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 all seven defendants organized and knowingly participated in an unauthorized public procession on 18 August 2019, defying a police ban under the Public Order Ordinance. The Civil Human Rights Front had notified the police of a planned meeting and procession; the police approved the meeting but objected to the procession and related assembly. Despite an unsuccessful appeal, the defendants led a banner procession from Victoria Park to Chater Road, chanting slogans and causing major traffic and transport disruption. Video evidence and press statements showed the defendants knowingly flouted the ban, invoking a “water flow” dispersal plan as pretext.
Sentencing must reflect the maximum penalties prescribed in section 17A(3) of the Public Order Ordinance—up to five years’ imprisonment on indictment—balanced against individual culpability and mitigation.
The defendants deliberately defied a lawful police ban by organizing and leading an unauthorised assembly, fully aware of the ban through widely circulated police and CHRF statements. Video and witness evidence proved an organized procession rather than a safety-driven dispersal. No lawful authority or reasonable excuse applied.
The Public Order Ordinance’s notification scheme, including the creation of offences and penalties under section 17A(3), has already been upheld as constitutional by the Court of Final Appeal in Leung Kwok Hung & Others v HKSAR (2005). No further operational or systemic proportionality challenge succeeded. The defendants’ actions were intentional and unlawful.
The court found all seven defendants guilty of both charges—organizing and knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly contrary to section 17A(3)(b)(i) and (a) of the Public Order Ordinance—and convicted them accordingly.
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書
判刑理由書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判刑理由書為準。
The judgment states that the Defendants were charged with organizing and knowingly taking part in an unauthorized public procession under sections 17A(3)(b)(i) and 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance. On 18 August 2019 they led thousands from Victoria Park to Chater Road carrying a long banner declaring a common political purpose after the Commissioner of Police had objected to and a subsequent Appeal Board had upheld the ban on any procession. Although claiming to act under the guise of a “dispersal plan” for an authorized meeting called by a civic front, the Defendants deliberately defied the law in what the court found to be a premeditated challenge to police authority. The procession, organized by well-known public figures of varying ages and backgrounds, caused widespread traffic and public transport disruptions across the city. Two Defendants pleaded guilty (one at the earliest opportunity, another before trial), and the remaining Defendants were convicted after trial. In mitigation, the court heard extensive personal, professional and health information, including positive contributions to public service and clear criminal records for most.
There were no established sentencing guidelines or tariffs specifically for unauthorized assemblies arising from the 2019 social unrest. The court applied general principles from unlawful assembly cases under the Public Order Ordinance, notably those in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and related authorities, adapting them to this context. The primary considerations were punishment commensurate with the offense, deterrence of similar conduct, protection of public order, open condemnation of law-breaking, and reflecting the gravamen of a planned, large-scale challenge to police authority.
The Defendants’ conduct was premeditated and constituted a direct challenge to law and order during volatile times, creating a latent risk of violence and causing significant citywide disruption. Influential public figures led the procession in deliberate defiance of a lawful ban. Deterrent custodial sentences were considered necessary over non-custodial options. Mitigating factors such as advanced age, clear records, serious health issues, and extensive public service were weighed but generally found insufficient to avoid immediate imprisonment, except in exceptional cases where sentences were suspended.
While recognizing that freedom of assembly is constitutionally protected, the judge held that such rights are subject to lawful restrictions irrespective of political motives. The Defendants’ deliberate contempt for the ban—despite peaceful conduct—demanded firm sentences to uphold public order and deter future breaches. Individual good character, positive public contributions, and advanced age were acknowledged but, save for truly exceptional circumstances, did not outweigh the need for deterrence and proportional punishment.
The sentences for organizing and participating in the unauthorized assembly were ordered to run concurrently for each Defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 received 12 months’ imprisonment each; Defendant 3 received 12 months suspended for 24 months; Defendant 4 received 18 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 5 received 8 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 6 received 12 months suspended for 24 months; Defendant 7, who pleaded guilty to participation only, received 8 months suspended for 12 months; Defendant 8 received 11 months suspended for 24 months; and Defendant 9 received 10 months’ imprisonment.
查看完整判刑理由書