17 Jul 2024法庭線#3823
反恐首案｜李家田完成8天作供 確認曾按黃振強指示繪圖標警方位置 加上「搵人跟」字眼
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 55th day on Wednesday (the 17th). Defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian gave evidence for the eighth day, completing cross-examination and re-examination. The prosecution continued to quote messages from the “Dragon Slayer” Telegram group, including one in which Lee wrote: “There are only two at the polling station, what do you think, im ready.” Lee explained that he had seen only two police officers at a district council election polling station and, recalling that the group had said there would be radical action, asked members “what do you think”. He also said he wanted to express that he was ready at the scene and could see what was happening. He confirmed that, following instructions from Victor Chun Keung Wong, who had pleaded guilty and claimed to be the captain of Dragon Slaying Brigade, he drew a map marking police positions and added wording such as “find someone to follow”.
Regarding messages in the group before the operation on December 8, including “big plan on Sunday” and “big thing tomorrow”, Lee said he did not understand their meaning. He also said that he went drinking for recreation on the eve of the operation, did not go to the safe house, and ultimately did not attend the operation.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周三（17 日）在高等法院踏入第 55 天審訊。被告李家田第八日作供，完成盤問及覆問。控方續引述「滅龍」TG 群組中的訊息，指李曾發訊指「票站得兩隻，點睇，im ready」。李解釋，當時見區選票站只有兩名警員，想起小隊曾指會有激進行動，故問成員「點睇」，另想表達自己「喺現場準備好，有啲咩事我可以睇到」。他又確認曾按認罪被告、自稱屠龍隊長的黃振強指示，繪圖標記警方位置，並加上「搵人跟」等字眼。
至於在 12 月 8 日行動前，群組中有人提及「星期日有大 plan 」、「聽日大嘢」，李一概指不明白訊息的意思，又指自己於行動前夕去了飲酒消遣，沒有到安全屋，最終沒出席行動。
16 Jul 2024獨媒#3815
社民連街站展示網上捐款二維碼 陳寶瑩無牌籌款罪成上訴 押至8.27宣判
The League of Social Democrats was alleged to have displayed an online donation QR code on a pull-up banner while operating a street booth at the Mong Kok East footbridge in July 2021. Following a trial, chair Chan Po-ying and member Christina Yuen Ching Tang were convicted of unlicensed fundraising and fined. Chan appealed her conviction, and the High Court heard the appeal today (16th). Chan’s side argued that cyberspace was not a “public place”, that displaying the QR code on the banner merely provided information and did not constitute collecting funds, and that calling on others to donate was part of freedom of expression. Acting Judge Yiu Fan-chi said time was needed for consideration and adjourned the ruling to Aug. 27.
社民連被指於2021年7月在旺角東天橋擺街站期間，在易拉架上展示網上捐款QR code，經審訊後，主席陳寶瑩和成員唐婉清被裁定無牌籌款罪成罰款。其中陳寶瑩提出定罪上訴，高院今（16日）進行聆訊。陳一方爭議網絡空間不屬於「公眾地方」，又指在易拉架上展示QR code只是提供資訊的行為，並不構成收集款項，呼籲別人捐款則是言論自由的一部份。暫委法官姚勳智表示需時考慮，押後至8月27日宣判。
16 Jul 2024法庭線#3818
反修例新案 20歲男生涉2020年APM非法集結 事發逾四年後首提堂
On the eve of the National Security Law taking effect in 2020, some internet users organised a “Sing With You” protest at the APM shopping centre in Kwun Tong. Police subsequently entered the mall to disperse the crowd, and four people were arrested that day. More than four years later, another 20-year-old male student was charged with unlawful assembly and appeared for the first time at Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday (16th).
2020 年《港區國安法》生效前夕，有網民在觀塘 APM 商場發起「和你 Sing」示威活動，警方其後入商場驅散，當日有 4 人被捕。事隔四年，再有一名 20 歲男學生被控參與非法集結罪，周二（16 日）在觀塘裁判法院首度提堂。
總裁判官蘇惠德應控方申請，將案件押後至 7 月 23 日答辯（司法機構網站周三顯示改為 7 月 24 日），以待警方準備閉路電視片段及截圖，被告沒有保釋申請，還押候再訊。
16 Jul 2024法庭線#3819
反恐首案｜TG群組稱中大示威者如「童子軍」 李家田：示威者行為愚蠢、自以為領導
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 54th day at the High Court on Tuesday (the 16th). Defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian gave evidence for the seventh day. The prosecution said Li had sent messages during the clashes at CUHK in the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” TG group, saying, “After you left, they became a bunch of boy scouts,” and describing them as “boy scouts who don’t know how to shoot”.
