Judicial Records in Hong Kong

(scroll down for English version)

背景

2019年,香港爆發反修例運動,歷時超過半年,抗爭地域涵蓋全城各區,是香港歷史上規模最大的一場反威權運動。香港這場去中心化抗爭的各式策略和手段,亦啟發全球各地反對極權的民間抵抗運動,持續地擴散抗爭模式到不同場域。然而,香港這場運動的結果令人遺憾:當局沒有全面回應抗爭者的民主訴求,反而以法律和法庭來追究參與運動的普羅大眾,以法律手段來解決政治爭端。至今,香港有超過10000人因段反修例運動而被補,當中近3000人被控,目前仍有若干案件正在審理,香港當局亦繼續抓捕相關人士。

在過去5年,香港法庭頒布了接近3000個有關反修例運動的刑事裁決,這些判詞,記錄了官方對運動的描述、法庭定罪與否的理由,和運用相關刑事法例作起訴和定罪的推論等等。我們認為,不管同意法庭裁決與否,這些文本的歷史價值和研究價值是毋庸置疑的。本數據庫盡最大努力,收集了反修例運動相關的法庭裁決,供教育和研究之用。這些記錄至今仍在香港司法機構的網站保存,但將來它們是否仍然讓公眾查閱,也許是未知之數。所有在此收集和展示的司法紀錄均透過區塊鏈技術加以保存與維護,藉此實現去中心化和不可篡改性,以確保數據的透明性、防篡改性以及完整性。我們的目標是利用區塊鏈作為一種抵抗審查的手段,以保存珍貴的公共紀錄。

我們希望本數據庫能鼓勵更多學者、法律從業員和傳媒機構持續分析、調查反修例運動的審訊和裁決。

如本數據庫有掛一漏萬的話,請隨時通知我們。我們亦樂意收到你的回饋,謝謝!

研究方法

本數據庫涵蓋了所有與香港反送中抗議相關的案件。具體而言,涵蓋範圍為自2019年6月9日至2024年中旬期間,所有與反修例相關的案件在法庭審理並作出判決的情況。需注意的是,本數據集僅包括已結案的案件。隨著更多案件結案,我們將定期更新此數據集。

本數據集的資料最初由多個可靠來源彙編而成,包括記者及法律系學生。這些信息通常通過實地出席法庭審訊而獲得。隨後,我們的內部研究人員從數據集中隨機抽取樣本,並通過交叉驗證方法進行信息的三角驗證,例如與現有新聞機構的報導、獨立報告[1]進行比對,以及諮詢相關領域的專家,以確保數據的準確性、可靠性和有效性。具體來說,我們的抽樣數據至少經過兩個獨立來源的驗證。在可行的情況下,判決和裁決直接從香港司法機構網站(https://www.judiciary.hk/en/judgments_legal_reference/Jud_Ruling.html)提取。

本數據庫中的每一條目(即每一行)代表一項控罪計數,這是指被告在某案件中被指控犯有特定罪行。值得注意的是,在任何案件中可能有多名被告,每名被告可能面臨多項指控,並最終得到不同的司法結果。

由於本數據庫本數據庫依賴非政府來源,而非官方數據(官方數據多數未公開),不可避免地會存在不完整性以及偶爾的少量數據遺漏問題。由於上述原因,本資料集中部分案件編號不幸缺失。為了解決此問題並方便研究人員參考,我們為每筆數據分配了一個唯一識別碼。這些識別碼確保每筆數據即使在缺少部分案件編號的情況下,仍能被清晰區分。而對於被認為重要的資料,例如法官姓名、指控罪名、司法結果以及案件發生的日期和時間,數據缺失比例均低於1%。結合我們上述嚴謹的數據驗證過程,我們認為此數據庫的質量具一定程度的可信性。

如您希望了解更多有關本數據庫的研究方法,請通過 info.dap@protonmail.com 聯繫我們的團隊。本數據庫屬於開源資源,大部分數據由公民社會收集,而非依賴官方統計。我們熱切歡迎公眾貢獻,以增強數據的廣度和準確性。

[1] 例如,請參閱:https://www.law.georgetown.edu/law-asia/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2023/10/GCAL-HK-2019-ARREST-DATA-REPORT-FINAL-OCT-2023.pdf

