-fung posted a High Court confiscation order yesterday, saying that the authorities had confiscated assets in Hong Kong belonging to him, his wife and his mother, including trust money deposited with a law firm as a plaintiff in a civil case. He called the action “absurd in the extreme” and an unequivocal human rights violation, saying it was intended to target those who continued to speak out for democracy and freedom in Hong Kong and constituted political retaliation for his international advocacy work. The HKSAR Government issued a statement last night rejecting the claims, saying the action involved the lawful confiscation of the proceeds of crime of people who had absconded after endangering national security. It said nearly 2.5 million had been transferred by Hui to his mother and wife before he fled Hong Kong, and could be confiscated in accordance with the law.
被通緝的前立法會議員許智峯，昨日貼出高院的財產沒收令，指他、妻子及母親在港的財產被當局沒收，當中包括作為民事案件提告人存放於律師樓的 trust money，指行動荒謬絕倫，是不折不扣的侵犯人權行為，旨在打擊仍在為香港民主與自由發聲的人，對他的國際倡議工作進行政治報復。特區政府昨晚發聲明反駁，指是依法沒收危害國家安全潛逃者的犯罪得益，稱許智峯在潛逃離港前，將近250萬轉贈其母親及妻子，依法可予沒收。
18 Feb 2025法庭線#4529
11.12荃灣｜兩男非法集結等無罪發還原審 一人擬直接向終院申上訴許可
In November 2019, netizens called for a “three-strike” action, and clashes broke out across Hong Kong. Two men were accused of participating in an unlawful assembly in Tsuen Wan and violating the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation. They were acquitted in June 2021. The Department of Justice won an appeal last year, with the High Court quashing the acquittals and remitting the case to the original court for handling. The case was brought before the Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday (the 18th).
Neither defendant had legal representation, and both conducted their own cases. The first defendant, who was a student at the time of the incident, said he would apply for legal aid to apply directly to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal. Magistrate Loretta Suk Han Lau adjourned the case to April 1 for a further hearing, pending the defendant’s handling of the relevant legal proceedings. Both men were continued on bail in the meantime.
2019 年 11 月，網民發起「三罷」，香港各區爆發衝突。兩名男子被指在荃灣參與非法集結及違反《禁蒙面法》，2021 年 6 月被裁定罪名不成立。律政司去年上訴得直，高院撤銷無罪裁決，發還原審處理。案件周二（18 日）在觀塘裁判法院提堂。
兩被告沒有法律代表，自行應訊。案發時為學生的首被告稱，他會申請法援以向終院申請上訴許可。裁判官劉淑嫻遂將案件押後至 4 月 1 日再訊，以待被告處理相關法律程序。兩人期間續准保釋。
18 Feb 2025法庭線#4530
反恐第二案｜辯方揭露隔壁單位與案有關 CIB警員確認拘捕行動前進駐候命
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “Gau Sap Yi Cim” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining defendant was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 54th day on Tuesday (18th).
The defence last Friday introduced CCTV footage showing a man carrying a suitcase in and out of Unit 502 next door before police arrested the defendants in Unit 503 of Wang Cheong Fong. The prosecution recalled a Criminal Intelligence Bureau (CIB) officer to testify. He confirmed in court that he had been stationed in Unit 502 on standby for four days before the arrest operation, and had brought tools for forcing open doors, helmets and other items.
The defence questioned whether, besides transporting equipment, the officer had also brought items to the scene for “planting evidence”. The officer denied this and said the Organised Crime and Triad Bureau, which was responsible for gathering evidence, was unaware of the CIB’s deployment. The trial will resume on Wednesday.
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，周二（18 日）於高等法院踏入第 54 天審訊。
辯方上周五引閉路電視片段揭露，警在在宏創方 503 室拘捕被告之前，有男子帶同行李箱進出隔壁的 502 室。控方重召刑事情報科（CIB）警員作供，他在庭上確認，在拘捕行動前 4 天，已進駐 502 室候命，並帶同爆門工具、頭盔等。
辯方質疑警員除了搬運工具，亦帶同「用嚟插贓」的物品到場。警員否認，又指負責蒐證的有組織罪案及三合會調查科，對 CIB 的部署並不知情。審訊周三續。
17 Feb 2025法庭線#4524
10.6灣仔｜5人暴動無罪發還區院 官准2人重開案情 指涉「重大變化」
On 6 October 2019, the day after the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation took effect, internet users organised an “Anti-Authoritarianism, Anti-Emergency Law Rally”. Five people, including a male who was 15 at the time of the incident, were charged. After trial, they were found not guilty of rioting but guilty of using items to cover their faces. The Court of Appeal subsequently allowed the Department of Justice’s appeal, set aside the five acquittals on the riot charge and remitted the case to the trial court. The case was heard on Monday (17th) on legal arguments raised by two of the defendants.
