23 Dec 2025法庭線#7725
膳心小館遭檢走月餅放棄申訴 官下令撤銷申訴指對雙方最公平公正
The social enterprise “Saan Sam” had its mooncakes seized by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department last year. It subsequently challenged the decision in court, seeking an order to revoke the department’s decision and compensation. An FEHD officer testified during the trial that the mooncakes were evidence in a criminal case and that the Department of Justice had been consulted before the operation. The magistrate expressed concern that the Department of Justice’s prosecution decisions should not be interfered with. “Saan Sam” decided to abandon the challenge, while the department argued that the court should order its withdrawal.
On Tuesday (23), Magistrate Pang Leung-ting formally ordered the challenge withdrawn at Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts, saying this was the fairest and most just course for both sides. In response to the department’s reliance on the Criminal Procedure (Costs) Ordinance to argue that the court could make a costs order, the magistrate said the case was civil in nature. He questioned whether the department had distorted the original intention of the Ordinance and said its argument was far-fetched, holding that the court had no power to make a costs order.
社企「膳心小館」去年遭食環署查封及檢走月餅，其後向法庭申訴，要求頒令撤銷署方決定及賠償。食環署職員在審訊供稱，月餅為刑事案證物，行動前已徵詢律政司意見。官關注，律政司檢控決定不受干預，「膳心」一方決定放棄申訴，署方則指應由法庭撤銷申訴。
裁判官彭亮廷周二（23 日）在觀塘裁判法院，正式下令撤銷申訴，指做法對雙方最公平、公正。就署方引《刑事案件訟費條例》，指法庭可頒訟費令，官反駁指本案屬民事性質，質疑署方扭曲《條例》原意、說法牽強，指法庭無權頒訟費令。
23 Dec 2025法庭線#7726
反恐第二案｜無罪何培欣向終院申上訴許可 終院要求提出不應駁回原因
In the second case under the anti-terrorism legislation, five of the eight defendants, including Ho Pui-yan, were acquitted of all charges. After the verdict, Ho applied for costs, but High Court trial judge Chan Chung-hang said she had brought suspicion upon herself and dismissed the application. The judge also ruled that HK$163,000 and RMB400 found by police at Ho’s residence had been obtained by the defendants in the course of committing the offence and entrusted to Ho for safekeeping, and ordered the money forfeited.
Ho Pui-yan subsequently applied to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal, reportedly in relation to the costs and the handling of the exhibits. On Tuesday (23rd), the Registrar of the Court of Final Appeal said there was no reasonably arguable point, and required the applicant to provide, by 20 January next year, reasons why the application should not be dismissed.
反恐條例第二案，8 名被告中有 5 人獲裁定全部罪名不成立，包括何培欣。何在裁決後申請訟費，原審高院法官陳仲衡指她自招嫌疑，駁回申請。官另裁斷，警方在何住所搜出的 16.3 萬元港幣及 400 元人民幣，是案中被告在犯案過程中取得，交由何保管，予以充公。
何培欣其後向終院申請上訴許可，據悉與訟費及證物處理有關。終院司法常務官周二（23 日）指案件沒有合理可供爭辯之處，限申請方在明年 1 月 20 日前，提出不應駁回其申請的原因。
22 Dec 2025法庭線#7724
鄭嘉如檢控《華爾街日報》 鄭供稱記協選舉前遭上司要求退選及退出執委會
The private criminal prosecution brought by Hong Kong Journalists Association chairperson Cheng Ka-yu against The Wall Street Journal entered its third day of hearings on Monday (22nd), with Cheng testifying as a prosecution witness. She said that on the eve of the HKJA election, her direct supervisor sent her messages and called her to ask her to withdraw, otherwise the union chairperson’s position would be “incompatiable” with her work at the Journal, and expressed the wish that she also quit the HKJA executive committee.
After Cheng told her supervisor that she would continue to stand for election, a human resources staff member emailed her saying that she had not applied to the company for permission and that her candidacy had not been approved. About half a month after she was elected chairperson, she was formally dismissed by the Journal on the grounds that her position would be assigned to another region.
