17 Sept 2025集誌社#7324
稱不服兵役侵烏克蘭或遭迫害 白俄男模提免遣返聲請被拒申司法覆核
A 25-year-old Belarusian male model came to Hong Kong on a work visa in 2022. He subsequently filed a non-refoulement claim, saying he was “driven by conscience” and unwilling to undergo military service and join the Russian army to attack Ukraine. He feared facing serious risks if returned to Belarus. The Immigration Department and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected his application in turn this year.
The model filed an application for judicial review in the High Court on Monday (15th), alleging that the appeal board selectively assessed the information, including by finding that “Belarusian soldiers would not be drawn into the Russia-Ukraine war”, which amounted to procedural impropriety. The application also cited publicly available information, including United Nations human rights reports, as showing that Belarus supported Russia in confronting Ukraine. He asked the court to rule that the board’s decision was unreasonable and unlawful.
Separately, the model was earlier charged with one count of breaching a condition of stay. He appeared at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on Wednesday (17th), and the case was adjourned until December 10 for mention pending the outcome of his application for leave to seek judicial review. He was continued on bail.
一名 25 歲白俄羅斯籍男模特兒，2022 年以工作簽證來港。他其後提出免遣返聲請，指「受良心驅使」不願接受兵役，加入俄羅斯軍隊攻打烏克蘭，擔心被遣返回國後，面臨嚴重風險，入境處和酷刑聲請上訴委員會今年先後拒絕申請。
男模周一（15 日）入稟高等法院提司法覆核，指上訴委員會選擇性審視資料，例如認為「白俄士兵不會被捲入俄烏戰爭」，屬程序不當。入稟狀另引聯合國人權報告等公開資料，指可顯示白俄支持俄羅斯對抗烏克蘭，要求法庭裁定委員會決定不合理和不合法。
另外，男模早前被控一項違反逗留條件罪，周三（17 日）在東區裁判法院提堂，案件押至 12 月 10 日再訊，待司法覆核申請許可結果，他續准保釋。
16 Sept 2025法庭線#7316
施駿興否認與女童非法性交 辯方引事主反國教聯署、男友反修例帖文 質疑報案原因
Yuen Long district councillor Chun Hing Sei, formerly vice-chairman of Young DAB, is accused of indecently assaulting an 11-year-old girl in a park in 2008 and having sexual intercourse with her three years later when she was 13. Chun Hing Sei denies indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. The trial entered its second day at the District Court on Tuesday (the 16th). The complainant continued to testify, saying she first had sexual intercourse with Shi when she was in Form Two, after which it occurred about one to three times a month. Shi later proposed ending the relationship. Two years ago, after noticing that the defendant was running for district council, the experience was brought back to her mind. She said that, as a district councillor, he “should not do anything contrary to morality”; because she “did not want anyone else to be victimised” and felt at the time that she could handle the matter maturely, she eventually decided to report it to the police. During cross-examination, the defence referred to the complainant’s 2012 Facebook petition opposing national education and her boyfriend’s 2019 posts opposing the proposed extradition law, questioning whether she reported the matter because she opposed the defendant’s political stance. She denied this.
曾任青年民建聯副主席的元朗區議員施駿興，被指於 2008 年在公園非禮 11 歲女童，又於 3 年後與 13 歲的她性交。施否認非禮及與 16 歲以下女童非法性交罪，案件周二（16 日）在區院進入第二日審訊。
事主續作供，指中二時與施首次性交，其後每月仍有約 1 至 3 次，施及後提出分手。她前年留意到被告參選區議員，勾起記憶，認為作為區議員是「唔應該有違背道德嘅事」，因「唔想有其他人受害」，且當時自覺可成熟處理事件，最後決定報警。
辯方盤問時引事主 2012 年在 Facebook 的「反國教」聯署、其男友在 2019 年的反修例帖文，質疑事主是因反對被告的政治立場而報案。事主否認。
16 Sept 2025集誌社#7319
履職監察｜元朗區議員施駿興否認非禮、「衰11」罪名 民政：不評論，待裁決後跟進
Former vice-chairman of Young DAB and Yuen Long District Councillor Chun Hing Sei was accused of indecently assaulting an 11-year-old girl in a park in 2008 and having unlawful sexual intercourse in 2011 with a girl who was then 13. He was charged with indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, commonly known as “sex with an 11-year-old” (“衰十一”). The trial began yesterday (15th) in the District Court, and Chun Hing Sei denied the charges. In response to an inquiry from The Collective, the Home Affairs Department said the judicial proceedings were ongoing and it would not comment, adding that it would follow up appropriately after the court’s verdict.
