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 on 12 August 2019 an organiser group submitted notification to the police of a public meeting in Victoria Park and a procession to Chater Road planned for 18 August. After a liaison meeting and amended notification on 14 August the police granted a Letter of No Objection to the meeting but objected to the procession and a second assembly on grounds of public order and safety. The organisers’ appeal was dismissed on 16 August and they publicly expressed anger, announcing that influential figures would lead a “water-flow” dispersal. On 18 August Defendant and fellow participants arrived at Victoria Park Gate 17 shortly before 3 pm, carried a long banner bearing protest slogans, and led thousands out of the park along the previously notified route through Causeway Bay, Wanchai and Central. They ignored repeated instructions from the police liaison officer to disperse via nearby MTR stations, chanted that no police permission was required and laid the banner at Chater Road. The procession occupied carriageways for over ninety minutes, causing significant traffic and transport disruption, but no enforcement action was taken on the day. Defendants were arrested in April 2020, pleaded not guilty to organising and knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly contrary to section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, and mounted defences of necessity, lawful authority, reasonable excuse and constitutional challenge to the statutory scheme.
The court applies the principle that punishment must be commensurate with the criminality and culpability of each Defendant, having regard to the statutory maximum penalties—up to five years’ imprisonment on indictment or three years on summary conviction—while considering aggravating and mitigating factors.
Defendants deliberately organised and led the unauthorised procession in open defiance of a clear police ban, knowingly flouting statutory requirements, ignoring repeated instructions, and causing widespread public order and traffic disruption without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that each Defendant organised and knowingly participated in an unauthorised assembly. I reject defences of necessity, lawful authority and reasonable excuse, and dismiss systemic and operational constitutional challenges to the offence-creating provisions of section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance.
Defendants are convicted on both counts and will be sentenced at a subsequent hearing, facing maximum terms of up to five years’ imprisonment for each offence.
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 Defendant and eight co-defendants organized and knowingly took part in an unauthorized public procession from Victoria Park to Chater Road on 18 August 2019 after their application was refused by the police and a subsequent appeal board. They formed the head of the procession carrying a banner announcing a common political purpose, deliberately defying the ban, causing widespread traffic and public transport disruptions, and directly challenging police authority. Two defendants pleaded guilty early, one pleaded guilty before trial, and the remainder were convicted after trial under sections 17A(3)(b)(i) and 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance.
The judge applied established public order sentencing principles, emphasizing punishment, deterrence, open condemnation, and protection of the public, drawing on authorities such as Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and related appellate decisions to guide sentencing for unauthorized assemblies.
The sentence reflects the deliberate, premeditated challenge to lawful police authority during a period of social unrest, the large scale and duration of the procession, the significant disruption caused, and the high-profile influence of the defendants, balanced against individual mitigation factors including age, health, clear records, and long-standing public service.
The judge noted that freedom of assembly is a constitutional right subject to lawful restrictions, recognized that even peaceful large-scale gatherings carry latent risks of violence, and stressed that genuine public service reputations do not excuse purposeful defiance of established law.
In respect of Charges 1 and 2 to be served concurrently, Defendant 1 received 12 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 2 received 12 months; Defendant 3 received 12 months suspended for 24 months; Defendant 4 received 18 months; Defendant 5 received 8 months; Defendant 6 received 12 months suspended for 24 months; Defendant 7 received 8 months (Charge 2 only) suspended for 12 months; Defendant 8 received 11 months suspended for 24 months; Defendant 9 received 10 months.
查看完整判刑理由書