14 May 2024法庭線#3533
反恐首案｜黃振強稱按理解認罪協商須認全部事實 確認明知有誤仍照認
In the first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 16th day on Tuesday (14th). The pleading defendant and self-styled captain of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade Squad”, Victor Chun Keung Wong, continued to be cross-examined. The defence focused on the fact that Huang had pleaded not guilty for about three years from his first appearance in the case until the case was committed to the High Court, before suddenly meeting police and saying he hoped to “explain what happened”. Huang reiterated that he wanted to “account for the facts”, saying this was “out of my own sense of responsibility or conscience”.
Ma again referred to letters concerning Huang’s plea discussions with the prosecution. They stated that Huang was to admit two of the five charges and fully agree to the prosecution’s statement of facts, after which the remaining three charges could be left on the court file. Huang agreed. Ma then suggested that some of the facts Huang admitted differed from his testimony in court, and asked whether this was because “the prosecution made it very clear that you had to agree to whatever was written in the statement of facts, otherwise the plea agreement would fall through”.
Judge Esther T. H. Cheung subsequently rephrased the question: “You knew it was wrong, yet you admitted it despite knowing that?” Huang agreed. The judge asked further: “You had to admit them all before [the other offences] could be placed on the court file—is that your understanding?” Huang replied, “Yes.”
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周二（14 日）在高等法院踏入第 16 天審訊。認罪被告、自稱「屠龍小隊」隊長黃振強續接受盤問。辯方關注黃自本案首提堂，至交付至高院約 3 年時間均不認罪，其後突然約見警察稱盼「交代事情」。黃重申想「交代返個事實」，又指是「出於自己個責任感或者良心囉」。
馬再引黃與控方的認罪商討信件，當中提及黃要在 5 罪中承認 2 罪，兼且完全同意控方案情，其餘 3 罪才可存檔法庭。黃同意。馬遂指，黃承認的案情中，有部分內容與庭上證供有出入，是否因「控方講得好清楚，案情寫乜你就要同意，否則個認罪協議告吹」。
法官張慧玲其後修正問題，指「你知係錯，明知係咁都認？」黃同意。官追問「要認晒，（其他罪行）先擺喺法庭檔案，呢個係你理解？」黃答「係」。
14 May 2024法庭線#3535
英國檢控3人涉違英國安法 港經貿辦經理涉進行情報工作 李家超：不能接受無理指控
London’s Metropolitan Police said on Monday (13th) that three men had been arrested in the UK on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service and carrying out foreign interference activities, in breach of the National Security Act passed there last year. The force said the intelligence activities allegedly involving the three men were related to Hong Kong.
According to local police, the three men are 38-year-old Chi Leung (Peter) Wai, 37-year-old Matthew Trickett and 63-year-old Chung Biu Yuen. It is understood that Chung Biu Yuen is an administrative manager at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London. Local media reported that the three appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on Monday. They were not required to enter pleas at this stage and were granted bail. The case will be mentioned again at The Central Criminal Court of England and Wales in London on 24 May.
Chief Executive John Lee told reporters on Tuesday (14th) that the Chinese Embassy in the UK had issued a statement on the incident, strongly condemning it and lodging serious representations with the British side. He said that any baseless allegations against the Hong Kong Government were unacceptable.
英國倫敦警察廳周一（13 日）公佈，於英國拘捕 3 名男子，涉嫌協助境外情報機關及進行境外干預行為，違反當地去年通過《國家安全法案》。警察廳指，3 人被指牽涉的情報活動與香港有關。
據當地警方資料，3 名男子分別為 38 歲 Chi Leung（Peter）Wai 、37 歲 Matthew Trickett 及 63 歲 Chung Biu Yuen。據了解，其中 Chung Biu Yuen 為香港駐倫敦經濟貿易辦事處行政經理。當地傳媒報道，3 人周一於倫敦西敏寺地方法院應訊，暫時毋須答辯，獲准保釋。案件將於 5 月 24 日，在倫敦中央刑事法庭（The Central Criminal Court of England and Wales）再提訊。
行政長官李家超周二（14 日）見記者，指中國駐英大使館已就事件發聲明，強烈譴責及向英方提出嚴正交涉，並指任何對港府的無理指控，均不能接受。
13 May 2024法庭線#3525
反恐首案｜辯方指「屠龍」聲譽非殘暴兇殘、「下下要殺人」 黃振強：「唔係好識判斷」
The first case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, in which seven defendants have pleaded not guilty, entered its 15th day of trial at the High Court on Monday (13th). The defendant who pleaded guilty, Victor Chun Keung Wong, the self-styled captain of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade squad”, continued to be cross-examined. The defence for defendant Lau Pui-ying, who is accused of helping “Dragon Slaying Brigade” raise funds, asked whether Lau would be regarded as a member of “Dragon Slaying Brigade”. Wong said he regarded her as one of its members, but that she was not a core member and had not participated in operations.
