25 Jun 2024法庭線#3732
反恐首案｜黃振強拘捕警否認曾威嚇及襲擊 稱其自願提供手機密碼、沒留意黃受傷
The seven defendants who have pleaded not guilty in the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance entered the 40th day of their trial at the High Court on Tuesday (25th). The prosecution called arresting police officer Victor Chun Keung Wong, who identified himself as captain of “Dragon Slaying Brigade”, to testify. Wong had earlier said during cross-examination by the defence that he was assaulted with an officer’s hands and baton when arrested, and confirmed that he subsequently completed a complaint-against-police document through his legal representatives. The arresting officer told the court that Wong reacted violently and lunged at him when arrested, so he held Wong tightly, causing him to fall onto a bed. Colleagues then helped restrain him, after which the arresting officer handcuffed him.
The officer denied slapping Wong, verbally threatening him or forcing him to unlock his phone during the process, saying Wong was willing to provide the passcode. The defence showed photographs taken by Wong the following day, which showed injuries on his face. The officer said he had not noticed at the time that Wong was injured.
《反恐條例》首案，不認罪的 7 人周二（25 日）在高等法院踏入第 40 天審訊。控方傳召自稱「屠龍」隊長黃振強的拘捕警員出庭，早前黃曾在辯方盤問下指，被捕時曾被警員用手、警棍施襲，確認隨後經法律代表填寫投訴警察文件。拘捕警於庭上指，黃被捕時反應激烈撲向他，於是他緊抱著黃，令他跌在床上，由同袍協助制服，再由拘捕警鎖上手銬。
警否認過程中曾掌摑及言語威嚇黃、逼黃解鎖手機，指黃願意提供密碼。辯方展示黃翌日拍攝的照片，可顯示黃臉上傷勢。警則指，當時沒有留意他有受傷。
24 Jun 2024法庭線#3724
願榮光禁令生效1個半月 創作團隊：努力恢復專輯上架 律政司：具犯罪意圖發布屬違令
Last year, the Department of Justice applied to the High Court for an injunction over the anti-extradition bill song “Glory to Hong Kong”. The Court of First Instance rejected an application for an interim injunction, but the Court of Appeal formally granted an interim injunction last month and agreed that the 32 “Glory to Hong Kong” videos attached to the Department of Justice’s originating summons fell within the scope prohibited by the injunction.
All 32 YouTube videos alleged to have seditious intent were removed from YouTube in Hong Kong, while most remained viewable outside Hong Kong. The original version of “Glory to Hong Kong” was also temporarily removed from music-streaming platforms including Apple Music and Spotify. The creative team subsequently said it had “used a new method” to re-release an instrumental version of “Glory to Hong Kong”. As of Sunday (the 23rd), the original version had been relisted on Spotify and KKBOX, with 11 original versions currently available.
Apart from the 32 specified videos, more than 100 videos related to “Glory to Hong Kong” could still be found on YouTube, including more than 50 “Glory to Hong Kong” MV backups. About 10 to 30 new “Glory to Hong Kong” videos were also uploaded each week, including cover versions, MV backups and footage of gatherings of Hong Kong people overseas.
YouTube told The Witness that it had removed the 32 videos from the Hong Kong region in response to the injunction. It said that, as long as the authorities requested the removal of videos “through the proper legal channels”, YouTube would review the requests. It reiterated its strong opposition to the injunction, expressing concern that it could have a “chilling effect”. The Department of Justice reiterated that publishing “the song” with criminal intent violated the order.
