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 12 August 2019 the Civil Human Rights Front notified the police of its intention to hold a public assembly and a public procession on 18 August 2019 from Victoria Park to Chater Road. On 15 August the police issued a letter of no objection to the assembly but objected to the procession and a second assembly, and the appeal board upheld that objection on 16 August. Despite the ban, on 18 August Defendant and others carried a long banner out of Gate 17 of Victoria Park and led a procession along the banned route through Causeway Bay, Wanchai and Central to Chater Road, where they laid down the banner. Extensive unchallenged video and witness evidence confirmed that they knowingly organized and participated in an unauthorized procession in defiance of the police ban.
Sentences must be commensurate with the criminality, reflecting the legislative maximums as guidelines while allowing the court to weigh seriousness, mitigation and individual culpability.
The defendants deliberately flouted the police prohibition by jointly organizing and leading a large unauthorized procession in defiance of the Public Order Ordinance, causing serious disruption and undermining public order. No lawful authority, reasonable excuse or defence of necessity applied.
The court rejected all constitutional and operational proportionality challenges and the defences of necessity, tacit police consent, lawful authority and reasonable excuse. It upheld the scheme’s constitutionality and found all elements of the offences proved beyond reasonable doubt.
All defendants are convicted on both counts of organizing and knowingly participating in an unauthorized assembly contrary to section 17A(3) of the Public Order Ordinance.
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 organised and knowingly took part in an unauthorised public procession from Victoria Park to Chater Road on 18 August 2019, despite a ban by the Commissioner of Police upheld on appeal. The group, led by prominent figures (“Defendant 1” through “Defendant 9”), carried banners declaring a common political purpose and mirrored the timing and route of the prohibited march. The judge found the event was a premeditated challenge to police authority, caused extensive traffic and transport disruption across the city, and involved no lawful excuse or implied police consent.
The judge applied principles from Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and related authorities, emphasising punishment, deterrence, meting out penalties, open condemnation and maintenance of public order. He noted that public order offences warrant deterrent sentences even for first-time offenders and that personal mitigation is limited unless exceptional.
The sentences reflected the defendants’ deliberate defiance of a lawful ban, the premeditated nature of the assembly, its scale and latent risk of violence amid volatile social unrest, and the significant public disruption caused. Custodial terms were deemed the only appropriate response given the need to uphold the rule of law and deter similar conduct. Age, health and distinguished public service of several defendants justified modest reductions and, in exceptional cases, suspension of terms.
The judge observed that freedom of assembly is constitutionally protected but not absolute, and that politics and motives are irrelevant to sentencing. He stressed that high-profile organisers bear special responsibility for public order, and that even peaceful demonstrations during a period of civil unrest pose an inherent risk necessitating firm judicial response.
The court imposed concurrent custodial sentences on both counts: Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received 12 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 4 received 18 months; Defendant 5 received 8 months; Defendant 9 received 10 months. Defendant 3 and Defendant 6 each received 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. Defendant 8 received 11 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. Defendant 7, who pleaded guilty to participation only, received 8 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months.
查看完整判刑理由書