In response to the Journal’s earlier suggestion that she brought the prosecution to seek a large compensation payment, Cheng explained that she pursued the case because an employer cannot dismiss an employee for participating in a trade union, but few employers have been held legally responsible for doing so. “As a union leader defending journalists [’ rights], I felt that I needed to take action to hold the employer responsible,” she said. She also said she was deeply disappointed by the Labour Department and Department of Justice decisions not to prosecute the Journal. The hearing will continue on Tuesday.
記協主席鄭嘉如私人刑事檢控《華爾街日報》一案，周一（22 日）踏入第三天聆訊，鄭以控方證人身分作供。她供稱在記協選舉前夕，其直屬上司發訊息及打電話要求她退選，否則工會主席職務將與她在《華》的工作「不相容」（incompatiable），並希望她一併退出記協執委會。
鄭向上司稱會繼續參選後，人事部職員發電郵稱，鄭沒向公司申請許可，參選不獲公司批准。鄭當選主席後約半個月，被《華》正式解僱，理由為她的職位會分配到其他地區。
就《華》一方早前質疑鄭興訟是為取巨額賠償，鄭解釋，提出檢控是因為僱主不能因僱員參與工會而解僱他，惟很少僱主因此負上法律責任，「而我作為一個捍衛記者（權利）的工會領袖，我覺得我需要採取行動，令僱主負上責任」，又提到對勞工處和律政司決定不檢控《華》大感失望。審訊周二續。
19 Dec 2025法庭線#7711
助理律師未經授權助鄒家成寄投訴信罪成 申終極上訴許可 明年1月聆訊
Zou Gaa-sing, who was remanded in custody in the “47-person case”, was alleged to have sent a complaint letter to the Office of the Ombudsman through a lawyer in 2023 without authorisation. The letter complained that the Correctional Services Department had damaged and refused to allow his relatives and friends to bring in two Buddhist books. Zou and a female lawyer were convicted of “taking an unauthorised article out of a prison”. Zou was sentenced to three days’ imprisonment, while the lawyer was fined HK$1,800.
Their appeals against conviction were dismissed, while Zou’s sentence was subsequently replaced with a fine of HK$1,800. After the lawyer’s application for a certificate granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was again rejected, she applied directly to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal. According to the Judiciary’s website, the case will be heard on 21 January 2026 by Permanent Judges Li Yee, Fok Siu-kong and Lam Man-hon.
因「47 人案」還押的鄒家成，2023 年被指未經授權下，透過律師寄出予申訴專員公署的投訴信，投訴懲教署損毀及拒絕其親友送入的兩本佛學書籍。鄒與一名女律師被裁定「將未經授權的物品攜離監獄」罪成，鄒判囚 3 日，律師罰款 1,800 元。
兩人不服提定罪上訴被駁回，鄒則獲改判罰款 1,800 元。涉案律師申請上訴至終院許可證明書再駁回後，再直接向終院申請上訴許可。根據司法機構網頁，案件將於 2026 年 1 月 21 日聆訊，由常任法官李義、霍兆剛及林文瀚處理。
19 Dec 2025法庭線#7714
擺擴音器播訴求罪成罰款 大坑西邨居民上訴失敗 高院拒發上訴至終院證明書
Tai Hang Sai Estate resident Wong Kwai-keung was accused of placing a loudspeaker in the estate last June and broadcasting demands expressing dissatisfaction with its redevelopment. He was convicted after trial on a summons charge of “noise nuisance caused by a loudspeaker” and fined $1,500. High Court acting judge Chun Man (OIAP) Li dismissed his appeal and, in a judgment handed down on Friday (19th), refused to issue Wong a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
The judgment said Wong’s grounds of appeal concerned only how the relevant legal principles should be applied, and did not involve “a point of law of great and general importance”. They therefore did not meet the requirements for an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
大坑西邨居民黃桂強被指去年 6 月在邨內擺放擴音器、播放不滿重建的訴求，受審後被裁定「擴音器造成的噪音煩擾」傳票罪成，罰款 1,500 元。高院暫委法官李俊文駁回他的上訴，周五（19 日）再頒下判詞，拒絕向黃發出上訴至終審法院證明書。
判詞指，黃的上訴理據只涉如何應用相關法律原則，不屬「具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點」，不符合案件上訴至終院的要求。
19 Dec 2025法庭線#7715
男子撕走兩張選舉事務處海報 認罪指貪玩判罰$2000 另須向處方賠償$10
A 59-year-old man was accused of tearing down two posters for the 2025 Legislative Council election belonging to the Registration and Electoral Office in North Point on 19 November. After his arrest, he admitted under caution that he had committed the offence impulsively and for fun.