The defence cited a Telegram conversation between the two, in which Wong mentioned wanting to buy a gun. The defence questioned whether the gun emoji (:gun:) in the messages looked like a real gun, suggesting that it appeared to be a water pistol or toy gun. Wong said he could not judge, but confirmed that he did not subsequently mention to Lau that he wanted to buy a gun. The defence also cited Wong’s bank records, indicating that Lau Pui-ying had transferred a total of $245,000 to Wong. Wong admitted using part of the money for football betting and repaying loans from finance companies, among other things.
The defence further said that, apart from petrol bombs, “Dragon Slaying Brigade” had not used other lethal weapons, and Wong agreed. The defence then said: “The reputation of ‘Dragon Slaying Brigade’ isn’t one of brutality and viciousness—does it have to kill people every time?” Wong said its reputation should not be defined by him: “I’m not very good at judging.” The trial will continue on Tuesday (14th).
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周一（13 日）在高等法院踏入第 15 天審訊。認罪被告、自稱「屠龍小隊」隊長黃振強續接受盤問。被指協助「屠龍」籌款的被告劉佩凝一方問，會否視劉為「屠龍」成員。黃稱視其為一分子，但她並非核心成員，沒參與行動。
辯方引述兩人 TG 對話，黃提及想買槍；辯方質疑訊息中的表情符號（:gun:）不像真槍，看來是水槍或膠槍；黃指無法判斷，但他確認此後沒再向劉提及希望買槍。辯方另引述黃的戶口紀錄，指劉佩凝共轉帳 24 萬 5 千元予黃，黃承認將部分款項用於賭波、償還財務公司借貸等。
辯方又指，「屠龍」除汽油彈外，沒使用其他致命武器；黃同意。辯方遂稱，「屠龍嘅聲譽唔係殘暴兇殘，下下要殺人？」黃則指聲譽不應由他界定，「我唔係好識去判斷。」案件周二（14 日）續審。
13 May 2024法庭線#3526
粉嶺高球場覆核案｜土拓署反駁球會對環評報告質疑 官押後至7月待環保署陳詞
The Government plans to reclaim part of the Fanling Golf Course site for public housing. In July 2023, the Hong Kong Golf Club filed a judicial review over the environmental impact assessment report for development of the Fanling Golf Course site (Legal 101 article), seeking to overturn the Environmental Protection Department’s decision to approve the report. The High Court earlier granted a stay of the implementation of the EIA process.
The judicial review hearing entered its third day at the High Court on Monday (13th). The Civil Engineering and Development Department completed its submissions. As Senior Counsel Yuen Kwok-keung, representing the Environmental Protection Department, was admitted to hospital after falling ill, the hearing was adjourned to 8 July for continuation.
政府計劃收回粉嶺高球場部分用地興建公屋，香港哥爾夫球會於 2023 年 7 月入稟，就粉嶺高球場用地發展的環評報告提出司法覆核（法律 101 文章），要求法庭推翻環保署批准報告的決定。高院早前批准暫緩執行環評程序。
司法覆核聆訊周一（13 日）在高院進入第 3 日。土木工程拓展署完成陳詞，由於代表環保署的資深大律師袁國強抱恙入院，聆訊押後 7 月 8 日續。
10 May 2024法庭線#3512
反恐首案｜黃振強稱被捕時遭至少三警施襲 辯方引報告指下半身多處瘀傷
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty, and the trial at the High Court entered its 14th day on Friday (10th). The defendant who pleaded guilty, self-described captain of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade Squad” Victor Chun Keung Wong, continued to be cross-examined. For several days, the defence had questioned Wong about his complaint to the court that he had been subjected to police violence during his arrest, but Wong had not given a direct answer. Under questioning by the defence for defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian on Friday, Wong gave an account of the attack for the first time.