Based on submissions in court, the case is currently at the stage where both the prosecution and defence have completed their cases and are awaiting the judge’s decision again. The two defendants, who did not give evidence at the original trial, sought to elect to give evidence in light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The defence argued that the Court of Appeal had not directly substituted convictions, but its judgment stated that, on the existing evidence, the defendants should be convicted if they did not give evidence. If the court now refused to allow them to testify, this would be unfair.
The prosecution objected, saying that the Court of Appeal had not introduced any new legal principle, that its case had remained unchanged from the original trial, and that the defendants had chosen not to testify at the original trial after receiving clear legal advice. After consideration, the judge said that the defendants’ acquittals had been overturned and that the Court of Appeal had issued guidance on how inferences should be drawn in riot cases of this kind. This constituted the “material change” referred to in case law. The judge therefore allowed the defendants to give evidence and adjourned the case to 10 March for the trial to continue.
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 歲男生被起訴，經審訊後獲裁暴動罪不成立，使用蒙面物品罪成。上訴庭其後裁定律政司上訴得直，撤銷 5 人暴動無罪裁決，發還原審處理。案件周一（17 日）就兩名被告提出的法律爭議聆訊。
綜合庭上陳詞，案件現時被視為控辯雙方完成案情、等候法官再裁決的階段。兩名原審時沒作供被告，提出因應上訴庭判詞，希望改選擇作供。辯方指，上訴庭沒直接改裁罪成，但判詞提及以目前證據，若被告沒作供，應判處有罪；若法庭現不准被告作供，會構成不公。
控方反對指，上訴庭沒帶出新的法律原則，控方的指控由原審至今不變，而原審時被告在獲清晰法律意見下選擇不作供。法官經考慮後指，被告被推翻無罪裁決，同時上訴庭就此類暴動案應如何推論，下達指導性指引，構成案例所指的「重大變化」，故批准被告作供，案件押後至 3 月 10 日續審。
15 Feb 2025獨媒#4516
陳嘉信被指司法抄襲 投訴不成立：裁斷及結論「絕大部分內容均出自法官手筆」
Last year, High Court Court of First Instance Judge Chan Ka-shun was accused of “judicial plagiarism” after it was revealed that, when writing the judgment in the Wong To Yick trademark case, he had copied most of the plaintiff’s submissions. He was reprimanded by Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Andrew Cheung. The injunction case concerning “Glory to Hong Kong”, which he had originally been assigned to hear, was also transferred to another judge, Anthony Kin Keung Chan. Subsequently, litigants in a succession of cases heard by Judge Chan alleged that he had engaged in judicial plagiarism. In one injunction case, the defendant complained that Judge Chan had copied 95% of the plaintiff’s submissions and had failed to analyse the facts, resulting in an erroneous judgment. The Judiciary responded to the complaint on Thursday (the 13th), saying that after reviewing the judgment, a panel of designated judges considered that although Judge Chan had copied more than 90% of the plaintiff’s submissions, the findings and conclusions were “for the most part written by the judge”, indicating that he had independently assessed and analysed the evidence and relevant law. The complaint was therefore unsubstantiated. At the same time, the panel of designated judges, the Advisory Committee on Complaints Against Judicial Conduct and Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Andrew Cheung all reminded judges that they should avoid extensive judicial plagiarism in future.
