23 Aug 2024法庭線#3934
反恐首案｜法官指涉案炸彈可致400米範圍內嚴重傷亡 伸縮棍與本案控罪無關
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 79th day on Friday (23rd), with Judge Cheung Wai-ling on the sixth day of summing up the evidence and directing the jury.
The judge summarised testimony from several experts in the case. Regarding one large and one small homemade bomb seized near Wah Yan College, Hong Kong, experts said the nails inside would increase their destructive power. If someone placed a bomb on a busy street, it could cause serious casualties within a 400-metre radius. As for the telescopic baton seized from the warehouse of “Dragon Slaying Brigade”, the judge reiterated that it was unrelated to the charges in the case. Even if it was believed that members of “Dragon Slaying Brigade” had used it during protests, such conduct was “uncharged conduct”.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周五（23 日）在高等法院踏入第 79 天審訊，法官張慧玲第 6 天總結供詞及引導陪審團。
法官總結本案多名專家的供詞，當中針對警方於香港華仁書院附近搜獲的一大一細土製炸彈，專家指內含鐵釘增加威力，若有人在繁忙街道放置炸彈，可造成 400 米範圍內嚴重人命傷亡。至於在「屠龍」貨倉中被檢取的伸縮棍，法官重申伸縮棍與本案的控罪無關，即使認為「屠龍」成員曾在示威中使用，均屬「不被控告的行為」。
23 Aug 2024獨媒#3936
獅子山展示對聯 陳伯不認罪9.30審訊 擬爭議憲法下言論自由權利
“Grandpa Chan” Ki Kau Chan was accused of displaying the couplet “With arched eyebrows, I coldly defy a thousand fingers; bowing my head, I willingly serve as a willing ox for the children” on Lion Rock on Sept. 28 last year, on the eve of the Mid-Autumn Festival, and was subsequently arrested by police. He denied one charge of “displaying a banner in a country park without a permit”. The case came before Kowloon City Magistrates’ Court today (the 23rd) for a pre-trial review. The defence confirmed that it would not dispute that Chan had displayed the couplet on Lion Rock, but intended to raise a legal challenge concerning the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Acting Chief Magistrate Ko Wai-hung accordingly listed the case for a one-day trial on Sept. 30.
「陳伯」陳基裘於去年中秋前夕（9月28日），被指在獅子山展示「橫眉冷對千夫指 俯首甘為孺子牛」對聯，事後被警方拘捕。他否認一項「沒有許可證下於郊野公園內展示條幅」，今（23日）於九龍城裁判法院審前覆核。辯方確認不會爭議陳曾經在獅子山上展示對聯，惟打算提出法律爭議，圍繞憲法下的言論自由權利。署理主任裁判官高偉雄遂將案件排期至9月30日作一日審訊。
23 Aug 2024法庭線#3937
大坑西邨重建 官拒平民屋宇恢復收樓訴訟 判詞：法庭有責制止乘財力優勢行事
Tai Hang Sai Estate in Shek Kip Mei is to be demolished and redeveloped. The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited, which built and manages the estate, set March 15 this year as the deadline for tenants to move out and subsequently brought civil claims against 67 residents who refused to leave. Thirteen of them failed to reach a settlement. The Corporation sought to resume the legal proceedings, but District Court Judicial Registrar Wing Sum Soong rejected its application in a judgment handed down on Thursday (the 22nd).
The judge said most of the residents were elderly people from grassroots backgrounds and that, from their perspective, the dispute arose from the loss of their homes, concerning their lives and survival in their later years. The judge also said everyone should have the opportunity of a fair trial: “If any party to litigation attempts to exploit its advantage in financial strength and resources to use procedural convenience to quickly obtain judgment against residents and bring the matter to a hasty conclusion, the court has a duty to stop it.”
One defendant resident said they were “extremely happy” with the judgment, describing it as “finally having a ‘person of justice’ step forward”. The resident also said residents were raising funds to prepare for a judicial review. The Corporation said in a statement that it disagreed with the judgment and would appeal, adding that it had always put people first in the Tai Hang Sai New Estate redevelopment plan and rehousing arrangements and maintained communication with tenants. It said more than 99% of tenants had accepted the arrangement and moved out so far.
石硤尾的大坑西邨將清拆重建，興建與管理該邨的「平民屋宇有限公司」定今年 3 月 15 日為租戶搬遷限期，隨後以民事控告 67 名拒絕遷出的居民。當中 13 人和解不果，「平屋」要求恢復法律程序，區院司法常務官宋泳琛周四（22 日）頒下判詞，拒絕「平屋」一方的申請。
法官指，注意到大部分居民為年邁基層，從他們角度，爭議源於喪失了他們的家，是關乎他們在晚年生活和生存，又指任何人也應獲公平審訊的機會，「若有任何訴訟方企圖乘財力和資源之優勢，以程序之便快速地針對居民取得判決，以草草了事，法庭有責任加以制止。」
有被告居民指對判決「非常之開心」，形容「終於有個『正義之士』行出嚟」，又指居民間正籌錢準備司法覆核。「平屋」發聲明表示不認同判決，將會提出上訴，又指「大坑西新邨重建計劃及回遷安排上一直以人為本，與住戶保持溝通」，至今逾 99% 租戶接受方案並遷出。
23 Aug 2024集誌社#3938
壁屋懲教所傷人案｜18 歲還押少年受襲 兩懲教、四羈留人士轉介區院 9.12 再訊
A then-serving Correctional Services Assistant II and four detainees allegedly used a wooden stick to injure an 18-year-old remanded person at Pik Uk Correctional Institution, which holds juvenile offenders aged 14 to 20, in late 2023, causing permanent injury. The prosecution later charged another then-serving Correctional Services Assistant I and applied today (23rd) for the two cases to be dealt with together and referred to the District Court. Magistrate Edward Ching Yu Wong approved the application. The case will be adjourned until September 12 for mention at the District Court.