Wong said that on the day he was arrested at a “safe house”, police broke down the door and more than three officers entered his room and turned off the lights. They “used their palms to strike my face, swung batons at my body … and another one was responsible for holding me down”. This lasted for about 10 to 15 minutes or more, during which he felt pain. The defence cited a document in which he complained about the police officers, saying he had multiple bruises on his lower body and abrasions to his mouth and the left side of his face after the attack.
Regarding the case against defendant Lee Ka Tin, Christian, Victor Chun Keung Wong previously said Lee had taken part in test-firing a gun and later received the gun and bullets. Under questioning by Wong, he said he did not remember whether he had instructed Lee to collect the gun beforehand, and had not personally witnessed Lee receiving it. He said, however, that both Lee and his alleged co-conspirator Ng Chi-hung, who supplied the gun, had mentioned that the gun was with Lee. The defence said Lee had not attended any of the three internal “Dragon Slaying Brigade” meetings, which Wong disagreed with. The trial will continue next Monday (13th).
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周五（10 日）在高院踏入第 14 天審訊。認罪被告、自稱「屠龍小隊」隊長黃振強續接受盤問。辯方連日就黃曾向法庭投訴被捕時遭受警暴一事提問，黃均未有正面回答。至被告李家田一方周五盤問下，黃首度供述受襲過程。
黃指在「安全屋」被捕當日，警方撞門而入，多於 3 名警員進入其房後關燈，對方「用手掌拍向我嘅面部，用警棍向我身體揮動…仲有一個就係負責將我固定」，持續約 10 至 15 分鐘以上、期間感到痛楚。辯方引其投訴警員文件，指他受襲後下半身多處瘀傷，嘴部、左邊臉擦傷。
另外，針對被告李家田的案情，黃振強早前稱李有參與試槍，其後獲槍和子彈。黃盤問下稱不記得事前有否指示李取槍，亦沒親睹李獲槍，但指李和提供槍的共謀者吳智鴻，均提及槍在李處。辯方稱三次「屠龍」內部會議，李都沒出席，黃均不同意。案件下周一（13 日）續。
10 May 2024法庭線#3513
男子認迷你倉藏爆炸品囚4年半 官批評控方降低罪責 稱將判刑理由抄送律政司司長
Police seized suspected explosives, axes and other weapons from a mini-storage unit in Hung Hom in 2022. The 33-year-old man pleaded guilty to possessing explosives with intent and possessing offensive weapons, and was sentenced to 4½ years in prison at the District Court on Friday (10th).
Judge Adriana Noelle Tse Ching said the items could be used to make 9 kilograms of homemade explosives or 1.5 kilograms of black explosives, and that if they fell into the hands of people with malicious intent, they would inevitably injure innocent people and cause public panic. The judge said the public interest should take precedence over personal pleas for leniency in serious charges, and said the defendant had a bright future but had ruined it himself. The mitigation submissions did not mention the reason for the offending. The defence had earlier said the defendant was musically talented and had been a trumpet player.
The judge also “specifically noted” that police found gas masks, helmets and other items in the unit, which were clearly equipment commonly used during “social unrest”, describing it as a “mini arsenal”. The prosecution considered the items unrelated to the case, and said the court had no power to take them into account in sentencing. The judge said this approach seriously downplayed the culpability and said the sentencing reasons in the case would be copied to the Secretary for Justice.
