10 Jul 2024法庭線#3802
反恐首案｜李家田稱警威逼利誘下提供手機密碼 「屠龍」沒成員同意示威時用槍
The first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance involving seven defendants who have pleaded not guilty entered its 50th day of trial at the High Court on Wednesday (10th). On the third day of testimony, defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian said during examination-in-chief that police had coerced and induced the provision of the passwords for an iPhone and iPad. During a video-recorded interview, the defendant also felt “very flustered and very frightened”, fearing that if the testimony was “not pleasing to hear … there would be treatment inside the home”, and that the defendant’s mother would be subjected to improper treatment.
Under questioning by other defence representatives, the defendant said the “hiking” trip to Sai Kung to test a firearm was attended at the request of defendant Victor Chun Keung Wong, who had pleaded guilty. At the scene, the defendant was asked to “go farther away” and heard neither gunshots nor explosions. The defendant also confirmed that no one in “Dragon Slaying Brigade” had proposed using guns, and no one had agreed to use guns during demonstrations. The defendant was unaware that Victor Chun Keung Wong intended to obtain a gun independently.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周三（10 日）在高等法院踏入第 50 天審訊。被告李家田第三日作供，李在主問下稱，當時遭警方威逼利誘才提供 iPhone 及 iPad 密碼，錄取錄影會面時亦感到「好慌張、好驚慌」 ，擔心若供詞「唔啱聽⋯會受到屋企入面嘅對待」，而且會令母親受不當對待。
李隨後接受其他辯方代表提問，針對「西貢行山試槍」一事，李指為滿足認罪被告黃振強的要求而出席 「行山」，在現場曾被要求「行遠啲」 ，期間沒聽見槍聲及爆炸聲；另確認「屠龍」中沒有人提出用槍，亦沒有人同意於示威時用槍，他對黃振強打算私自取槍一事不知情。
9 Jul 2024法庭線#3794
社民連余煒彬涉未經准許展示橫額 欲爭議執法相稱性、官稱僅考慮有否違法
In September 2022, the Social Democratic League set up a street booth in Causeway Bay and displayed a banner bearing photographs of Leung Kwok-hung, Tsang Tsz-kit and Chan Ho-fun. The League’s vice-chairman for internal affairs, Yu Wai-pan, members “Ah Niu” Tsang Kin-shing and Christina Yuen Ching Tang were earlier charged by summons with “displaying bills or posters on government land without permission”. Tsang and Tong previously pleaded guilty and were fined HK$1,000. Yu’s case was heard for a pre-trial review at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday (9th).
2022 年 9 月，社民連在銅鑼灣設街站，並展示印有梁國雄、岑子杰、陳皓桓相片的橫額。社民連內務副主席余煒彬、成員「阿牛」曾健成及唐婉清，早前遭票控「未經准許而在政府土地展示招貼或海報」，曾及唐早前認罪，被判罰款一千元，余的案件周二（9 日）於東區裁判法院作審前覆核。
控方透露，審訊將爭議涉案橫額是否屬條例所指的標貼或標語、該橫額是否永久性，或慣常規律性的存在，以及涉案行動的執法合法性，料將傳召 2 名證人。
被告補充，將爭議涉案橫額不適用於本案，若不適用，則將爭議食環署當日的行動是否適當，及執法相稱性，裁判官曾宗堯則指，法庭或不會關注執法相稱性，僅考慮被告當時是否違法。官將案件押後至 9 月 4 日開審，審期 2 日。
9 Jul 2024法庭線#3797
反恐首案｜李家田稱遭警以「水刑」施襲 憂母受牽連而順從警指示錄口供
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 49th day at the High Court on Tuesday (the 9th). Defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian gave evidence for a second day, saying he had never attended meetings to discuss a plan to kill police officers within “Dragon Slaying Brigade”, and had not visited the “safe house” on the eve of the plan’s implementation.
