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 the defendants were charged with organising and knowingly taking part in an unauthorised public assembly contrary to section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance. On 18 August 2019 the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) held a permitted public meeting in Victoria Park, but the police denied permission for a public procession to Chater Road. Despite this, the defendants formed a banner party, led thousands out of the park along the banned route from 3:09pm, proceeding through Causeway Bay to Central, where they declared the procession ended. The defendants, all invited by CHRF to assist with a so-called “water flow” dispersal plan, carried a banner reading “Stop the police and gangsters from plunging Hong Kong into chaos, implement the 5 demands” and chanted slogans. No police warnings or enforcement occurred that day. Eight months later, the defendants were arrested and prosecuted for organising and participating in the unauthorised procession.
The court applies the principle that punishment must be commensurate with criminality, considering the offence’s gravity, the defendants’ good character, and statutory maximum penalties as guidelines, not mandates. Sentences reflect deterrence, proportionality, and fairness.
The defendants knowingly organised and led an unauthorised public procession in direct defiance of a police ban, causing serious traffic and transport disruption. Video and witness evidence showed premeditation, a common purpose, and intentional flouting of the law. Defences of necessity, lawful authority, and reasonable excuse were rejected on the facts, and constitutional challenges to section 17A were precluded by binding precedent.
The organiser and participation offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The statutory notification scheme and penalty provisions under section 17A are constitutional, binding on this court. No arguable operational proportionality challenge arises, as no enforcement action on the day imposed restrictions on fundamental rights.
All seven defendants were found guilty of organising (Charge 1) and knowingly taking part (Charge 2) in an unauthorised assembly. The court to proceed with sentencing in accordance with statutory guidelines, considering maximum penalties of 5 years’ imprisonment on indictment, and relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.
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 organized and led a public procession from Victoria Park to Chater Road on 18 August 2019 despite a ban by the Commissioner of Police, which was upheld on appeal. The procession, promoted as a “dispersal plan” under the invitation of the authorised meeting organisers, was in fact a planned unauthorized assembly involving a long banner and thousands of participants, deliberately timed and routed to mirror the prohibited march. The judge found no reasonable excuse or implied police consent and held that the assembly, constituting more than 30 people united for a common political purpose, caused widespread traffic and public transport disruptions across the city.
Under section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, sentences must punish the offender, deter others, openly condemn the conduct and reflect the seriousness of challenging lawful public order, drawing on principles established in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and related case law despite the absence of fixed tariffs.
The judge identified premeditation, leadership roles, the procession’s large scale and duration, deliberate defiance of a lawful ban, inherent risk of violence in a volatile context, and significant public disruption as aggravating factors requiring custodial sentences; individual mitigation for advanced age, clear records and long public service was applied where appropriate.
While the Basic Law guarantees freedom of assembly, this right is subject to valid restrictions. The defendants knowingly flouted a lawful police prohibition during a period of social unrest, directly challenging law enforcement. Their high public profile and influence heightened the gravity of the offence and underscored the necessity of upholding public order.
The first Defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment; the second Defendant to 12 months; the third Defendant to 12 months suspended for 24 months; the fourth Defendant to 18 months; the fifth Defendant to 8 months; the sixth Defendant to 12 months suspended for 24 months; the seventh Defendant to 8 months suspended for 12 months; the eighth Defendant to 11 months suspended for 24 months; and the ninth Defendant to 10 months, all terms to run concurrently on the two charges except as noted for suspension.
查看完整判刑理由書