警方於 2022 年在紅磡一個迷你倉內，起獲一批懷疑炸藥及斧頭等武器，33 歲男子承認「有意圖而管有爆炸品」及「管有攻擊性武器」兩罪，周五（10 日）在區院被判囚 4 年半。
法官謝沈智慧指，涉案物品可製成 9 公斤土製炸藥或 1.5 公斤黑炸藥，若落於立心不良之徒手中，必令無辜者受傷，造成社會恐慌；又指在嚴重控罪上公眾利益應凌駕個人求情，認為被告前途光明卻自毁前途，求情亦隻字不提犯案原因。辯方早前指被告具音樂才華、曾為小號演奏家。
官另「特別一提」指，警方在迷你倉內發現防毒面罩、頭盔等，顯而易見是「社會暴亂」時常用裝備，形容就如「迷你軍火庫」。惟控方認為與案無關，法庭在判刑時無權考慮，指做法嚴重降低罪責，稱會將本案判刑理由抄送律政司司長。
10 May 2024獨媒#3514
陳文敏指禁令難執行：《願榮光》非列禁歌 觀看者意圖非網絡供應商控制
The Court of Appeal granted an interim injunction the day before yesterday prohibiting four types of dissemination of the song “Glory to Hong Kong” involving criminal intent. Executive Council member Ronny Tong said yesterday that internet providers such as Google should not invite suspicion upon themselves and should “know better” than to take “Glory to Hong Kong” offline. Johannes Chan, a visiting professor at the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law, said on a radio programme this morning that “Glory to Hong Kong” had not become a banned song. How viewers use a video and what intentions they have are not matters internet providers can control. He gave the example: “A knife can be used to kill people or commit robberies; does that mean every shop should be prohibited from selling knives?” Chan also said the legal dispute in the case could originally have been brought before the Court of Final Appeal for clarification, but Chow Hang-tung, who had earlier sought to intervene in the case as a third party, had been refused permission to do so, and no one else was entitled to appeal.
上訴庭前日批出臨時禁制令，禁制4類具犯罪意圖傳播歌曲《願榮光歸香港》。行會成員湯家驊昨表示Google等網絡供應商不應自招嫌疑、「好自為之」將《願榮光》下架，港大法律學院客座教授陳文敏今早在電台表示，《願榮光》並沒有成為禁歌，觀看者如何使用影片、當中具有什麼意圖，並非網絡供應商可以控制，他舉例「刀可以用作斬人打劫，是否所有店舖都禁止賣刀？」陳文敏又指，案中的法律爭議本來有機會帶上終審法院釐清，可惜早前欲以第三方介入案件的鄒幸彤已被拒絕申請，再無人有權提出上訴。
9 May 2024法庭線#3511
反恐首案｜辯方質疑以眾籌捐款嫖妓、亂搞男女關係 黃振強庭上情緒失控
In the first case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, seven defendants have pleaded not guilty. The trial at the High Court entered its 13th day on Thursday (9th). The defendant who pleaded guilty, Victor Chun Keung Wong, who describes himself as captain of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade squad”, continued to be cross-examined. The defence for defendant Yim Man-Him alleged that Wong had engaged in improper relationships, including behaving ambiguously with the captain of a militant organisation while dating his girlfriend. It also alleged that, when Wong visited a prostitute in Thailand using crowdfunding donations, he deceived his girlfriend with the help of teammates.
Wong admitted to deceiving both sides and visiting a prostitute. During cross-examination, he suddenly lost emotional control, repeatedly gasping and sobbing in court. Judge Esther T. H. Chang adjourned the proceedings. As Wong left the witness stand, he was unable to stand steadily and was carried back to the detention room by four male correctional officers. About an hour later, Wong bowed and apologised separately to the judge, the jurors and the lawyers, saying, “I didn’t control my emotions well just now.”
Regarding the case involving Yim Man-Him, the defence said Yim Pan had repeatedly been absent from “Dragon Slaying Brigade” operations because he was accompanying his girlfriend. Wong confirmed that on the eve of the “kill police” operation on 7 December, Yim had been pressured and, after they had “finished berating him, he came out”, appeared at the “safe house”. The case continues on Friday (10th).