前青年民建聯副主席、元朗區議員施駿興，被指於 2008 年在公園非禮 11 歲女童，及於 2011 年與時為 13 歲的女童性交，被控非禮及俗稱「衰十一」的與 16 歲以下女童非法性交罪。案件昨（15日）起在區域法院開審，施駿興否認控罪。民政事務總署回覆《集誌社》查詢指，案件司法程序仍在進行，不會作任何評論，會在法庭裁決後適當跟進。
15 Sept 2025法庭線#7308
3男涉煽惑殺警罪成囚22月、提上訴遭駁回 上訴庭指即使沒人被煽惑亦不減刑責
Three men were accused of threatening to kill police officers and their family members in a WhatsApp group in October 2019. After trial, they were convicted on two counts of inciting others to wound with intent and sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment. All three appealed against their sentences, while one also appealed against his conviction. After hearing the case in May this year, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on the same day and issued its reasons for judgment on Monday (15th).
On the conviction appeal, the Court of Appeal said the messages could not be considered without taking their context and the interactions with other members into account, as doing so would amount to “dealing with the messages in isolation”. After analysing a number of messages, it found that the appellant and his co-defendants had “echoed one another”, “believed that all police officers deserved to die and hoped others would agree with their views”. It agreed with the trial judge that “he was not merely seeking to attract attention, vent his emotions or even add fuel to the fire”, and dismissed the appeal.
As to the sentence appeals, the Court of Appeal said that the fact that no one had been incited to commit the relevant acts did not lessen the inciters’ criminal liability; however, if someone had been incited and committed the relevant acts, that would aggravate the inciters’ culpability. The court also said that the doxxing of the three men involved, at most, telephone harassment and people knocking on their doors, and did not amount to an extreme situation warranting an additional reduction in sentence. It likewise dismissed the appeals.
3 名男子被指 2019 年 10 月，在 WhatsApp 群組揚言殺害警員及其家屬，經審訊後被裁定兩項「煽惑有意圖而傷人」罪成，判監 22 個月。3 人不服刑罰上訴，當中 1 人同時提定罪上訴，案件今年 5 月聆訊後，即日被上訴庭駁回，周一（15 日）頒判案理由書。
就定罪上訴，上訴庭指涉事訊息若不循上文下理、與其他成員互動一併考慮，「等同把訊息抽離處理」，並分析多段訊息，裁定上訴人與同案被告「一唱一和」，「認定所有警員都死不足惜，並希望其他人認同其觀點」，認同原審指「他不只是吸引他人眼球、宣洩情緒、甚至是火上加油那麼簡單」，遂駁回上訴。
至於刑罰上訴，上訴庭表示，沒人被煽惑作出有關行為，並不會減輕煽惑者的刑責，但若有人受到煽惑而作出有關行為，則會加重煽惑者的罪責。上訴庭又指，三人被起底充其量只是涉及電話滋擾、上門拍門，並不屬於可獲額外減刑的極端情況，同樣駁回上訴。
11 Sept 2025明報#7295
學者：倘未提適合框架 或續違人權法
In 2023, the Court of Final Appeal ruled in the Sham Tsz-kit case that the government had a positive obligation under Article 14 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance to establish an alternative framework recognising same-sex partnerships, and stayed enforcement of the ruling for two years. Simon Ngai Man Young, a professor at the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law, said that unless the government proposed a suitable alternative framework, it would continue to breach its obligations under Article 14 and might also violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the international level. However, he said the Court of Final Appeal’s order did not compel either party to the proceedings to do anything, and that after the stay expires next month, the government might not be directly in breach of the court order.