Background

In 2019, Hong Kong witnessed the outbreak of the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement, lasting over six months and encompassing protests across all districts of the city. It was the largest anti-authoritarian movement in Hong Kong’s history. The decentralised strategies and methods employed in this movement inspired civil resistance against authoritarianism globally, spreading the protest model to various regions. However, the outcome of the movement in Hong Kong is regrettable: the authorities failed to comprehensively address the protesters’ democratic demands. Instead, they used legal and judicial means to pursue ordinary participants in the movement, attempting to resolve political disputes through legal channels. To date, over 10,000 people have been arrested in connection with the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement, with nearly 3,000 prosecuted. Many cases are still under trial, and the Hong Kong authorities continue to arrest individuals associated with the movement.

Over the past five years, Hong Kong courts have issued nearly 3,000 criminal verdicts related to the movement. These judgments document the authorities’ depiction of the protests, the courts’ reasoning behind convictions or acquittals, and the application and interpretation of relevant criminal laws for prosecution and sentencing. Regardless of one’s agreement with the court rulings, the historical and research value of these texts is undeniable. This database has made every effort to collect court decisions related to the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement for educational and research purposes. These records are still accessible on the website of Hong Kong’s judiciary, but their continued availability to the public in the future remains uncertain. All judicial records collected and displayed here are secured and maintained using blockchain technology, through which they are decentralized and immutable, ensuring transparency, tamper-resistance, and trust in the integrity of the data. Our goal is to utilize blockchain as a form of censorship resistance to preserve invaluable public records.

We hope this database will encourage more scholars, legal practitioners, and media organisations to analyse and investigate the trials and verdicts arising from the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement.

If there are any omissions in this database, please feel free to notify us. We also welcome your feedback—thank you!

Methodology

The dataset consists of all cases arising out of the anti-extradition protests in Hong Kong. Specifically, it covers the period from 9 June 2019 through mid-2024, during which these anti-ELAB-related cases are heard and decided at court. Note that only cases that were concluded are included in this dataset. We will keep updating this dataset regularly as more cases are concluded.

The entries of this dataset are originally compiled from various credible sources which include journalists and law students. Such information is usually obtained through physical attendance at court hearings. Our in-house researchers then take a random sample of the datasets and triangulate the information using cross-verification methods, such as corroborating with news reports from existing news outlets on the ground, independent reports [1], and consulting subject-matter experts, to ensure accuracy, reliability, and validity. Specifically, our sampled data is verified by at least two independent sources. Wherever available, verdicts and judgments are directly extracted from the Hong Kong Judiciary website at https://www.judiciary.hk/en/judgments_legal_reference/Jud_Ruling.html.

Note that each entry (i.e. each row) in the dataset represents a count of charge, which is defined as a defendant being charged for a particular crime, in a given case. It is noteworthy that in any case, there can be multiple defendants, and each defendant can be charged with multiple offenses, and end up with different judicial outcomes.

Given the fact that this dataset relies on non-governmental sources rather than official data (which are largely publicly unavailable), it is inevitable that it is incomplete and will suffer from some occasional and limited problems of missing data. Specifically, some case numbers are unfortunately unavailable in this dataset. To address this issue, and to facilitate easier referencing for researchers, we have assigned a unique identifier to each entry in the dataset. These identifiers ensure that every entry remains distinguishable despite the absence of certain case numbers. On the other hand, for most variables which are deemed important, such as names of judges, crimes charged, judicial outcomes as well as date and time which the incident took place – all have only less than 1% of missing data. Together with the rigorous data verification process we follow, as mentioned above, we are reasonably satisfied with the quality of the data presented here.

Interested parties are encouraged to reach out to our team at info.dap@protonmail.com should they are keen to know more, for research or journalistic purposes. This dataset is part of an open-source effort, with most data compiled by civil society rather than relying on official statistics. We actively welcome contributions from the public to enhance its breadth and accuracy.

[1] For instance, see https://www.law.georgetown.edu/law-asia/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2023/10/GCAL-HK-2019-ARREST-DATA-REPORT-FINAL-OCT-2023.pdf.

*向右滑動以查看和下載司法紀錄。
*Scroll to the right to view and download judicial records.