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 Defendant was charged with organising an unauthorized public procession and knowingly taking part in it, contrary to sections 17A(3)(b)(i) and 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance. On 12 August 2019, the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) notified the police of its intention to hold a public meeting in Victoria Park and a procession to Chater Road on 18 August. On 15 August, police issued a Letter of No Objection for the park assembly but banned the procession and a second assembly at Chater Road. An appeal on 16 August was dismissed, after which CHRF held press conferences on 16, 17 and 18 August expressing disappointment and announcing a “water flow” dispersal plan. They invited pro-democracy legislators and Defendant leadership to guide participants safely to nearby MTR stations. On 18 August, despite three sets of instructions from police liaison officers to direct crowds to other park areas and specific exits, Defendant and co-Defendants carried a long banner reading “Stop the police … implement the 5 demands,” led thousands from Gate 17 through Causeway Bay, Wanchai and Central, chanted slogans declaring police permission unnecessary, and ended the march at Chater Road. Extensive video and transport-department evidence confirmed traffic and public transport disruption. Police took no enforcement action that day, citing risk of violent escalation, and withdrew platoons after abusive treatment at park entrances. Defendants were arrested eight months later. They argued they had merely facilitated a dispersal, advanced necessity and lawful-authority defences, and launched systemic and operational constitutional challenges. The Court found the actions constituted a planned unauthorised procession, rejected all defences on credibility and legal grounds, and upheld convictions on both counts.
The judge applied the principle that sentencing must be commensurate with the offence’s criminality, noting the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and referencing the statutory maximum penalties—five years’ imprisonment and a fine on indictment, three years or an HK$5,000 fine on summary conviction.
The judge held that Defendants knowingly organised and led a banned procession in deliberate defiance of a lawful police objection, with no lawful authority or reasonable excuse, and that the evidence of planning and intent rendered defences of necessity and tacit consent untenable.
The judge found police evidence credible, accepted that no imminent safety hazard justified the march, and concluded that the constitutional and proportionality challenges to sections 17A(3)(b)(i) and 17A(3)(a) were precluded by binding precedent and in any event unsustainable on the facts.
All Defendants were convicted of organising an unauthorized assembly under section 17A(3)(b)(i) and of knowingly participating in it under section 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance. Sentencing will be determined at a subsequent hearing, with each facing a maximum of five years’ imprisonment and related fine.
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 judgment delivered on 1 April 2021 convicted nine defendants under the Public Order Ordinance for organizing and knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly on 18 August 2019. They led a procession from Victoria Park to Chater Road displaying a banner calling to “stop the police and gangsters” and “implement the five demands” despite a ban issued by the Commissioner of Police and upheld on appeal. The defendants claimed to be assisting a dispersal plan but were found to have premeditated a deliberate challenge to police authority, causing widespread traffic and public transport disruption across the city.
The judge applied the Public Order Ordinance s17A(3) framework, noting the absence of established sentencing tariffs for unauthorized assemblies but drawing on principles from R v Nguyen Quang Thong and Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and its appellate endorsement. He emphasized that deterrence and maintenance of public order are weighty factors in public order offences even for first offenders and non-violent assemblies, balancing punishment, open condemnation, deterrence and personal circumstances without imposing retrospective guidelines.
The judge found that the defendants had deliberately defied a lawful ban, organized a large preplanned assembly with high-profile leaders, posed a latent risk of violence, and inflicted significant traffic and transport disruption. The procession represented a direct challenge to police authority and the rule of law. These aggravating factors outweighed the peaceful nature of the event and any implied excuse of dispersal planning, warranting custodial sentences rather than financial penalties or community service.
Although freedom of assembly is protected under the Basic Law, the judge held that rights are subject to constitutional restrictions and that peaceful assembly can still endanger public order when emotions run high. He affirmed that personal mitigation and positive character should be taken into account but are often outweighed by the severity of defying police direction in a volatile context. Consequently, custodial sentences are necessary to uphold the rule of law and deter similar conduct.
Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were each sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Defendant 3 and Defendant 6 were each sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. Defendant 4 received 18 months’ imprisonment. Defendant 5 received eight months’ imprisonment. Defendant 7 received eight months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months. Defendant 8 received eleven months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months. Defendant 9 received ten months’ imprisonment. All sentences for organizing and participating in the unauthorized assembly run concurrently.
查看完整判刑理由書