終審法院2023年就岑子杰案頒令，裁定政府違反《人權法案條例》14條下設立承認同性伴侶替代框架的積極義務，並暫緩兩年執行。港大法律學院教授楊艾文說，除非政府提出適合替代框架，否則政府會持續違反14條責任，在國際層面上也可能違反《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》。不過，他形容終院頒令無強制與訟雙方要做什麼，今次暫緩限期下月屆滿後，政府未必有直接違反法庭命令。
5 Sept 2025法庭線#7263
理大衝突｜服刑完畢鄭錦滿暴動上訴得直 上訴庭指原審准控方加控暴動屬犯錯
During the PolyU clashes in November 2019, eight people were accused of assisting protesters in escaping PolyU through drainage channels and leaving in “parent cars” sent to pick them up. Five of them pleaded not guilty and stood trial. Former Civic Passion member Cheng Kam-mun was convicted of rioting and sentenced to three years and eight months in prison, while the other four were convicted of intending to obstruct the course of justice and sentenced to between 12 and 13 months’ imprisonment. The five convicted defendants appealed against their convictions. The Court of Appeal of the High Court handed down its judgment on Friday (the 5th), allowing Cheng Kam-mun’s riot appeal and quashing his conviction and sentence.
2019 年 11 月理大衝突，8 人被指協助爬渠逃出理大的示威者離開，並駕「家長車」接應，當中 5 人不認罪受審；前熱血公民成員鄭錦滿被裁定暴動罪成，判囚 3 年 8 個月；另外 4 人則被裁定意圖妨礙司法公正罪成，判監 12 至 13 個月。5 名罪成被告不服定罪提上訴，高等法院上訴庭周五（5 日）頒判詞，當中裁定鄭錦滿暴動上訴得直，撤銷定罪及判刑。
判詞提到，原審區院暫委法官鄭念慈容許控方對鄭在意圖妨礙司法公正之外再加控暴動屬犯錯，形容是一個「遲來得可以的舉動」，使鄭被「兩面包抄」，又指控方修訂後的，是「全方位無死角」的控罪書。
鄭錦滿已刑滿出獄。據《法庭線》統計，鄭為反修例相關案件中，第二名被指為示威者，而就暴動罪上訴得直的被告。至於其餘 4 人意圖妨礙司法公正罪的上訴則被駁回，維持原判。
5 Sept 2025法庭線#7264
反恐首案32歲男被告囚9年 另承認管有彈簧刀等加監5個月 提刑期上訴被駁回
On the eve of the 8 December 2019 International Human Rights Day march, police uncovered a large quantity of weapons, including pistols and ammunition. Several people were subsequently arrested and accused of conspiring to kill police officers, and the government brought charges under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance for the first time. Among them, 32-year-old Chan Yuk-lung pleaded guilty in the High Court to possessing firearms and ammunition without a licence and was sentenced to nine years in prison. Chan was also charged with possessing a flick knife and failing to display a valid vehicle registration plate. He pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to one count each of possession of a prohibited weapon and forgery, and was sentenced to an additional five months in prison.
Chan appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court, arguing that the starting point for sentencing was too high and that, as the offences arose from his arrest by police in connection with the “anti-terrorism case”, the sentences should have been served entirely concurrently. The appeal was heard in the High Court’s Court of First Instance on Friday (the 5th). Acting Judge Yiu Fan-chi found that the sentencing starting point was not manifestly excessive and that the two cases differed in nature and background. The appeal argument that the sentences could have been served entirely concurrently if he had been sentenced together in the High Court was “purely speculative”. The judge also said that the magistrate had already ordered part of the sentence to run concurrently and that the sentence was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed the same day.