The man pleaded guilty on Friday (19th) at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts to one count of “criminal damage”. Magistrate Chee Hong Lam said the case was suitable for disposal by a fine and fined him $2,000. At the prosecution’s request, the defendant was also ordered to pay the Registration and Electoral Office $10 in compensation.
59 歲男子被指在 11 月 19 日，在北角撕走兩張屬於選舉事務處的 2025 年立法會選舉海報。他被捕後於警誡下承認，因衝動與貪玩犯案。
男子周五（ 19 日）在東區裁判法院承認一項「刑事損壞罪」。裁判官林子康指，案件適合以罰款處理，遂判罰款 2,000 元，另應控方要求，下令被告須向選舉事務處賠償 10 元。
17 Dec 2025法庭線#7705
張秀賢不服破產令提上訴 官下令先交11萬保證金 違令即駁回上訴兼付訟費
Former Chinese University of Hong Kong student union president and Yuen Long District Councillor Tommy Sau Yin Cheung was ordered bankrupt by the High Court in July 2024 for failing to repay $140,000 owed to Lai Tak-chung, former chairman of the Liberal Studies Subject Committee of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. Cheung is challenging the order and has applied to submit new evidence, while Lai has asked Cheung to first provide about $120,000 as security for costs.
The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on the security on Wednesday (the 17th), ruling that Cheung had failed to prove that he was able to repay the debt. If he wishes to pursue the appeal, he must pay $110,000 into court as security within 30 days. Failure to comply with the order will result in the appeal being dismissed, and he will also be required to pay the costs.
前中大學生生會會長、元朗區議員張秀賢，因欠前考評局通識科委員會主席賴得鐘 14 萬元未還，2024 年 7 月被高等法院頒令破產。張不服提出上訴，並要求呈上新證據，賴則要求張先支付約 12 萬元訟費保證金。
上訴庭周三（17 日）就保證金頒下判詞，指張未能證明自己有力償還債務，如希望提出上訴，須於 30 日內先向法庭繳交 11 萬元保證金，若違令會被駁回上訴，另須支付訟費。
16 Dec 2025法庭線#7696
採訪期間阻差罪成囚5天 陳朗昇提定罪及刑罰上訴 官容後頒判詞、陳續准保釋
Former Hong Kong Journalists Association chairperson Chan Long-sing was jailed for five days after being convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of duty. In September 2022, while covering a meeting of owners of Long Ping Estate in Yuen Long at MacPherson Stadium in Mong Kok as a reporter for Channel C, Chan was arrested after allegedly refusing to show his identity card to police officers. Chan appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The case was heard in the High Court on Tuesday (16th). Acting Judge Wong Sze-lai said judgment would be handed down later, and Chan could remain on bail in the meantime.
The appeal argued that, apart from the possibility of protests at the scene, and Chan having crossed the road diagonally, the police could not prove that Chan had objectively appeared suspicious at the time of the incident and therefore had no power to stop and search him. The respondent argued that the case should be considered in the broader circumstances, saying there could have been protests at the owners’ meeting and that, when Chan was stopped, a man carrying a black backpack was beside him and might have been heading to a protest. The police therefore had reasonable grounds to stop and search Chan. Regarding the appeal against sentence, the appellant hoped the court would consider replacing the sentence with a community service order. The respondent replied that Chan had shown no remorse and did not meet the requirements for such an order.