高院原訟庭法官陳嘉信去年被揭在黃道益商標案撰寫判詞時涉「司法抄襲」，絕大部分抄襲原告方陳詞，遭終院首席法官張舉能訓誡。他原獲安排審理的《願榮光》禁制令案，亦轉為另一法官陳健強審理。其後接二連三有陳官審理過的案件訴訟方指稱陳官涉司法抄襲，其中一宗禁制令案件中，被告人投訴陳官抄襲了原告人95%的陳詞，亦未有對事實進行分析，因而作出錯誤判決。司法機構周四（13日）就投訴發表回應，指專責法官小組檢視判詞後，認為陳官的判詞雖然抄襲了原告人90%以上的陳詞，但是裁斷及結論「絕大部分內容均出自法官手筆」，反映他曾對證據及相關法律進行獨立評核及分析，因此投訴不成立。同時間，專責法官小組、投訴法官行為諮詢委員會及終院首席法官張舉能均提醒法官，日後應避免大篇幅的司法抄襲。
15 Feb 2025獨媒#4517
馬鞍山火燒人案 林希維被指立場偏頗 投訴不成立：沒表達帶政治傾向言論
On 11 November 2019, a man in Ma On Shan was doused with flammable liquid and set on fire. A married couple were subsequently accused of loudly berating the man, causing people to gather and being highly likely to incite others to breach the peace. After a trial, Magistrate Arthur Hei Wei Lam acquitted them of disorderly conduct in a public place. The Judiciary received a complaint alleging that Arthur Hei Wei Lam was biased. Following an appeal by the Department of Justice, the High Court ordered the decision to be remitted for reconsideration. Magistrate Lam subsequently convicted both defendants and sentenced each to five weeks’ imprisonment. The Judiciary said on Thursday (13th) that a specialist panel of three judges considered that, viewed in the context of the entire trial, the magistrate had not made any improper or politically slanted remarks, and therefore found the complaint unsubstantiated.
The Judiciary said it had received a complaint alleging that Magistrate Arthur Hei Wei Lam was “biased, had failed to give sufficient consideration to all the relevant circumstances of the case, and had wrongly found the defendants not guilty.” The legal proceedings in the case have now concluded. After reading the judgment and sentencing reasons, a specialist panel comprising High Court Court of Appeal judges Au Hing-cheung and Lam Wan-ho, and High Court Court of First Instance judge Keith Kar Hung Yeung, found that the complaint was unsubstantiated.
The specialist panel considered that the magistrate’s decision was a judicial decision, and whether a judicial decision was appropriate did not fall within the scope of complaints against judicial officers. In this case, whether the magistrate’s judicial decision was appropriate had already been dealt with through the appeal process. Although the High Court’s Court of First Instance considered that some of Magistrate Lam’s findings were contrary to common sense and reflected an erroneous understanding of legal principles, it did not find that the magistrate was actually or apparently biased.
2019年11月11日馬鞍山一名男子遭淋易燃液體並放火燒傷，事後兩夫婦被指大聲責罵該男子導致眾人圍觀，相當可能激使他人破壞社會安寧，經審訊裁判官林希維裁定公眾地方擾亂秩序罪不成立。司法機構接獲投訴指稱林希維立場偏頗。案件經歷律政司上訴，高院下令發還重新考慮裁決，林官改裁定二人罪成，各判囚5星期。司法機構周四（13日）發表回應，指3名法官組成的專責小組認為綜觀整個審訊過程，裁判官沒有表達任何不當或帶有政治傾向性的言論，因此投訴並不成立。
司法機構表示收到投訴，指稱裁判官林希維「立場偏頗，沒有充分考慮有關案件的所有相關情況，錯誤地判定被告人無罪。」案件法律程序現已完結，由高院上訴法庭法官區慶祥和林雲浩，以及高院原訟法庭法官楊家雄組成的專責法官小組，閱讀案件的裁決及判刑理由等後，認為投訴不成立。
專責法官小組認為，裁判官所作的裁決屬司法決定，而司法決定是否得當，不屬於投訴司法人員的範疇。就本案而言，裁判官的司法決定是否得當，已透過上訴程序處理。雖然高院原訟庭認為林官的部分裁斷是有悖常情，對法律原則的理解有錯誤，但沒有認為裁判官有實際或表面偏頗之處。
13 Feb 2025集誌社#4512
炒記協主席｜律政司建議勞工處不檢控 鄭嘉如私人檢控前僱主 案件押後至 4.22 提堂
Hong Kong Journalists Association chair Cheng Ka-yu was dismissed by The Wall Street Journal last July, citing “position restructuring”. She filed a claim with the Labour Department in November of the same year. Cheng initiated a private prosecution against the parent company of The Wall Street Journal, alleging that it violated the Employment Ordinance by preventing or intimidating her from exercising her right to participate in a trade union, and consequently terminating her employment contract. The case was heard at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court today (13th), with the Department of Justice also represented in court in addition to the defendant.