2019 年 12 月 8 日「國際人權日大遊行」前夕，警方搜出大批武器，包括手槍、子彈等，事後多人被捕，被指串謀殺警，政府首引《反恐條例》下的控罪起訴。當中 32 歲男子陳玉龍在高院承認無牌管有槍械及彈藥，判囚 9 年。陳另涉管有彈簧刀及沒展示有效車牌等，在裁判法院承認各一項「管有違禁武器」及「偽造文件」罪，加監 5 個月。
陳不服裁判法院的刑期上訴，指量刑起點過高，加上源於警方就「反恐案」拘捕他時發生，刑期應全數同期執行。上訴案周五（5 日）在高院原訟庭審理。暫委法官姚勳智認為，量刑起點非明顯過重，而兩案的性質、背景不同，上訴方稱若在高院一併判刑，可以全數同期執行是「純屬臆測」。官又稱，裁判官已將部分刑期同期執行，量刑恰當，即日駁回上訴。
4 Sept 2025法庭線#7257
六四沙田黑漆噴「6436」、蠟燭圖案 曾建峯認罪 官指有機會判監
Former Civic Party member Tsang Kin-fung, known as “the domineering brother”, was accused of spray-painting “6436” and candle designs in black on Fo Tan Road and notice boards on June 4 this year. He was charged with criminal damage. The case was originally scheduled for trial at Sha Tin Magistrates’ Courts on Thursday (the 4th), but the defendant changed his plea to guilty before the trial began.
The defence said in mitigation that the defendant committed the offence after drinking because his mother’s health had deteriorated and he was experiencing difficulties with his novel writing. It said his conduct had been unwise, but that he had previously obeyed the law. Acting Magistrate Kong Mei-yee adjourned the case to September 18 for sentencing, pending social service order and probation reports, and stressed that imprisonment remained possible. The defendant was granted bail pending sentencing.
前公民黨成員、人稱「霸氣哥」的曾建峯，被指於今年六四在火炭馬路及告示欄，以黑色噴漆噴上「6436」、蠟燭圖案，被控刑事損壞。案件原定周四（4 日）在沙田裁判法院開審，被告開審前改為認罪。
辯方求情指，被告因母親健康變差、小說創作不順利，喝酒後干犯本案，行為實屬不智，惟他之前一直奉公守法。暫委裁判官江美儀押至 9 月 18 日判刑，候索取社會服務令及感化報告，強調仍有機會判監。被告准保釋候判。
4 Sept 2025法庭線#7258
反恐第二案｜陪審團經3天半商議裁定3人罪成、5人無罪 10月處理求情
In the second case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance, a nine-member jury began deliberating on Monday and, after about 28 hours, unanimously found all seven principal charges under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance against the first seven defendants unproven on Thursday afternoon (the 4th). However, three defendants were convicted on the alternative charge of conspiring to cause an explosion likely to endanger life. The eighth defendant was acquitted of attempting to manufacture explosives.
Of the three convicted defendants, Ho Cheuk Wai nodded when the verdict was delivered, Lee Ka-ban smiled and appeared calm, and Christopher Ka Tsun Cheung also appeared calm. Of the five acquitted defendants, Tsz Lok Ng appeared nervous and looked up at the ceiling, Yeung Yee-sze lowered their head, while Cheung Cheuk-ki and Ho Pui-yan had tears in their eyes. Cheung nodded to the lawyers, covered their face and sobbed. Chow Ho-man remained calm and nodded. Some friends and relatives in the public gallery wiped away tears with tissues. Lawyers from the teams embraced one another when the court adjourned.
Judge Chan Chung-hang adjourned the case until 10 October for mitigation and sentencing. Clinical psychologist reports were ordered for the three convicted defendants, while a psychiatric report was ordered for the fourth defendant. Two acquitted defendants applied for costs, which will be dealt with at the next mention.
The case concerned the 2020 explosion incidents in a toilet at the accident and emergency department of Caritas Medical Centre and at Lo Wu Station. The prosecution also alleged that the defendants had planned to detonate a bomb in the car park of Sheung Tak Estate in Tseung Kwan O, but police arrested them before the incidents took place (see the main text for the individual case details). According to calculations by The Witness, the five acquitted defendants had been remanded for more than 40 to more than 2,000 days and were released the same day. The three convicted defendants had each been remanded for more than 2,000 days, and their offences carry a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment.