Li told the court that he had witnessed some protesters behaving foolishly, such as using mattresses as shields. He also said that some people were “holding a chicken feather as if it were a command token”. Based on his understanding, there was “no central leadership” at the protest site, but some protesters regarded themselves as leaders there and, “holding a bow”, directed others’ work. He also admitted sending the message “May the whole families of black cops die” in the group, explaining that he had made the comment after reading news reports, using a slogan commonly used by protesters.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（16 日）在高等法院踏入第 54 天審訊。被告李家田第七日作供，控方指李在中大衝突期間，曾於「屠龍」 TG 群組發訊息指，「你哋走咗之後變咗啲童子軍帶」，又形容「童子軍唔識射」等。
李於庭上表示，當時目睹有示威者行為愚蠢，例如以床褥作盾，又形容有人「揸住雞毛當令箭」，稱據其認知，現場示威「冇大台」，但有示威者自以為現場領導者，「揸住弓」指揮他人工作。他又承認，曾於群組發送「黑警死全家」的訊息，解釋當時看新聞後，以示威者常用口號作出評論。
15 Jul 2024法庭線#3814
反恐首案｜控方指曾發訊稱「陣地戰有得打」、「親自教射箭」 李家田供稱「齋講吹水」
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven people have pleaded not guilty, and the trial entered its 53rd day at the High Court on Monday (15th). On the sixth day of testimony by defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian, the prosecution cited messages in the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” group and questioned him about them. During the clashes at Chinese University, Lee had written: “There’s a fight to be had in positional warfare. At most, I can personally teach all of you archery, okay?” and “They’ve put away all the highly destructive weapons and fucking won’t let them be used.” He also described the CUHK protesters as “Boy Scouts”. In court, Lee explained the messages by saying he was looking for topics, just making idle chatter, or commenting on the situation.
The prosecution also questioned whether Lee claimed he would not use violence while holding beliefs similar to those of “Dragon Slaying Brigade”. Lee said the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” protests at the time were aimed at opposing police violence and pursuing the “five demands”, but denied that these were his personal demands and declined to comment on whether other people had used violence.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周一（15 日）在高等法院踏入第 53 天審訊。被告李家田第六日作供，控方引述「屠龍」群組內訊息提問，包括中大衝突期間，李提及「陣地戰有得打喇，我最多親自教咁多位射箭好冇」、「大殺傷力武器佢哋收起晒唔撚畀用」，又形容中大示威者如「童子軍」。李於庭上分別以「搵話題」、「齋講吹水」、評論情況等原因解釋。
控方另質疑，李聲稱不會使用暴力，但其理念與「屠龍」相近？李指，當時「屠龍」示威是為了反對警方使用暴力，及爭取「五大訴求」，但否認這些屬他個人訴求，亦對其他人有否使用暴力沒有評價。
12 Jul 2024法庭線#3810
反恐首案｜早前稱遭警施襲 李家田稱擔心遭報復「但驚都要講、要畀人知警察點做嘢」
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, all seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 52nd day on Friday (the 12th). Defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian gave evidence for a fifth day. Li, who earlier claimed that police officers assaulted him during his arrest and said he feared his mother would be treated likewise, testified on Friday: “I’m still very scared even now,” expressing concern that he might face police retaliation after being released.
The prosecution questioned what there was left to fear, given that Li’s mother left Hong Kong immediately after his arrest and died in 2022. The judge also asked why Li continued to describe the alleged assault in court if he was afraid. Li, placing slightly more emphasis on his words, said: “I’m scared, but I still have to speak out … because I want everyone to know what the police will do. And I believe the court will give me justice.”