律政司去年就反修例歌曲《願榮光歸香港》入稟高等法院申請禁制令，原訟庭拒批臨時禁制令，上訴庭則在上月正式批出臨時禁制令，並同意律政司在入稟狀夾附的 32 條《願榮光》影片，符合禁制令禁止範圍。
被指有煽動意圖的 32 條《願榮光》YouTube 影片，全數在香港下架，大部分影片在香港以外地區則仍能觀看；《願榮光》的原創版本亦在 Apple Music、Spotify 等音樂串流平台一度下架。創作團隊其後表示，「使用了新方法」重新發行《願榮光》純音樂版本，至周日（23 日），原創版本在 Spotify 及 KKBOX 重新上架，現存共 11 個原創版本。
除了 32 條指明影片，在 YouTube 仍能找到過百段與《願榮光》有關的影片，包括逾 50 段《願榮光》MV 備份，每周亦約有 10 至 30 條《願榮光》新影片發布，當中有《願榮光》翻唱版本、MV 備份、海外港人集會片段。
YouTube 回覆《法庭線》查詢，稱已因應禁制令從香港地區移除 32 條影片，又指只要當局「循正確法律途徑」要求移除影片，YouTube 會審視，重申強烈反對禁令，擔心帶來「寒蟬效應」。律政司則重申，具犯罪意圖而發布「該歌曲」屬違令。
24 Jun 2024法庭線#3728
反恐首案｜控方財務專家確認劉佩凝戶口獲多筆小額存款 曾向黃振強轉帳24.5萬元
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 39th day at the High Court on Monday (24th). The prosecution called a financial expert to testify. He analysed the transaction records and flow of funds involving the accounts of defendant Lau Pui-ying, Victor Chun Keung Wong, the self-styled leader of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade squad”, and another man. He confirmed that an account in Lau’s name received multiple small deposits and that HK$245,000 had been transferred to Wong. Under questioning by the defence, he also confirmed that police had mentioned to him a TG channel called “Yuk Lung” and that he learned it was related to crowdfunding, but he did not know who managed the channel or what it was used for. Police had also not asked him to analyse whether the TG channel was related to the crowdfunding.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周一（24 日）在高等法院踏入第 39 天審訊。控方傳召財務專家作供，他分析被告劉佩凝、自稱「屠龍小隊」隊長黃振強及另一男子的戶口交易紀錄、資金流向，確認劉名下戶口獲多筆小額存款，曾向黃轉帳 24.5 萬元。他另在辯方盤問下確認，警方曾向他提及 TG 頻道「育龍」，得知與眾籌相關，但不清楚頻道由誰管理或用途，警方亦沒要求他分析該 TG 頻道與眾籌是否相關。
22 Jun 2024法庭線#3722
11.18油麻地｜8人暴動罪成囚37至50月 官考慮疫情影響審期酌情減刑2月
On 18 November 2019, police cordoned off the Polytechnic University. A total of 213 people were charged with rioting in connection with the “besiege Wei to rescue Zhao” action in Yau Ma Tei, and the cases were split for trial. The final case to go to trial involved nine people. Five pleaded guilty before the trial began, three were convicted after trial, and the remaining defendant was acquitted. Acting District Court Judge LEUNG Ka-kie sentenced the eight people to between 37 and 50 months’ imprisonment at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, sitting as the District Court, on Saturday (22nd).
2019 年 11 月 18 日，警方圍封理工大學，213 人涉在油麻地「圍魏救趙」被控暴動，分拆成多案審理。最後一宗開審的案件涉及 9 人，5 人開審前認罪，3 人經審訊後被裁定罪成，餘下一人罪名不成立。區院暫委法官梁嘉琪周六（22 日）在西九龍裁判法院（暫代區域法院）判 8 人監禁 37 至 50 個月。
有被告案發時任職救護員，辯方指他以救援目的到場，又曾於當值時為警長療傷。但法官認為，當時被告身上沒有專業救援裝備，案發時亦不見他有救助他人。官另考慮本案曾因疫情而需重新排期，額外為 8 人扣減兩個月。
19 Jun 2024法庭線#3707
反恐首案｜辯方指嚴文謙被捕時遭毆打 警嘗試逼賴振邦飲滴露 警否認
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court reached its 37th day on Wednesday (the 19th). The prosecution called police officers who were involved in arresting defendants Cheung Ming-yu and Yim Man-Him to testify. The defence said Yim Man-Him was assaulted by police during the arrest. Officers demanded to know “where the others had gone”; after Yim Man-Him firmly insisted that they did not know, officers allegedly beat them again. The officers denied this.
An officer who arrested defendant Lai Chun-pong testified that, while escorting Lai back to the police station, Lai loudly stated their personal particulars, saying, “I’m not injured at the moment; I don’t know what will happen later,” and asking passers-by to film the incident and help find a lawyer. The defence said officers had tried to force Lai to drink Dettol and disinfectant alcohol, and repeatedly called Lai a “cockroach”. The police denied all the allegations.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周三（19 日）在高等法院踏入第 37 天審訊。控方傳召有份拘捕被告張銘裕和嚴文謙的警員作供。辯方指，嚴文謙被捕時曾被警員施襲，逼問「其他人去咗邊」，嚴稱不知後，再遭警員毆打；警員否認。
拘捕被告賴振邦的警員則供稱，將賴押返警署期間，賴曾高聲說出其個人資料，稱「我宜家身體冇受傷，唔知一陣會點」，著途人拍片及協助找律師。辯方指，警員曾嘗試逼賴飲滴露和消毒酒精，不斷罵他為「曱甴」；警一概否認。
18 Jun 2024法庭線#3703
逃出理大案｜17人妨礙司法公正、暴動等罪成 囚20至70月 官斥理大生被告毀校園
In November 2019, a large number of protesters inside Hong Kong Polytechnic University were surrounded by police. Nineteen people were accused of helping others escape from PolyU and charged with offences including intending to pervert the course of justice and rioting. Five pleaded guilty to rioting, while the remaining 14 denied the charges and stood trial. They were previously found guilty of all charges, and two of them had already been sentenced.