反恐條例第二案 9 人陪審團由周一開始退庭，經過約 28 小時退庭商議後，周四（4 日）下午一致裁定首 7 名被告《反恐條例》主控罪全部不成立，其中 3 人的「串謀導致相當可能危害生命的爆炸罪」交替控罪成立。第八被告的企圖製造炸藥亦不成立。
罪成的 3 人，何卓為聞判時點頭，李嘉濱微笑、表現平靜，張家俊亦見平靜；獲裁無罪的 5 人，吳子樂緊張、望天，楊怡斯低頭，張琸淇及何培欣眼泛淚光，張並向律師點頭、掩面飲泣。周皓文則平靜、點頭。有旁聽親友用紙巾拭淚。散庭時有律師團隊相擁。
法官陳仲衡押後至 10 月 10 日處理求情及判刑，並為 3 名罪成被告索取臨床心理學家報告，另為第四被告索取精神科醫生報告。兩名無罪被告有訟費申請，下次提訊將一併處理。
本案圍繞 2020 年明愛醫院急症室廁所、羅湖站爆炸案，控方亦指控被告策劃在將軍澳尚德邨停車場引爆炸彈，不過警方在事發前拘捕各人（個人案情見內文）。據《法庭線》計算，獲裁無罪的 5 人已還押逾 40 至逾 2000 天，即日獲釋。罪成 3 人皆已還押逾 2000 天，他們的罪名最高可判囚 20 年。
4 Sept 2025法庭線#7259
反恐第二案｜案中7人被控《反恐條例》 陪審團裁全部不成立 警：未來積極引用《國安法》等罪
After about 28 hours of deliberation, the nine-member jury in the second case under the Terrorism Ordinance unanimously found on Thursday (4th) that all the principal charges under the Terrorism Ordinance against the first seven defendants were not proven. The alternative charge of conspiracy to cause an explosion was proven against three of them. The eighth defendant was also found not guilty of attempting to manufacture explosives (see separate report).
Regarding the five people who were acquitted, Cheung Pak-kit, a senior superintendent of the Police National Security Department, said the police would study the legal issues involved with the Department of Justice. Asked about all seven defendants charged under the Terrorism Ordinance being found not guilty by the jury, Cheung said the court had earlier ruled that a prima facie case had been established against all defendants, reflecting the court’s view that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to require the defendants to enter their defence. He also said the police would actively invoke the National Security Law and the improved Safeguarding National Security Ordinance in future prosecutions.
Regarding allegations by some defendants that they had been “beaten, threatened and coaxed” by police into making confessions after their arrests, Cheung stressed that the evidence had already been assessed by the court in another proceeding before the formal trial. The judge had ruled that the evidence was obtained within a lawful framework and that the statements were made voluntarily, “so this is part of what has been certified by the court.”
反恐條例第二案 9 人陪審團，經過約 28 小時退庭商議後，周四（4 日）一致裁定首 7 名被告《反恐條例》主控罪全部不成立，其中 3 人的「串謀導致爆炸」交替控罪成立。第八被告的企圖製造炸藥亦不成立（見另稿）。
就 5 人獲判無罪，警方國安處警司張伯傑指，會與律政司就所涉的法律議題進行研究。至於案中有 7 人被控《反恐條例》，均被陪審團裁定不成立，張回應指，法庭早前裁定本案所有被告「表證成立」，反映法庭認為控方舉證充足，足以要求被告答辯，又指警方未來會積極引用《國安法》和已完善的《維護國家安全條例》檢控。
至於有被告指控被捕後，遭警方「打、嚇、氹」逼供，張強調，本案證據於正式審訊前，已在另一程序經法庭評核，法官裁定證據在合法框架下獲取、口供是被告自願作出，「所以呢個係得到法庭認證咗嘅一部分」。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
