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 applied ex parte and inter partes for an injunction in October and November 2019 prohibiting any internet-based publication promoting or inciting violence, and that Defendant admitted contempt of that Incitement Injunction by publishing on his Facebook page and the Inmediahk website in May 2020 an article alleging police “murder” and calling for “revenge” with guns and bombs. Despite receiving a police warning letter on 15 May 2020 and a Department of Justice letter on 20 May 2020 ordering removal of the content, Defendant left the posts accessible until September 2021, only removing the Facebook post after this committal action commenced. Leave to apply for committal was granted in August 2021, and a sentencing hearing was held on 14 April 2022.
The court applied established principles for civil contempt of an injunction prohibiting incitement, adopting the starting point of immediate custodial detention measured in months as set out in prior Doxxing and incitement cases. Sanctions must be sufficient and proportionate to the contempt, reflecting the objective potential effect of the publication, the public interest in upholding the authority of court orders, and the need for deterrence, recognizing custody as both appropriate and the penalty of last resort for serious incitement.
The article clearly incited hatred against the police and encouraged lethal violence, aggravating factors including the severity and specificity of the threats, Defendant’s role as a public figure with a large online following, and his defiance in ignoring police and DOJ demands to remove the content. Mitigation included Defendant’s genuine remorse, apology to the court, disavowal of violence, prompt admission of liability once advised, and evidence of positive community service during his term as a district councillor. The court also noted significant prosecutorial delay but addressed its impact through adjustment to sentence length.
The judge expressed concern over the fifteen-month delay by the Secretary for Justice before commencing committal proceedings, stressing the importance of timely enforcement of court orders to maintain judicial authority. Although prosecution counsel adopted robust argumentation, no improper advocacy for an excessive sentence was found. Balancing the need to deter serious online incitement against Defendant’s demonstrated rehabilitation and public-service record, the judge concluded that immediate custody was necessary to uphold the rule of law while remaining proportionate to the contempt.
Defendant is sentenced to six weeks’ immediate imprisonment for contempt of court.
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書