Judge Wong Sze-lai dealt with the sentencing of the other 17 defendants at the District Court on Tuesday (18th). Five defendants identified as drivers were sentenced to between 20 and 24 months in prison. The other 12 defendants involved in the riot were sentenced to between 60 and 70 months in prison.
The judge criticised the PolyU protesters for acting recklessly and showing disregard for the law, saying they must bear criminal responsibility for their wrongdoing. She also said that some defendants were PolyU students or had previously studied there when the offences occurred, and that they had taken part in destroying their own campus. Regarding the defendants identified as drivers, the judge said that without the police operation, the defendants charged with rioting might have successfully left, describing their conduct as undermining the administration of justice.
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理大，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 人不認罪受審，早前被裁定所有罪名成立，其中兩人早前已處理判刑。
法官王詩麗周二（18 日）在區域法院處理其他 17 名被告的判刑，當中被指為駕駛者的 5 名被告，被判監 20 個月至 24 個月。至於另外 12 名涉及暴動的被告，則被判監 60 個月至 70 個月不等。
法官批評，理大示威者胡作非為、目無法紀，要為惡行負上刑責，又指有部分被告案發時是理大生，或曾就讀理大，他們有份摧毀自己的校園。至於被指為司機的被告，法官指若非警方行動，涉及暴動罪的被告可能已成功離開，形容被告行為打擊司法公義的執行。
18 Jun 2024法庭線#3706
反恐首案｜辯方質疑警與黃振強會面25分鐘撰21頁口供 警：證供只涉財產、沒牽涉太多人
The first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, involving seven defendants who have pleaded not guilty, entered its 36th day of trial at the High Court on Tuesday (the 18th). In relation to the charge under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance of conspiracy to provide funds for terrorist acts, Victor Chun Keung Wong, who had pleaded guilty and became a prosecution witness, was arrested and interviewed by police officer Pok Man Lo that day. The defence questioned how Lo could have written a 21-page statement after meeting Wong for only 25 minutes to take a “without prejudice statement”. Lo said Wong’s evidence did not involve many people, and that he recorded it in bullet points before drafting the statement, but the relevant document had since been destroyed.
A police officer from the Complaints Against Police Office confirmed that Victor Chun Keung Wong had complained of being assaulted and threatened by police officers during the arrest, and agreed to defer the complaint until the end of the criminal case. A firearms forensic expert also confirmed that the pistols involved used bullets of the same calibre and had a similar appearance.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（18 日）在高等法院踏入第 36 天審訊。就《反恐條例》下串謀籌錢作恐怖行為罪，已認罪、轉任控方證人的黃振強，當日由警員盧博文拘捕及錄取口供。辯方質疑盧向黃錄取「無損權益口供」時，僅會面 25 分鐘，但能撰寫 21 頁口供。盧表示，黃所述證供沒牽涉太多人，以點列方式記錄再撰寫口供，惟有關文件已銷毀。
投訴警察課警員確認，黃振強曾投訴被捕時遭警員毆打和威嚇，並同意暫緩投訴至其刑事案件結束。軍械法證專家則確認，涉案手槍均用同一口徑子彈及外貌相似。
17 Jun 2024法庭線#3699
陳真遭「私了」案 20歲學生申請推翻認罪答辯 法官拒絕
Middle-aged unemployed man Joe Chen allegedly bit off the left ear of former Eastern District councillor Chiu Ka-yin and wounded someone with a knife outside Cityplaza on November 3, 2019, and was subsequently subjected to vigilante justice. Six men were charged with rioting, wounding with intent and other offences. One of them, a 20-year-old university student, initially pleaded not guilty and stood trial, later changed his plea to guilty, and subsequently applied to overturn it.
Acting Judge Ko Wai-hung rejected the defendant’s application at the District Court on Monday (the 17th), upholding his guilty plea and refusing his bail application. He was remanded in custody until July 20, when he will make mitigation submissions together with the other defendants in the case.
The defence argued that the defendant’s guilty plea had been affected by attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, causing him to plead guilty involuntarily. But the judgment said that his affidavit and testimony in court were inconsistent. In response to the defence’s emphasis that the defendant’s ADHD might have affected his testimony, the judge said he had experienced no problems with concentration or other faculties while giving evidence, and there was no evidence that his ADHD had affected his testimony.