前記協主席陳朗昇 2022 年 9 月，以「Channel C」記者身分，赴旺角麥花臣場館採訪元朗朗屏邨業主大會時，被指拒向警員出示身份證被捕，經審訊後被裁定阻差辦公罪成，被判囚 5 天。陳不服定罪及刑罰提出上訴，案件周二（16 日）在高等法院聆訊。暫委法官王詩麗指，會容後下判詞決定，期間陳可繼續保釋。
上訴方認為，除案發時有機會有人示威、陳曾打斜過馬路，警員不能證明，陳案發時客觀地有可疑，警員沒權截查陳。答辯方則指要從大環境觀看案件，稱業主大會有機會有人示威，陳被截查時身旁有一名男子，孭黑色大背囊，有機會前往示威，警員是合理截查陳。另就刑罰上訴，上訴方希望法庭可以考慮改判社服令。答辯方則回應指，陳沒有悔意，不符合社服令要求。
16 Dec 2025法庭線#7702
平屋控大坑西邨未遷出居民案 九旬居民敗訴 官下令交出單位管有權
Tai Hang Sai Estate in Shek Kip Mei is to be demolished and redeveloped. Civilian Housing Company Limited, which built and manages the estate, brought civil proceedings against several residents who refused to move out. Judge Kam Tsuen Chan handed down a judgment on Tuesday (the 16th) in the case involving one resident in her 90s, ordering her to surrender possession of the flat.
The judgment said the defendant questioned why Ping Uk, a non-profit organisation that had received substantial concessions from the government, had to keep confidential the profits from the redevelopment. She also argued that Ping Uk’s process for considering former tenants’ eligibility to return was not transparent and had no appeal mechanism, and that Ping Uk was unregulated and had abused public power. The judge, however, held that regardless of whether Ping Uk made a profit and whether it was required to account to the government, neither constituted grounds for a tenant to refuse to return possession of the property after the tenancy had expired. The court therefore ruled in favour of Ping Uk.
石硤尾大坑西邨將清拆重建，興建與管理該邨的「平民屋宇有限公司」，民事控告多名拒絕遷出的居民，法官陳錦泉周二（16 日）就其中一名九旬居民的案件頒下判詞，下令居民須交出單位管有權。
判詞指，被告質疑「平屋」為非牟利機構，得到政府大量優惠，卻要保密重建所得的利潤，而且「平屋」審理舊租戶回遷資格的過程不透明，沒有上訴機制，認為「平屋」沒有監管，濫用公權。惟法官認為，無論「平屋」賺取利潤與否，是否需向政府交代，都不構成租客在租約期滿後，不交回物業管有權的理據，裁定「平屋」勝訴。
10 Dec 2025法庭線#7672
前高級入境事務助理831太子站被捕 警方結案後遭革職 提覆核指局方無理拒信記錯
A former senior immigration assistant was arrested at Prince Edward station on August 31, 2019. Police closed the case the following year and returned the exhibits. The Civil Service Bureau subsequently launched an internal investigation and dismissed her in May this year. She earlier applied for judicial review, arguing that the bureau unreasonably refused to accept that her memory had been unclear when she gave evidence, causing her to misremember details including the route she had taken.
The case was heard in the High Court on Wednesday (10th). The applicant's side stressed that she had not deliberately concealed anything, but had simply misremembered her journey 18 months earlier. It said that experiencing pregnancy and childbirth, as well as facing heavy pressure, had affected her memory and performance during interviews. The bureau argued that she had been able to give a detailed account of the locations and times of other journeys that day and had clearly come prepared. It therefore concluded that she had deliberately provided misleading information to conceal the facts, and that the decision to dismiss her was not improper. Judge Ko Ho-man adjourned the case until February 13, 2026, for judgment.
一名前高級入境事務助理，2019 年 8 月 31 日在太子站被捕，警方翌年結案並歸還證物。公務員事務局其後展開內部調查，今年 5 月將她革職。她早前提出司法覆核，指局方無理拒納她作供時記憶模糊，以致記錯乘車路線等細節。
案件周三（10 日）於高等法院聆訊，申請方強調她並非刻意隱瞞，只是記錯 18 個月前的行程，而且因經歷懷孕分娩，又承受沉重壓力，影響記憶及會面表現。局方則指，她可仔細交代當日其他行程的地點及時間，明顯有備而來，故最後判斷她刻意提供誤導資料，以隱瞞事實，作出革職決定並無不妥。法官高浩文押後至 2026 年 2 月 13 日頒下判詞。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
