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 by breaching a doxxing injunction granted in October and November 2019. On 11 November 2019, despite an injunction order continued on 8 November, the Defendant publicly posted on his Facebook account four separate messages disclosing accurate and extensive personal data of a police constable (PW1) and the constable’s wife and two young daughters, including names, addresses, phone numbers, school and social media details, together with taunting comments. Following police investigation, the Defendant was identified, arrested on 28 November 2019, and, under caution, admitted ownership of the Facebook account, authorship of the posts, and deletion of the posts a few days later. Thereafter, he filed a formal admission of liability, exhibited a handwritten apology to the court, provided mitigation letters from family and friends, and cooperated with legal processes. A sentencing hearing was held before Hon. Coleman J on 28 December 2020, at which the Secretary for Justice and the Defendant’s counsel addressed aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding the Defendant’s actions and state of mind.
The court reaffirmed its inherent power to punish contempt to protect the administration of justice, emphasizing that injunction orders must be obeyed. Civil contempt of court orders is a serious matter warranting deterrent penalties. The starting point for breach of an injunction is imprisonment measured in months, though imprisonment is a last resort and must be proportionate and as short as possible. The court may suspend custodial sentences or impose fines or security for good behaviour in appropriate cases, taking into account individual circumstances, culpability, motive, remorse, and the extent to which the contempt was deliberate or unintentional.
The court found the Defendant’s contempt to be deliberate and serious, involving widespread public dissemination of highly sensitive personal data of four private individuals, including minors, accompanied by taunting language indicating intent to continue similar conduct. The ease of internet publication amplified the harm, which could not be undone despite the defendant’s deletion of the posts. The judge weighed mitigating factors—early deletion, cooperation with police, remorse, lack of prior record, and personal circumstances—against the overriding need to uphold judicial authority, deter future doxxing and vigilantism, and protect victims from irreversible privacy invasions.
The judge expressed the view that doxxing is a pernicious threat to public order and the rule of law, noting that civil liberties carry responsibilities. In the digital era, individuals can breach court orders with a few clicks, making robust enforcement essential. The judge stressed that injunctions are not mere suggestions but binding commands, and that contempt undermines the due administration of justice and may expose victims to ongoing harassment and safety risks.
The Defendant was sentenced to an immediate custodial term of 21 days and ordered to pay a contribution of HK$20,000 towards the Secretary for Justice’s costs.
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書