一名時任二級懲教助理及四名羈留人士涉於 2023 年底，在關押 14 至 20 歲少年犯的壁屋懲教所，以木棍捅傷一名 18 歲還押人士，導致造成永久傷害。控方及後再起訴一名時任懲教一級助理，今日（23日）申請兩宗案件合併處理及轉介區域法院。裁判官王證瑜批准申請，案件將押後至 9月 12日於區域法院提訊。
22 Aug 2024法庭線#3928
反恐首案｜法官引導陪審團 引述李家田供稱遭警暴 賴振邦沒作供故沒相關證供
The trial of the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, in which seven defendants have pleaded not guilty, entered its 78th day at the High Court on Thursday (22nd). Judge Cheung Wai-ling was on the fifth day of summarising the testimony and directing the jury.
Summarising the evidence of the only defendant to testify, Lee Ka Tin, Christian, the judge said Li testified that he was punched and kicked and waterboarded several times when police came to his home to arrest him. He also said he was threatened that harm would come to his mother, and that he confessed under police direction. The arresting officers denied in court that Li had suffered police violence.
The judge also recounted the case concerning defendant Lai Chun-pong, noting that the defence had alleged that officers tried to force Lai to drink Dettol and disinfectant alcohol, which the officers denied in court. The judge said that because Lai had chosen not to testify, there was no relevant evidence in the case, and the jury must determine whether the officers' evidence was credible.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周四（22 日）在高等法院踏入第 78 天審訊，法官張慧玲第 5 天總結供詞及引導陪審團。
就案中唯一作供被告李家田的證供，法官總結指，李供稱被警方上門拘捕時，遭拳打腳踢及多次用水刑，又被威嚇會對其母親不利，稱自己在警方的引導下作出招認。而拘捕警員則於庭上否認李遭受警暴。
法官另覆述被告賴振邦的案情，提到辯方曾指警員嘗試逼賴「飲滴露」和消毒酒精，而警員於庭上否認。法官指，但由於賴選擇不作供，故本案沒有相關證供，陪審團須判斷警員的證供是否可信。
22 Aug 2024法庭線#3931
國安處控3人藉中小企百分百擔保貸款計劃 串謀詐騙逾473萬元 2025.8開審
Two men and a woman are accused of defrauding more than $4.73 million through the SME 100% Guarantee Loan Scheme. They were charged by the police’s National Security Department with four offences, including conspiracy to defraud and money laundering. The case was mentioned again at the District Court on Thursday (22nd). The female defendant intends to plead guilty, while the two male defendants will plead not guilty and stand trial. The trial is scheduled to begin on 18 August next year and is expected to last 10 days. All three defendants remain on bail pending trial.
兩男一女被指透過中小企百分百擔保貸款計劃，詐騙逾 473 萬元，被警方國安處起訴串謀欺詐、洗黑錢等 4 罪，案件周四（22 日）於區院再訊。女被告擬認罪，兩名男被告則將不認罪受審，審訊排期明年 8 月 18 日開審，預留 10 天審期，各被告續保釋候審。
21 Aug 2024法庭線#3924
FB問「點樣殺死林鄭」 六旬漢警誡下辯稱開玩笑 官問控方何不控煽惑謀殺
A retired man in his 60s is accused of posting “Seriously think about how to kill Carrie Lam” on Facebook in February 2020. He denies a charge of inciting another person, with intent, to cause someone grievous bodily harm. The case began at the District Court on Wednesday (21st).