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 男被控暴動、有意圖而傷人等罪，其中一名 20 歲大學生原不認罪受審，及後一度改認罪，之後又申請推翻認罪答辯。
暫委法官高偉雄周一（17 日）在區院駁回被告申請，維持其認罪答辯，並拒絕其保釋申請，被告須還押至 7 月 20 日與同案被告一同進行求情。
辯方爭議被告認罪時受過度活躍症影響，令他不自願下認罪。但判詞指，被告誓章與庭上供詞不相符。至於辯方強調被告患過度活躍症，可能影響庭上證供。法官反駁指被告作供時，專注力等沒有問題，沒證供顯示受過度活躍症影響。
17 Jun 2024法庭線#3701
反恐首案｜從犯證人蘇緯軒稱獲安排任槍手 欲中途退出但擔心遭殺害
The first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance involves seven defendants who have pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 35th day at the High Court on Monday (17th). So Wai-hin, the third accomplice witness, who has pleaded guilty, confirmed in court that he had been assigned to be the gunman in the “police-killing plot”, responsible for shooting police officers from a high point in a building.
So testified that he met a man named “Stephen” in 2014 and later joined his violent organisation. So said “Stephen” was involved in planning the police-killing plot and was suspicious by nature, and that he feared he would be killed if he withdrew midway. He also said that after learning of the plan, he had “not wanted to actually take part in the plan”, and therefore used excuses such as insufficient ammunition and concerns that police officers might set up roadblocks when test-firing the weapons or on the day of carrying out the plan, hoping to stay away and delay it. After his arrest, police found an AR-15 rifle and more than 100 rounds of ammunition at his residence.
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周一（17 日）在高等法院踏入第 35 天審訊。第三名從犯證人、已認罪的蘇緯軒在庭上確認，在「殺警計劃」被指派為槍手，負責在大廈高處射殺警員。
蘇供稱，在 2014 年認識一位叫「Stephen 」的男子，及後加入其武力組織。蘇指，「Stephen 」有份策劃殺警計劃，又指對方疑心重，擔心自己若中途退出會遭殺害。他又指，自己知悉計劃後，一直「唔想實際親身參與個計劃」，故在試槍或執行計劃當日，曾搬出彈藥不足、擔心警員設路障等藉口推搪，期望避席及推遲計劃。他被捕後，警方在其住所搜出 AR 15 步槍及過百發子彈。
17 Jun 2024法庭線#3702
7.1銅鑼灣｜青年阻差辦公表證不成立 律政司上訴得直 發還另一裁判官重審
On July 1, 2020, large numbers of people took to the streets to protest the National Security Law. A 19-year-old man was accused of obstructing police officers outside Times Square as they arrested a woman, and was charged with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The trial magistrate, Pang Leung-ting, said videos admitted in court were inconsistent with police testimony, criticised the Department of Justice by saying, “Prosecute, prosecute, prosecute! Prosecute all the way to the ends of the earth,” and questioned whether the police’s “unlawful arrest” and firing of sponge rounds to disperse people inside the square were “open to question”. The magistrate ultimately ruled that there was no case to answer, and the defendant was not required to enter a defence.
The Department of Justice appealed by way of case stated. High Court Judge Chan Chung-hang allowed the appeal in written reasons handed down on Monday (the 17th). The judgment said the trial magistrate had applied the wrong standard in deciding that the police officer was not lawfully performing his duty, while comments on the police operation were “unsupported by sufficient evidence and of no assistance to consideration of issues relevant to the trial”. The magistrate had also overlooked the risk to public order at the time.
The judgment further said that, having regard to the comments made by the trial magistrate during the trial and other circumstances, it was appropriate for the case to be retried by another magistrate.
2020 年 7 月 1 日，大批市民上街抗議《國安法》，19 歲青年被指在時代廣場外，阻礙警員拘捕一名女子，被控阻差辦公。原審裁判官彭亮廷指呈堂影片與警員供詞不符，斥律政司「告告告！告到天腳底都要告」，並質疑警方「非法拘捕」及發射海棉彈，進入廣場內驅散「值得商榷」，終裁定表證不成立，被告毋須答辯。
律政司以案件呈述方式提上訴。高院法官陳仲衡周一（17 日）頒下書面裁決，判律政司得直。判詞指，原審採納錯誤的準標，判斷警員並非正當執行職務，而對警方行動的評論「缺乏足夠證據支持，亦對審訊相關議題的考慮並無幫助」，忽略了當時的社會安寧風險。
判詞又指，考慮到原審在審訊時作出的評論等情況，認為適合由另一位裁判官重審。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