《反恐條例》首案，7 人不認罪，周四（9 日）在高院踏入第 13 天審訊。認罪被告、自稱「屠龍小隊」隊長黃振強續接受盤問。被告嚴文謙一方，指黃「亂搞男女關係」，包括與女友拍拖時，與勇武組織隊長曖昧；又在泰國以眾籌捐款召妓時，利用隊友瞞騙女友。
黃承認涉「兩頭瞞」及嫖妓，盤問期間突然情緒失控，在庭上不斷喘氣、嗚咽。法官張慧玲著休庭，黃步離證人台時未能站穩，由四名男懲教協力抬回羈留室。約一小時後，黃分別向法官、陪審員及律師鞠躬道歉，指「啱先我情緒控制得唔好」。
就嚴文謙案情，辯方指嚴頻因陪伴女友而多次缺席「屠龍」行動。黃確認在 12 月 7 日「殺警」行動前夕，嚴遭施壓、被他們「鬧完就出嚟」，現身「安全屋」。案件周五（10 日）續。
8 May 2024法庭線#3500
陳真咬甩趙家賢耳囚14年半 上訴得直減刑半年 判詞：原審刑期絕不為過 但陳已賠償可減刑
In November 2019, a middle-aged man, Joe Chen, attacked people outside Cityplaza in Taikoo Shing with a knife and bit off the left ear of Andrew Chiu, then an Eastern District councillor who is currently remanded over the “47-person case”. He was sentenced to 14½ years in prison. Chan appealed against the sentence. On Wednesday (8th), the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence by six months to 14 years’ imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal said in its judgment that, considering the blind and ferocious nature of the attack and the physical and psychological trauma suffered by the two victims, the sentencing starting point adopted at first instance was “not excessive in any way”. It said that if the trial judge had not increased the sentence on the basis that, against the background of the incident, Joe Chen’s conduct could have triggered large-scale violent clashes, “that could instead be questioned”.
The Court of Appeal said Joe Chen could have delayed making compensation, but had paid the victims $39.3 million before the trial began, reflecting his sincerity. The trial judge should not have excluded this mitigating factor. Taking all the factors into account, it reduced the sentence by 12 months in total—six months more than the reduction made at first instance—and lowered the overall sentence by six months.
2019 年 11 月太古城中心外發生襲擊事件，中年漢陳真持刀傷人，並咬甩現就「47 人案」還押、時任東區區議員趙家賢左耳，被判監禁 14 年半。陳不服刑罰提出上訴。上訴庭周三（8 日）判他上訴得直，減刑半年至 14 年監禁。
上訴庭在判詞指出，考慮襲擊的盲目和凶狠程度，以至兩名事主所承受的肉體和精神創傷，原審的量刑基準「絕不為過」，原審法官沒有因應在案發背景下，陳真的行為能挑起大規模暴力衝突而加刑，「則反而可被質疑」。
上訴庭指，考慮陳真大可拖延不賠償，但在原審開審前已向事主賠償 393 萬元，反映其誠意，原審法官不應將此減刑因素排除在外，因此基於各項因素減刑共 12 個月，即比原審的減刑多出 6 個月，並將總刑期下調半年。
8 May 2024法庭線#3501
《願榮光》禁令案｜律政司上訴得直 上訴庭批出臨時禁制令
The Department of Justice appealed after its application for an interim injunction in relation to the song ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ was previously refused. The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on Wednesday (the 8th), ruling in favour of the Department of Justice and formally granting the interim injunction.
The Court of Appeal said in its judgment that prosecution alone was clearly insufficient to address the relevant criminal issues. There was an urgent need for an injunction to help safeguard national security, as those named as defendants in the injunction had, as could be seen, widely and persistently disregarded criminal law in the past. Public misunderstandings of ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ had further worsened the situation. “The court must intervene immediately to prevent the existing unlawful state of affairs from continuing; otherwise, it may cause further irreparable damage to national security.”
律政司就歌曲《願榮光歸香港》申請禁制令一案，早前被拒批臨時禁制令，律政司不服提上訴。上訴庭周三（8 日）頒下判詞，裁定律政司上訴得直，正式頒下臨時禁制令。
上訴庭在判詞指出，單憑檢控明顯不足以處理有關的刑事問題，有迫切需要以禁制令協助維護國安，因為禁制令指明的被告，過去廣泛及持續無視刑事法律，情況「可見一斑」，公眾對《願榮光》的誤解更令情況惡化，「法庭必須立刻干預，防止現有的非法狀態繼續下去，否則可能對國家安全造成無法補救的進一步破壞」。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