Li also explained the name of his Telegram account, saying that he liked the animation 《V Gundam》 and identified with its anti-war concept. He also agreed with the Beatles member John Lennon’s pursuit of peace, and therefore changed his name to “I am reinforce jr.” and “John Lemon”.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周五（12 日）在高等法院踏入第 52 天審訊。被告李家田第五日作供，就他早前稱被捕時遭警員施襲、擔心母親遭同等對待，李周五供稱「直到而家我都好驚」，擔心日後獲釋會遭警方報復。
控方質疑，李母親在其被捕後隨即離港、並於 2022 年過身，還有甚麼擔心。法官亦關注，李感害怕為何仍在庭上講述遭警員施襲。李略加重語氣稱：「我驚，但我都仲要講…因為我要畀所有人知道，警察係會點做嘢。同埋我相信，法庭係會畀到一個公義我。」
李另解釋其 TG 帳戶名稱，指喜愛動畫《V 高達》，認同其反戰概念；亦認同「Beatles」成員「John Lennon 」追求和平的理念，故改名為「I am reinforce jr. 」、「John Lemon 」。
12 Jul 2024獨媒#3811
女學生涉8.31灣仔暴動罪脫 律政司上訴得直 上訴庭：原審裁決有悖常理
A law student was acquitted of riot and possession of an offensive weapon charges arising from the clashes in Wan Chai on 31 August 2019, and was awarded costs. The Department of Justice appealed against the acquittal. At a hearing last month, the Court of Appeal granted the Department’s appeal in respect of the riot charge, quashed the acquittal and costs order, and remitted the matter to the trial judge for reconsideration of the verdict. As for the possession of an offensive weapon charge, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal and costs order. In written reasons for judgment handed down today (12th), the Court of Appeal said that the student’s possession of a hiking pole and a long umbrella was inconsistent with peaceful demonstrations. Knee pads, arm guards, a helmet, goggles and other items were also found in her backpack. The cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, but the trial judge had failed to properly consider and sufficiently analyse the circumstantial evidence; therefore, the acquittal on the riot charge was “irrational”.
2019年8月31日灣仔的衝突中，一名法律系女學生獲裁定暴動及管有攻擊性武器罪不成立，並獲批出訟費，律政司就無罪裁決上訴。上訴庭在上月的聆訊中就暴動罪批准律政司上訴，撤銷無罪裁決及訟費命令，並發還原審法官重新考慮裁決；至於管有攻擊性武器罪，上訴庭則駁回上訴，維持無罪裁決和訟費命令。上訴庭今（12日）頒布書面判決理由，指女生管有行山杖和長雨傘與和平示威不符，其背囊中也被搜出護膝、護臂、頭盔、護目鏡等物品，上述環境證供的「疊加效應」是壓倒性的，惟原審法官沒有正確考慮和充份分析環境證供，因此就暴動罪的無罪裁決是「有悖常理」。
11 Jul 2024法庭線#3809
反恐首案｜李家田稱沒參與破壞 僅在場觀察製作紀錄片 控方質疑「 睇咩、個故事從天嚟？
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 51st day at the High Court on Thursday (the 11th). Defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian was giving evidence for the fourth day and was cross-examined by the prosecution. Li said Dragon Slaying Brigade would not use petrol bombs to injure others at the time, and that he had not taken part in acts including destruction or the use of petrol bombs. He said he was at the scene only to “observe the protesters’ situation” and collect information for a documentary. The prosecution asked, “What were you watching?” and “Where did the story come from?” Li said, “By watching their behaviour and movements through the footage, I obtained the story.”
Li also said he had been assaulted by police using “water torture” and by punching and kicking. The prosecution questioned whether, as Li was seated, the officer involved—who had a relatively “large belly”—would have had to “bend down” and “bend around his belly” to assault him. Li confirmed this. Li said he did not complain to the duty officer afterwards because he feared this would be detrimental to him and his mother.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周四（11 日）在高等法院踏入第 51 天審訊。被告李家田第四日作供，接受控方盤問。李供稱，當時「屠龍」不會以汽油彈傷害他人，他亦沒有參與破壞及使用汽油彈等行為，只是在現場「睇示威者情況」，搜集資料製作紀錄片。控方質疑，「睇咩」、「個故事從天嚟？」李指，「透過畫面睇佢哋行為動作，就攞到個故事」。
至於李稱曾遭警以「水刑」及拳打腳踢方式襲擊。控方質疑，當時李坐著，涉事警員較「大肚腩」，要「烏低身」、「屈住肚腩」施襲？李確認。李又指，事後沒有向值日官投訴，因擔心對他及母親不利。
10 Jul 2024法庭線#3799
11.18 油麻地｜男子暴動罪成囚52月 提定罪上訴遭駁回 官：正常不想參與暴動者不會在場
On 18 November 2019, police cordoned off the Polytechnic University, while large numbers of people gathered in the Yau Tsim Mong District. A total of 213 people were charged with rioting in connection with the “besieging Wei to rescue Zhao” action in Yau Ma Tei. Eleven defendants pleaded not guilty and stood trial; one was acquitted and 10 were convicted and sentenced to between 50 and 52 months in prison.
