判決理由書／裁決書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判決理由書／裁決書為準。
The judgment states that on 18 August 2019, Defendant and seven co-defendants, affiliated with the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF), led a long-banner procession from a lawful public assembly in Victoria Park to Chater Road, defying a police ban on the procession and a dismissed appeal. The defendants knowingly organized and participated in an unauthorized public procession, carrying a banner with protest slogans and directing thousands along the banned route. Police, having withdrawn visible forces to avoid confrontation, took no enforcement action that day; the defendants were later arrested and tried for organizing and knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly under the Public Order Ordinance.
The maximum penalty for organizing or knowingly participating in an unauthorized assembly is up to five years’ imprisonment on indictment or three years on summary conviction, with sentencing guided by principles that punishment be commensurate with criminality and the court’s discretion to impose proportionate sentences.
The judge found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants planned, organized, and led a procession in defiance of a lawful police ban, knowingly flouting the Public Order Ordinance. Pleas of necessity, lawful authority, or reasonable excuse were rejected: the event was not a safety-driven dispersal but a deliberate act of defiance. Video, witness, and press-conference evidence established their common purpose and leadership role in the unauthorized assembly.
The judge held that the statutory notification scheme and associated criminal sanctions under section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, including the five-year maximum sentence, are constitutional and binding precedent. Operational challenges to police actions or the decision to prosecute were dismissed. The defendants’ arrest and prosecution were lawful, and no invasion of their constitutional rights occurred.
Defendant was found guilty on both charges of organizing and of knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly. The judge reserved sentence and will impose penalties reflecting the gravity of planning and leading the banned procession, consistent with the maximum statutory framework and the principle of proportionality.
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書
判刑理由書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判刑理由書為準。
The judgment states that the Defendants, ten high-profile individuals including prominent businessmen, lawmakers, barristers and activists, organized and led an unauthorized public procession on 18 August 2019 from Victoria Park to Chater Road in deliberate defiance of a police ban under the Public Order Ordinance upheld by an Appeal Board. Claiming they were implementing a “water flow” dispersal plan following an authorised meeting in Victoria Park, they carried a banner declaring their political demands and guided thousands of participants along the route mirroring the banned procession. The Defendants had no reasonable excuse or implied police consent, and their actions constituted a planned unauthorized assembly that caused citywide traffic disruption, extended road closures, public transport diversions across both sides of the harbour and latent risks of violence given the prevailing social unrest in Hong Kong at that time.
The judge applied established sentencing principles for public order offenses under the Public Order Ordinance, drawing on authoritative decisions such as Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and related appellate guidance. He emphasized that in assessing unauthorized assemblies the primary considerations are punishment proportionate to the offense, general and specific deterrence to uphold public order, and open societal condemnation of the unlawful conduct. While personal mitigation and good character ordinarily carry weight, they are of limited effect when sentences must deter similar breaches. The judge also noted that sentences must reflect the gravity of premeditated challenges to lawful restrictions, irrespective of defendants’ political motivations, and that concurrent sentencing and totality principles guide the final term.
The judge found that the Defendants knowingly organized and participated in a premeditated challenge to police authority at a time of intense social turmoil, deliberately circumventing the ban after public calls to “jam pack” Victoria Park and proceed with the assembly. He identified key aggravating factors including advanced planning, deliberate defiance of a lawful ban, use of high-profile personalities to lead the procession, the massive scale of thousands of participants, widespread traffic and transportation disruption and the inherent latent risk of violence in large gatherings. He set starting points of 15–18 months’ imprisonment for organizing and 12 months for participation, then applied reductions reflecting advanced age, health issues, clear records, genuine public service contributions and early guilty pleas, granting suspended sentences of 11–12 months for those with exceptional mitigation.
The judge expressed that although freedom of assembly is a fundamental right under the Basic Law, it is subject to constitutionally valid restrictions enacted by law and enforced by the police, which the Defendants knowingly contravened. He stressed that adherence to lawful requirements is essential irrespective of political objectives, and that breaches undermining public order demand custodial sentences commensurate with their seriousness. The judge underscored the deterrent value of immediate imprisonment where advanced planning and public leadership by influential figures exacerbate the offense, affirming that only sentences reflecting social disapproval and protecting the rule of law could uphold order during volatile periods.
In conclusion, the nine Defendants received concurrent sentences on both charges: the First and Second Defendants were each sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment; the Third, Sixth and Eighth Defendants to 12, 12 and 11 months respectively, each suspended for 24 months; the Fourth Defendant to 18 months; the Fifth Defendant to 8 months; the Seventh Defendant to 8 months suspended for 12 months; and the Ninth Defendant to 10 months’ imprisonment.
查看完整判刑理由書