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 Secretary for Justice sought committal proceedings against Defendant for civil contempt after she posted on her public Facebook Page the personal data of a police constable, including full name, identification number and portrait, in breach of an existing doxxing injunction issued in late 2019 in HCA 1957/2019. The injunction, widely publicized in local media, prohibited disclosure of officers’ personal data and was served by substituted service. On 24 March 2020, Defendant shared another user’s post and appended a message urging the officer to surrender. The post, publicly accessible, was liked, shared and commented on by hundreds before she deleted it within eight hours. Later she contacted a police officer to inquire about injunction consequences. On 26 March she was arrested, admitted ownership of the Facebook account, unlocked and surrendered her iPhone, and was interviewed under caution. Forensic analysis revealed her prior awareness of the injunction from WhatsApp messages and internet browsing. Defendant admitted liability and presented evidence of her public service, limited means, and letters of apology.
The court reaffirmed that civil contempt of an injunction threatens the administration of justice and that injunctions must be obeyed. Wilful breach normally attracts imprisonment measured in months, but the court may consider suspension, fines or security for good behaviour. Imprisonment is a sanction of last resort. Sentencing must balance enforcement of court orders with individual circumstances, weighing the breach’s nature, motive, awareness of the order, contumacy, impact on victims, remorse, cooperation, and the contemnor’s personal background. Online breaches can aggravate liability due to swift, widespread dissemination, and public figures carry heightened responsibility as examples to others.
In aggravation, Defendant held public office with over thirty thousand social media followers, magnifying the breach’s impact. The doxxing caused serious harassment of the officer and his family, including hundreds of nuisance calls, unsolicited deliveries, and threats. She added a message suggesting ‘an eye for an eye,’ and evidence proved her prior awareness of the injunction from late-2019 messages. In mitigation, the breach was a one-off repost rather than original disclosure; Defendant promptly deleted the post upon legal advice; she cooperated fully with police, unlocked her device voluntarily, and admitted liability at an early stage. Her unblemished record, decades of community service, limited finances, sincere remorse, and purging of contempt warranted leniency, although did not negate the need for a deterrent sentence.
The court held that orders of the court are not guidelines and must be obeyed. In the social media era, individuals, especially public figures, must consider the consequences of sharing material that may violate injunctions. The judge concluded a custodial sentence, albeit suspended, was necessary to underscore the seriousness of contempt, deter future breaches, and uphold public confidence in the rule of law, while allowing for appropriate mitigation.
Defendant is sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, subject to good behaviour. Defendant shall pay the Secretary for Justice’s costs in these committal proceedings, to be summarily assessed on an indemnity basis.
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書