Two of them challenged their convictions on appeal. The Court of Appeal heard the applications on Wednesday (10th). One withdrew his application, while the other continued with his appeal. After hearing submissions from the applicant, the court said the Department of Justice did not need to make submissions and immediately dismissed the appeal. It will deliver its reasons in a judgment within six months.
The applicant disputed that the police had been unable to establish where they had stopped him. He was not wearing black and had no equipment on him, and questioned how the court could be satisfied that he had taken part in the riot. The judge said the unrest at the Polytechnic University had continued for a week before the incident, and that on the night in question the police only began surrounding and arresting protesters one hour after the rioting in Yau Ma Tei had started. The judge asked: “Then what were you doing there? A normal person who did not want to take part would not have gone there.”
2019 年 11 月 18 日，警方圍封理工大學，大批民眾於油尖旺區聚集，213 人涉在油麻地「圍魏救趙」被控暴動。其中 11 名被告不認罪受審，1 人被裁定罪名不成立，10 人罪成判囚 50 月至 52 月。
當中兩人不服定罪提出上訴，上訴庭周三（10 日）開庭審理，1 人撤回上訴申請，另 1 人繼續上訴。上訴庭聽罷申請方陳詞，請律政司毋須陳詞，即時駁回上訴，將在 6 個月內頒判詞解釋理由。
申請方爭議警方未能肯定在何處截停申請人，加上他並非身穿黑衣、身上無裝備，質疑法庭何以肯定他參與暴動；法官則指案發前理大騷亂已持續一周，當晚油麻地暴動開始 1 小時，警方才開始包圍示威者拘捕，質疑申請人「咁你去做乜？正常唔想參與唔會走埋去」。
10 Jul 2024法庭線#3800
陳真咬趙家賢左耳遭「私了」 律師樓文員暴動及傷人無罪 不能排除真誠為保護他人
A middle-aged unemployed man, Joe Chen, allegedly bit off former Eastern District councillor Chiu Ka-yin’s left ear and wounded people with a knife outside Cityplaza on November 3, 2019, and was subsequently subjected to “street justice”. Six men were charged with rioting, wounding with intent and other offences. A 61-year-old law firm clerk was found not guilty of rioting and wounding with intent at the District Court on Wednesday (10th) and was released in court. A 36-year-old unemployed man was convicted of both charges and remanded until the 20th of this month for mitigation.
Judge Ko Wai-yung said Joe Chen had attacked passers-by without warning and bitten off Chiu Ka-yin’s ear, describing the conduct as brutal. In considering the clerk’s case, the judge noted that he had kicked Joe Chen in the back rather than a vital part of the body, and that after a man pulled by Joe Chen had broken free, the defendant did not kick Joe Chen again. The judge considered that he had used reasonable force at the time and could not rule out that he had acted genuinely to protect another person.
On the rioting charge, the prosecution said the defendant had shouted “slash people” inside the shopping centre in order to rally more people to attack Joe Chen. The judge noted that the defendant had provided information to police after the incident and had served as a prosecution witness in the case concerning Joe Chen’s attack on passers-by, conduct that was completely inconsistent with the prosecution’s allegations. As for the other defendant, the judge found beyond doubt that he had remained at the scene after the riot broke out and had attacked Joe Chen on the head with a telescopic umbrella. This constituted wounding with intent and also meant that he had directly participated in the riot.
中年無業漢陳真涉於 2019 年 11 月 3 日，於太古城中心外，咬甩前東區區議員趙家賢左耳及持刀傷人，其後遭「私了」。6 名男子被控暴動、有意圖而傷人等罪，其中 61 歲律師樓文員，周三（10 日）在區域法院被裁定暴動及意圖傷人罪名不成立，當庭釋放；36 歲無業男則兩罪罪成，還押至本月 20 日求情。
法官高偉雄表示，陳真沒預警下襲擊途人及咬掉趙家賢耳朵，行為兇殘。考慮報稱文員被告，當時腳踢陳真背部，非身體要害，當一名被陳真拉扯的男子掙脫後，被告亦無再踢陳真，認為他當時是使用了合理武力，不能排除他真誠為保護他人。
針對暴動罪，控方指被告在商場內高呼「斬人」，是為了召集更多人襲擊陳真。法官則指，事發後曾向警員提供資料，又在陳真襲擊途人案任控方證人，行為與控方指控完全不相符。至於另一被告，法官認為他毫無疑問在暴動發生後逗留現場，曾用伸縮雨傘襲擊陳真頭部，除了構成有意圖而傷人罪，亦因此直接參與了暴動。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
