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 (“CHRF”) notified police of its intention to hold on 18 August a public assembly in Victoria Park, a procession to Chater Road and a second assembly there. After a liaison meeting on 14 August and an amended route notification, the police granted a Letter of No Objection only for the park assembly but formally objected to the procession and second gathering for reasons of public order and safety. CHRF’s appeal was dismissed on 16 August following widely reported police and CHRF press conferences in which both sides publicized the ban and CHRF’s dispersal plan. Despite clear warnings, on 18 August the defendants assembled as a “banner party” at Gate 17 of Victoria Park, carried a long printed banner reading “Stop the police and gangsters from plunging Hong Kong into chaos, implement the five demands,” and led thousands along Causeway Road, Hennessy Road, Queensway and Des Voeux Road to Chater Road, chanting slogans and declaring “police permission is not required”. Video footage and witness testimony detailed their leadership of the procession and the route mirroring the banned plan. Police commanders testified they withheld visible enforcement to avoid provoking violence, deploying officers covertly and instructing CHRF marshals to facilitate crowd management. The defendants were arrested eight months later and jointly charged with organizing an unauthorized assembly contrary to section 17A(3)(b)(i) of the Public Order Ordinance (Charge 1) and knowingly participating in it contrary to section 17A(3)(a) (Charge 2). At trial, the prosecution relied on transcripts, expert risk-assessment documents, liaison-meeting records and extensive video evidence, while the defense invoked necessity, reasonable excuse, a lawful dispersal plan, police tacit consent and systemic and operational constitutional challenges. Her Honour Judge Woodcock delivered exhaustive Reasons for Verdict, analyzed every element, rejected all defenses and challenges, and concluded each defendant knowingly organized and participated in the unauthorized procession.
Sentences must be proportionate to the criminality, reflect the need to uphold public order and deter willful defiance of lawful bans while preserving citizens’ rights under the notification scheme.
The defendants deliberately planned and led a large procession in direct defiance of a valid police ban, fully aware it was unauthorized, ignored lawful instructions, caused serious traffic and transport disruption, and showed no lawful authority or reasonable excuse. All statutory defenses failed and the constitutional challenge to section 17A was precluded by binding precedent.
This calculated flouting of the notification system and public order requirements undermines the rule of law. The statutory scheme survives rigorous scrutiny, and the exercise of fundamental freedoms must be balanced with lawful compliance. Unauthorized assemblies will attract appropriate penal response.
All defendants were convicted on both charges following the verdict. Sentencing submissions were scheduled and sentencing was reserved to a later date.
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 Defendants were charged under the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245, with organizing and knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly after the police banned a procession from Victoria Park to Chater Road on 18 August 2019. Following trial, all Defendants except Defendant 7 and Defendant 9 were convicted after a contested hearing, while Defendant 9 pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and Defendant 7 pleaded guilty to participation before trial. The court found that Defendants intentionally organized and led thousands of participants carrying a banner proclaiming political demands, deliberately defying the ban and mirroring the route of the prohibited procession. The gathering, while remaining peaceful, caused widespread traffic and public transport disruption and represented a direct challenge to police authority. Mitigation was heard for each Defendant, including advanced age, health conditions, public service, clear records and guilty pleas.
The judge applied principles under the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245, and sentencing guidelines for unlawful assemblies from Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and related authorities. Considerations included punishment, deterrence, maintenance of public order, proportionality and the totality principle. Despite no statutory tariff for unauthorized assembly, principles for unlawful assembly sentencing were adapted to reflect the unauthorized nature of the offence.
The assembly was premeditated and organized by influential figures who led a large procession during high-tension social unrest, posing latent risks of violence. It constituted a direct challenge to police authority and defied a lawful ban, causing significant city-wide disruption. Although the procession remained peaceful, its scale, duration and deliberate circumvention of the ban aggravated culpability. Mitigating factors—advanced age, health issues, distinguished public service, clear criminal histories and early guilty pleas—were weighed against the necessity to uphold public order and impose deterrent sentences.
The judge emphasised that freedom of assembly is constitutionally protected but subject to lawful restrictions. Defendants’ deliberate contempt for the law and organization of a banned procession during volatile times warranted custodial sentences. While personal and service-related mitigation was acknowledged, the need for deterrence and public condemnation prevailed, with individual adjustments applied under the totality principle.
In the final sentence, the court imposed concurrent terms on both charges as follows: Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received twelve months’ imprisonment; Defendant 3 and Defendant 6 received twelve months’ imprisonment suspended for twenty-four months; Defendant 4 received eighteen months’ imprisonment; Defendant 5 received eight months’ imprisonment; Defendant 7 received eight months’ imprisonment suspended for twelve months; Defendant 8 received eleven months’ imprisonment suspended for twenty-four months; and Defendant 9 received ten months’ imprisonment.
查看完整判刑理由書