六旬退休漢被指於 2020 年 2 月，在 Facebook 發布「真係認真諗吓 點樣殺死林鄭」的私人帖文。他否認「煽惑他人有意圖而導致有人身體受嚴重傷害」罪，案件周三（21 日）於區院開審。
控方播放被告與警方的錄影會面，被告承認因為不滿時任特首林鄭月娥的管治，「講啲比較刻毒嘅說話」，旨在開玩笑「吹下水」，無意使用暴力，更無意殺害對方，只希望朋友「笑下開心啲，等大家冇咁多怨氣」。
法官陳廣池一度關注，帖文字面上「嚴格嚟計呢個係謀殺㗎喎直頭」，詢問控方為何不控以煽惑他人謀殺罪。控方解釋已考慮《檢控守則》，認為控罪合適。審訊周四續。
21 Aug 2024明報#3926
本港公務員申移居台灣被拒 拒辭現職、已宣誓成「安全風險」
Amid reports in recent years of Hong Kong people facing difficulties moving to Taiwan, a Hong Kong civil servant’s application two years ago to reside in Taiwan with a Taiwanese spouse was rejected, and an appeal was dismissed this year. The judgment said the Taiwanese authorities had required the applicant to resign as a civil servant and provide plans for future residence in Taiwan in order to obtain a residence permit. It also noted that Taiwan’s National Immigration Agency may reject a residence application if a Hong Kong civil servant is considered to have circumstances that “give rise to harm to the interests of the ‘state’, public safety or public order”. Examples included “taking an oath or signing a declaration supporting the Hong Kong Basic Law” and “pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong Government without leaving the post”. The applicant had stated when applying that they would not resign and emphasised that they would travel to Taiwan only from Friday to Sunday. The applicant objected to being deemed a “security risk” solely because of their status as a civil servant, but the grounds were not accepted by the Taipei High Administrative Court.
近年不時有指港人移居台灣面對困難，一名本港公務員前年申請隨台籍配偶在台居留被拒後上訴，至今年再被駁回。判辭透露台方曾要求事主必須辭任公務員及提供未來在台居留規劃，方可取得居留證，亦提及台灣的移民署認為若申請人屬本港公務員而「衍生有危害『國家』利益、公共安全、公共秩序之情事」，則可拒絕居留申請，並舉例包括「宣誓或簽署聲明擁護香港《基本法》」、「效忠香港政府且未離職」。事主申請時則表明不會辭職，又強調只會於逢周五至周日赴台，不滿單單因為公務員身分就被認定具有「安全風險」，但理據不為台北高等行政法院接受。
21 Aug 2024法庭線#3927
反恐首案｜法官引導陪審團 若不信納李家田證供 仍須考慮能否肯定為本案串謀者
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven people have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 77th day at the High Court on Wednesday (the 21st), with Judge Cheung Wai-ling on the fourth day of summing up the evidence and directing the jury.
The judge said that if the jury did not accept the evidence of defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian and considered that he had not merely observed but had also participated in the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” operation, involving offences including rioting and arson, these were uncharged acts in the present case and did not mean that Li had a criminal propensity to commit the conspiracy offence charged in this case. The judge stressed that the operation could only be considered as background, and that the jury had to consider whether the prosecution could prove that Lee Ka Tin, Christian was one of the conspirators in the case and had possessed a pistol and ammunition.
The judge also summarised how Victor Chun Keung Wong and Eddie Pang Kwan-ho became accomplice witnesses. Victor Chun Keung Wong said that, having had a change of heart and wanting to account for the events, he changed his plea to guilty, and denied giving evidence in exchange for a sentence reduction of up to 50%. Wong at one point complained that he had been assaulted by police when arrested, but told the court that he could not determine whether he had been beaten.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周三（21 日）在高等法院踏入第 77 天審訊，法官張慧玲第 4 天總結供詞及引導陪審團。
法官指，陪審團若不信納被告李家田的證供，認為他不只在旁觀察，更有份參與「屠龍」行動，涉暴動、縱火等罪行，但此為本案中沒被控訴的行為（uncharged acts ），不代表李有干犯本案串謀的犯罪傾向。官強調，有關行動僅可作背景參考，須考慮控方能否令陪審團肯定，李家田為案中串謀者，以及曾管有手槍和彈藥。
官另總結黃振強、彭軍壕轉任從犯證人的經過。其中黃振強稱良心發現希望交代事件，改為認罪，否認為最多 50% 減刑而作供；黃一度投訴被捕時遭警施襲，但在庭上稱無法界定是否被打。
20 Aug 2024法庭線#3920
11.12荃灣｜兩男非法集結等罪不成立 律政司上訴要求發還原審重新考慮
In November 2019, netizens called for a “three strikes” action, and clashes broke out across Hong Kong. Two men were accused of taking part in an unlawful assembly in Tsuen Wan and violating the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation. They were found not guilty in June 2021. The Department of Justice lodged an appeal by way of case stated. The High Court began hearing the appeal on Tuesday (20th). After hearing submissions, the judge Anthony Kai On Kwok adjourned the case, with judgment to be delivered within two months.
The Department of Justice argued that the judgment in the “Lo Kin-man case” had been handed down after the decision in this case, and asked for the case to be remitted to the original magistrate to reconsider it in light of the clarified legal principles. The defence questioned whether this would effectively give the Department of Justice two opportunities to prosecute, saying, “It seems this method doesn’t work—try another one,” and argued that the approach was unfair to the defendants.
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。律政司以案件呈述方式提出上訴，高等法院周二（20 日） 開庭審理，法官郭啟安聽罷陳詞，押後兩個月內頒裁決。
律政司一方陳詞指，本案裁決後出現「盧建民案」判決，希望發還讓原審裁判官，根據釐清後的法律原則重新考慮；答辯方質疑，此舉無疑讓律政司有兩次機會作出檢控，「好似用呢個方法唔得喎，用另一個方法啦」，做法對答辯人不公。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
