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 Prosecution charged seven Defendants with organizing and knowingly taking part in an unauthorized public procession on 18 August 2019 that began in the park and ended on the central city road in contravention of sections 13 and 17A of the Public Order Ordinance. Acting on behalf of a protest group, the Defendants had submitted notification of intent to hold assemblies and a procession, received police approval for the park assembly but faced objection to the procession, and saw their appeal dismissed. Despite public press conferences and notice of a “dispersal” plan, on the day the Defendants carried a long banner, led thousands of participants along the banned route, chanted slogans, disrupted traffic and public transport, and concluded the assembly on the central city road. The Prosecution argued the Defendants deliberately defied the ban; the Defence claimed they acted under a necessity-based dispersal plan and raised constitutional challenges to the statute and to the delay in prosecution. After hearing extensive evidence and video footage, the Judge determined that the Defendants had planned and knowingly participated in an unauthorized procession without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, and rejected all defenses and constitutional challenges.
The Judge applied the presumption of innocence, required the Prosecution to prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt, considered good character and burden-of-proof directions, and noted sentencing must be commensurate with criminality under section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance.
The Judge found the Defendants had full knowledge of the police ban, agreed to lead the procession in a planned effort to defy it, chanted slogans declaring no police permission was required, and organized the assembly as a unified banner party. Defences of necessity, lawful authority and reasonable excuse failed on the facts; constitutional challenges to the statute’s validity and to the delay in prosecution were precluded or rejected based on binding precedent and a lack of operational disproportionality.
The Judge concluded that the Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each Defendant organized and took part in an unauthorized public procession in defiance of the ban; the common purpose, planning, actions on the day and evidence of deliberate flouting of the law supported convictions on both charges.
All seven Defendants were convicted on both charges of organizing and knowingly participating in an unauthorized assembly under section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance; sentencing is to be scheduled, with statutory maximum terms of up to five years’ imprisonment per count.
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 led an unauthorised public procession from Victoria Park to Chater Road on 18 August 2019, despite a police ban under section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance upheld by appeal. Two Defendants pleaded guilty before the trial (one to both charges and one to participation alone), and the remaining Defendants were convicted after trial of organising and knowingly taking part in an unauthorised assembly. The court found they formed the head of a procession carrying a banner demanding political reforms, deliberately defied the ban by mischaracterising the march as part of an authorised dispersal “water flow” plan endorsed by the Civil Human Rights Front, and mirrored the prohibited route and timing. A participant’s media interview confirmed it was a strategy to circumvent the prohibition. The unauthorised assembly of over thirty people was premeditated, posed latent violence risks amid volatile 2019 unrest, and caused widespread traffic closures and public transport diversions across both sides of the harbour into the evening. The Defendants had no reasonable excuse or implied police authority, and constitutional challenges to section 17A failed. The Defendants included high-profile politicians, barristers, academics and activists whose reputations and careers were well known, and they submitted numerous mitigation letters from respected community and political figures.
The judge applied statutory maximum penalties under section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance and general sentencing principles emphasising punishment, deterrence, open societal condemnation, protection of public order and proportionality. Precedents drawn upon included Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and related Court of Appeal authorities concerning unlawful and unauthorised assemblies during social unrest.
The Defendants’ conduct was aggravated by premeditation, deliberate challenge to police authority, large scale and timing during a period of intense civil unrest, and significant citywide disruption. Mitigation for advanced age, health issues, clear criminal records and distinguished decades of public service was acknowledged but outweighed by the need to uphold the rule of law and deter similar breaches. Consequently, immediate custodial sentences were imposed, with modest reductions and suspensions granted only where exceptional personal mitigation applied.
While freedom of assembly is constitutionally guaranteed, it is subject to lawful restrictions irrespective of political views. Organising an unauthorised procession during a volatile period constituted a direct affront to public order, requiring sentences that reflected societal disapproval and warned against future infringements. Rights do not extend to deliberate flouting of clear legal prohibitions.
The Defendants received concurrent sentences for organising and participating in an unauthorised assembly. Defendants 1 and 2 were sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment each, Defendant 3 to twelve months suspended for twenty-four months, Defendant 4 to eighteen months, Defendant 5 to eight months, Defendant 6 to twelve months suspended for twenty-four months, Defendant 7 (guilty plea) to eight months suspended for twelve months, Defendant 8 to eleven months suspended for twenty-four months, and Defendant 9 to ten months. All terms for each Defendant run concurrently.
查看完整判刑理由書