The Department of Justice sought an eight-week adjournment to consider whether to intervene in the case. Senior counsel Kei Chi, representing Cheng Ka-yu, objected, saying that the Labour Department had sought legal advice from the Department of Justice on December 6 last year, and that the Department had recommended on December 20 that no prosecution be brought after having already received the relevant documents. He also said the case involved an international news organisation threatening to dismiss an employee for participating in a trade union, in breach of rights under the Trade Unions Ordinance, and was a matter of public interest that required timely and appropriate handling. The magistrate eventually adjourned the case to April 22 for mention.
香港記者協會主席鄭嘉如去年 7 月遭《華爾街日報》以「職位重組」為由解僱，同年 11 月到勞工處提出申索。鄭提出私人檢控，控告《華爾街日報》母公司違反《僱傭條例》，阻止或阻嚇她行使參與工會的權利，並因而終止其僱傭合約。案件今（13日）於東區裁判法院聆訊，除被告一方外，律政司亦派代表出席。
律政司望押後八星期，以待考慮是否介入案件。代表鄭嘉如的資深大律師祁志反對，指勞工處去年 12 月 6 日向律政司索取法律意見，律政司同月 20 日建議不作檢控，當時已收到本案相關文件；又指本案涉國際新聞機構威脅解僱參與工會的僱員，違反職工會條例下的權利，涉公眾利益，需及時妥善處理。裁判官終將案件押後至 4 月 22 日提堂。
12 Feb 2025法庭線#4509
反恐第二案｜警在宏創方單位搜出化學品、電路板引線等 指被告有見證搜屋
Explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an Lo Wu MTR train compartment in early 2020. The Telegram channel “Ninety-Two Lots” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining person was charged with attempting to manufacture explosives. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 51st day on Wednesday (12th).
An evidence officer from the police’s O Division who searched the unit at The Genesis told the court that, while the third defendant Tsz Lok Ng was being questioned by a colleague, there was a break. He used the opportunity to let Ng witness the search of the premises. Multiple packets of powder, chemicals, wires, circuit boards, petrol and other items were found. After the search, he asked Ng to sign the list confirming the items seized. The prosecution said some exhibits, including TATP explosives, had not been brought to court. The trial will continue on Thursday.
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（12 日）於高等法院踏入第 51 天審訊。
搜查涉案宏創方單位的O 記證物警員供稱，第三被告吳子樂接受同僚查問期間有空檔，他趁空檔讓吳見證搜屋，搜出多包粉末、化學品、引線、電路板、汽油等物，完成後請吳簽署確認檢取的物品清單。控方指，部分證物沒帶到庭上，包括 TATP 炸藥。審訊周四續。
11 Feb 2025法庭線#4507
反恐第二案｜辯方指被告三度稱「處理豬咀買賣」惟被警逼改說法 O記警員否認
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “九十二籤” subsequently claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining person was charged with “attempting to manufacture explosives”. All eight pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 50th day on Tuesday (11th). The defence put its case to the O Division officer who arrested third defendant Tsz Lok Ng, saying that the officer took Ng into a disabled toilet, where Ng said at least three times that he had gone to the unit involved to “handle the pig-snout trade”. The officer allegedly said Ng was “messing around” and forced him to give a statement as instructed. The officer had also cited “Little Grass”, an immunity witness in the concrete coffin murder case, as an example to induce Ng to become a tainted witness. The officer denied all of this. The defence further said that when Ng expressed concern about his girlfriend’s safety, the officer told him: “If you don’t cooperate, I can’t guarantee that nothing will happen to her. You’ve heard about the Mong Kok police station rape case,” and “You’ve only been with her for a few months. If I were you, I’d pin everything on her.” The officer also denied these claims. The trial will continue on Wednesday.
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，周二（11 日）於高等法院踏入第 50 天審訊。
辯方對拘捕第三被告吳子樂的 O 記警員指出案情，指該警員帶吳進入殘廁，吳至少三度稱到涉案單位是「處理豬咀買賣」，但被警員指「玩嘢」，並強迫吳按其指示給口供，警員亦曾引「石棺藏屍案」的特赦證人「小草」為例，誘吳轉任污點證人。警員一概否認。
辯方又指，在吳關注女友安危時，該警員稱「你唔合作，我保證唔到佢無事㗎喎。旺角差館強姦案單嘢，你聽過㗎啦」、「你同佢得幾個月貨仔，我係你就推晒畀佢」。警員亦否認。審訊周三續。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