Lee also said that when he was arrested at home in June 2020, police officers assaulted him using “waterboarding” and other methods, describing it as being like drowning and saying he was “completely unable to breathe”. Lee testified that officers threatened him, saying “we can shoot you right here” and “the same thing could happen to your mother”. He said he panicked and feared that the officers “would also go after my mother” and that she would “be subjected to the same treatment as me”, so he followed the officers’ instructions and fabricated a statement during a video-recorded interview.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（9 日）在高等法院踏入第 49 天審訊。被告李家田第二日作供，指未曾出席「屠龍」內部商討殺警計劃的會議，於計劃實行前夕，亦沒有到訪「安全屋」。
李又指，於 2020 年 6 月在家中被捕時，遭警員以「水刑」等方式施襲，形容如遇溺般「完全吸唔到氣」。李供稱，警員威嚇「喺度啪咗你都仲得」、「同樣可以發生喺你阿媽身上」，令他感到驚慌，害怕警員「會搞埋我阿媽」、「受到好似我咁嘅對待」，因而順從警員指示，在錄取錄影會面時捏造口供。
8 Jul 2024法庭線#3789
遭債權人入稟破產呈請 高院頒令張秀賢破產
Former Yuen Long District Councillor Tommy Sau Yin Cheung was accused of failing to repay loans and was pursued by multiple claimants for the outstanding debts. In March this year, a bankruptcy petition was filed against him in the High Court over a debt of HK$140,000. The petitioner was Lai Tak-chung, a retired Liberal Studies teacher who had served as chairman of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority’s Liberal Studies Subject Committee and chairman of the Hong Kong Liberal Studies Teachers’ Association. The High Court dealt with the bankruptcy petition on Monday (8th). The petitioner said Cheung had not indicated that the amount of the disputed debt was in question. In Tommy Sau Yin Cheung’s absence, High Court judge Ching (1948) Chen芬 ordered him bankrupt and will issue written reasons for the decision by next Monday (15th).
元朗區前區議員張秀賢被指拖欠借款，遭多名申索人入稟追討欠款，今年 3 月再遭入稟高等法院申請破產，呈請人為曾任考評局通識教育科科目委員會主席、香港通識教育教師聯會主席的退休通識科教師賴得鐘，涉及 14 萬元債務。高院周一（8 日）處理其破產呈請。
呈請方表示，張沒表示爭議債項金額，高院法官陳靜芬在張秀賢缺席下，頒令他破產，將在下周一（15 日）前頒判詞補充理由。
8 Jul 2024法庭線#3790
林卓廷披露游乃強受查上訴得直 律政司獲批終極上訴許可 明年2月聆訊
Former Democratic Party Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting was involved in a case concerning his disclosure that police superintendent Yau Nai-keung, who was responsible for investigating the Yuen Long 7.21 incident, was under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In February 2024, High Court Deputy Judge Douglas Tak Hong Yau allowed Lam’s appeal and quashed his conviction. The following month, the judge issued a certificate granting the Department of Justice leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
The Court of Final Appeal held a leave-to-appeal hearing on Monday (the 8th). Permanent Judges Li Yee, Fok Siu-kong and Lam Man-hon said the case involved questions of law of great and general importance, and granted the Department of Justice leave for a final appeal. The case is scheduled to be heard on 12 February 2025.
Lam, who was convicted in the 47-person case concerning the democratic primary election and remanded in custody pending mitigation and sentencing, was escorted from prison to the Court of Final Appeal for the hearing. Wearing a suit, he entered the defendant’s dock in apparently good spirits and waved to greet relatives and friends.
