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 Defendant admitted liability for civil contempt of court by posting on 11 November 2019, in a public Telegram chat group, the personal data (residential address and phone number) of a police constable and his wife. This act contravened a “doxxing injunction” first made on 25 October 2019 in related civil proceedings and amended or continued on 28 and 31 October and 8 November 2019, which prohibited the non-consensual publication or dissemination of personal data of police officers and their families and any assistance in such acts. The contemptuous post included an ironic “warning” not to repost but highlighted the victim’s home address as “most important,” facilitating wider dissemination as other users immediately forwarded the data. Police investigation linked the offending account and mobile number to the Defendant, who was arrested under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance on 26 November 2019 and under caution admitted using her mobile phone to post the data, unaware of the injunction or legal prohibition. The victim suffered harassment calls, relocation of his family, fraudulent loan applications and emotional distress. The Secretary for Justice commenced committal proceedings by originating summons in August 2020, relying on agreed facts, multiple police affirmations, and the Defendant’s mitigation materials, including a handwritten apology, character references, evidence of genuine remorse, disrupted family background, financial hardship, early admission of liability, and ambitions to study for the DSE and pursue a nursing career.
The court reiterated its inherent and common law powers to punish civil contempt by imprisonment or fine, to bind over or to require security for good behaviour, as reflected in Order 52 rules 7 and 9. It stressed that contempt of court orders, particularly injunctive orders, is a serious matter: the primary and presumptive sanction is a custodial sentence measured in months, designed to enforce compliance and deter non-compliance. Imprisonment should be a last resort, as short as is consistent with upholding the rule of law, and always subject to suspension where appropriate. In determining sentence, the court must balance the strong public interest in the enforcement of its orders with the individual circumstances of the contemnor, including culpability, intent, efforts to purge the contempt, mitigation, remorse, and the impact on victims, while maintaining general and specific deterrence.
The court found that although the Defendant’s breach was impulsive, one-off and committed under emotional distress without direct incitement to violence, it nevertheless seriously undermined a court order and risked intimidation of a public servant. The rapid and widespread dissemination of personal data via social media amplified the gravity of the contempt, warranting a custodial sanction to reinforce the inviolability of court orders and deter future breaches. Mitigating factors included the Defendant’s early admission of liability, full cooperation with police, genuine remorse evidenced by a handwritten apology and character references, clear prior record, youth and difficult family background, financial hardship, and constructive plans to resume education and pursue a nursing career. The court also noted that the breach pre-dated its decision in Secretary for Justice v Chan Oi Yau Riyo and that the Defendant’s limited public influence constrained the scope of harm.
The judge expressed the view that the Defendant had learned a profound lesson about the consequences of impulsive online conduct, and that the suspended sentence would underscore the seriousness of contempt while preserving her opportunity to complete her education and reform. The judge commended her ambition to contribute positively to society as a nurse and affirmed confidence that, with ongoing support and supervision, she would not reoffend.
The court imposed a custodial sentence of 21 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and ordered the Defendant to contribute HK$1,000 towards the plaintiff’s costs for the period before legal aid was granted.
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書