民主黨前立法會議員林卓廷，涉披露負責元朗 7.21 事件的警司游乃強受廉署調查一案，高院暫委法官游德康 2024 年 2 月裁定林上訴得直，撤銷其定罪，翌月並向律政司批出上訴至終院許可的證明書。
終院周一（8 日）進行上訴許可聆訊，常任法官李義、霍兆剛及林文瀚指本案有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點，向律政司批出終極上訴許可，案件訂於 2025 年 2 月 12 日聆訊。
在民主派初選 47 人案被裁定罪成，還押候處理求情及判刑的林卓廷，由懲教押送至終院應訊，他身穿西裝步入被告欄，精神不俗，與親友揮手打招呼。
5 Jul 2024法庭線#3783
逃出理大案｜19人妨礙公正、暴動等罪成判囚 刑期最重8人提上訴
In November 2019, large numbers of protesters inside the Hong Kong Polytechnic University were surrounded by police. Nineteen people were accused of helping others escape, including by driving protesters away, and were charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, riot and other offences. Five pleaded guilty to riot, while the remaining 14 were convicted after trial. They were sentenced to between 20 and 70 months’ imprisonment, as well as training centre orders.
Judiciary records show that the eight defendants who received the longest sentences—between 60 and 70 months’ imprisonment—appealed against their convictions and sentences last Friday (the 28th). The cases are awaiting listing.
2019 年 11 月，理工大學內大批示威者被警方包圍，19 人被指協助他人逃出，包括駕車接載示威者離開等，被控意圖妨礙司法公正、暴動等罪。當中 5 人承認暴動罪，餘下 14 人經審訊後被裁定罪成；他們被判囚 20 至 70 個月，以及教導所。
司法機構資料顯示，刑期最重即判囚 60 至 70 個月的 8 名被告，上周五（28 日）不服定罪及判刑提出上訴。案件暫待排期處理。
5 Jul 2024法庭線#3784
反恐首案｜控方完成 47 天舉證 料辯方下周決定被告會否作供
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, the seven defendants who pleaded not guilty entered the 47th day of the trial at the High Court on Friday (the 5th). After calling all its witnesses and playing CCTV footage, the prosecution said it had completed presenting its evidence. The case was adjourned until next Monday (the 8th), when the defence is expected to decide whether each defendant will testify.
《反恐條例》首案，不認罪 7 人周五（5 日）在高等法院踏入第 47 天審訊，控方傳畢證人及播放閉路電視片段後，表示已完成舉證。案件押後至下周一（8 日）續審，料屆時辯方將決定各名被告會否作供。
4 Jul 2024法庭線#3775
反恐首案｜TG專家稱若用戶沒參與群組對話 無法核實有否閱覽訊息
The trial of seven people who have pleaded not guilty in the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance entered its 46th day at the High Court on Thursday (the 4th). The court had earlier heard that police used Cellebrite software to crack data from the phones involved in the case. A Cellebrite expert confirmed under cross-examination that not all messages could necessarily be recovered and that unidentified symbols might also appear.
The prosecution then recalled a Telegram expert to explain how Telegram operates. The expert confirmed that if a group member did not participate in a conversation, there was no data that could establish whether the user had read the relevant messages. The expert also said they had not checked the settings of the Telegram groups involved one by one.
《反恐條例》首案，不認罪 7 人周四（4 日）在高等法院踏入第 46 天審訊。庭上早前提及，警方以程式 Cellebrite 破解涉案手機資料。Cellebrite 專家在盤問下確認，未必能復原全部訊息，亦可能會有不明符號。
控方之後再傳召 Telegram 專家，講解 Telegram 運作。專家確認，假如群組成員沒有參與對話，沒有資料可證實，該名用戶是否曾閱覽相關訊息，亦表示沒有逐一檢查涉案 Telegram 群組的設定。
4 Jul 2024法庭線#3777
理大衝突｜醫生指警誤射催淚彈索償案 原告申蕭澤頤等3警作供被拒、不服提上訴
In November 2019, during the clashes at the Polytechnic University, an ear, nose and throat doctor who operated a clinic near the university said police mistakenly fired a tear-gas round into the clinic, causing a fire and damage. The doctor filed a claim against the police in 2021 seeking more than HK$6.72 million in compensation. The plaintiff had earlier sought to call Commissioner of Police Chris Tang and two other police officers to testify, but the application was rejected by a High Court master. He has appealed the decision.
The case was heard in the High Court on Thursday (4th). After hearing submissions from both sides, Judge Ouyang Kwei-yu adjourned the decision until before the end of July. The plaintiff questioned how the police, whom he said were the party that fired the tear-gas round, could conclude after three years of investigation that they did not know which officer had fired it. He asked Tang, as head of the police force, to personally explain the investigation’s findings. The Police Commissioner’s side reiterated that it was “simply impossible to find out” who had fired the tear-gas round in question, and that someone else might have picked it up and thrown it amid the disorder. It argued that Tang’s evidence was irrelevant to the case.
2019 年 11 月，理大衝突期間，在理大附近開設診所的耳鼻喉科醫生，稱遭警方誤射催淚彈入診所，致起火受損，於 2021 年入稟向警方索償逾 672 萬港元。原告醫生早前要求傳召警務處長蕭澤頤及另兩名警員作供，遭高院聆案官拒絕，他不服決定提出上訴。
案件周四（4 日）在高院處理，法官歐陽桂如聽罷雙方陳詞，押後 7 月底前頒下裁決。原告質疑警方是發射催淚彈的一方，不可能經過 3 年調查，總結不知道是那名警員發射催淚彈，要求蕭澤頤身為警隊之首，親自解釋調查結果；警務處一方則重申警方「根本不可能找出」發射涉案催淚彈的人，亦可能是其他人趁亂撿起催淚彈投擲，認為蕭的證供與案無關。
3 Jul 2024法庭線#3769
11.12中大二號橋｜一人暴動無罪 律政司上訴得直 發還區院重新考慮
On 12 November 2019, protesters gathered at CUHK’s “No. 2 Bridge” in response to the “Dawn Operation”. Riot police fired more than 1,000 rounds of tear gas to disperse them. Two of those arrested at the scene were later acquitted of rioting after trial. The Department of Justice appealed by way of case stated. The Court of Appeal heard one of the appeals on Wednesday (the 3rd).
After hearing submissions, the Court of Appeal allowed the Department of Justice’s appeal, set aside the acquittal and said it would hand down its reasons for judgment within six months. The case was remitted to the trial judge, Clement Lee, for reconsideration of the verdict. The case will be mentioned at the District Court on 5 September. In the meantime, the defendant must continue to comply with a series of bail conditions, including a ban on leaving Hong Kong. The other acquitted defendant is understood to have left Hong Kong, and the Department of Justice did not continue with its appeal.
The Department of Justice argued that the trial judge had placed undue weight on the absence of evidence showing when the defendant arrived at the core of the riot and how long he remained there, while failing to consider other overwhelming evidence, making the verdict contrary to common sense. The defence stressed that the trial judge had considered all the evidence and that, although the defendant was at the scene, there were other possibilities apart from his participation in the riot.
2019 年 11 月 12 日，中大「二號橋」有示威者響應「黎明行動」聚集，防暴警員發射逾千枚催淚彈驅散。當場被捕的其中兩人經審訊後，獲裁定暴動罪名不成立。律政司以「案件呈述」方式提出上訴。上訴庭周三（3 日）處理其中一人的上訴案。
上訴庭聽罷陳詞，裁定律政司上訴得直，撤銷無罪裁決，將在 6 個月內頒判決理由。案件發還原審法官李慶年重新考慮裁決，將在 9 月 5 日於區域法院提訊，期間被告須繼續遵守一系列保釋條件，包括不得離港；另一名無罪被告據悉已離港，律政司沒繼續提上訴。
律政司一方質疑，原審法官過分顧及無證據顯示被告何時到達暴動核心和逗留多久，亦沒有考慮其他壓倒性證據，裁決有違常理；答辯方則強調，原審已考慮所有證據，而被告身處現場，存在參與暴動以外的其他可能性。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
