DCCC537/2020 HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING AND OTHERS - LawHero
DCCC537/2020
區域法院（刑事）Her Honour Judge A J Woodcock15/4/2021[2021] HKDC 447
DCCC537/2020
A A
B B
DCCC 537/2020
C [2021] HKDC 447 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 537 OF 2020
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LAI CHEE YING (D1) I
YEUNG SUM (D2)
J J
LEE CHEUK YAN (D3)
K --------------------------------------- K
L L
Before: Her Honour Judge A J Woodcock in Court
M Date: 16 April 2021 M
Present: Ms Priscilia Lam, Counsel on Fiat, Ms Karen Ng, Senior
N N
Public Prosecutor (Acting) and Mr Edward Lau, Public
O Prosecutor, for HKSAR/ Director of Public Prosecutions O
Mr Edwin Choy leading Mr Jeffrey Tam C K and Mr Ernie
P P
st
Tung, instructed by Robertsons, for the 1 defendant
Q Mr Man Ho Ching of Ho Tse Wai & Partners, for the 2nd Q
defendant
R R
Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat, instructed by JCC Cheung & Co,
S for the 3rd defendant S
Offence: Knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly (明知而
T T
參與未經批准集結)
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C ----------------------------------------- C
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
D D
-----------------------------------------
E E
1. The 3 defendants pleaded guilty to one charge of knowingly
F F
taking part in an unauthorized assembly, contrary to section 17A(3)(a) of
G the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245. An indication of their plea came a G
few days before their trial was due to commence.
H H
I 2. The particulars are that on 31 August 2019, without lawful I
authority or reasonable excuse, all 3 defendants knowingly took part in a
J J
public procession which took place in contravention of section 13 of the
K Public Order Ordinance which was an unauthorized assembly by virtue of K
section 17A(2)(a) of the same Ordinance.
L L
M The Facts M
N N
3. All 3 defendants agreed the Amended Summary of Facts. By
O way of background, it was agreed that from June 2019 there were many O
violent incidents that erupted during certain protest events including
P P
confrontations between members of the public and members of the Hong
Q Kong Police Force. Q
R R
4. The Civil Human Rights Front, “CHRF” had submitted a
S notification of an intention to hold a public meeting and procession on S
31 August 2019. They intended to hold a public meeting at Chater Garden,
T T
Central and then a public procession from Chater Garden to the Liaison
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Office of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR. The subject
C matter of the meeting and procession was anti-government and a demand C
for universal suffrage.
D D
E 5. In light of the ongoing prevailing social unrest and violent E
incidents in the preceding weeks and having regard to the interests of
F F
public order, public safety and for the protection of the rights and freedom
G of others, the Commissioner of Police prohibited the holding of the public G
meeting and objected to the holding of the public procession. There was
H H
an appeal that was dismissed.
I I
6. After that, there was a call on line and amongst netizens
J J
appealing to the public to gather at Southorn Playground in Wanchai at
K around 12:30 pm on 31 August 2019 to participate in a “Pray for Sinners” K
procession. They were to assemble at 12:30 pm and start a procession at
L L
1 pm. It was erroneously announced that a religious procession did not
M need police notification or permission. M
N N
7. They were to walk from the playground along Hennessy Road
O to Queensway to Upper Albert Road and to Government House. They O
would make stops to pray for “sinners” at the Chinese Methodist Church
P P
in Wanchai then the Police Headquarters as well as St John’s Cathedral
Q before proceeding to Government House. The Commissioner of Police Q
never received any notification from any person or organisation either
R R
pursuant to section 8 or 13A of the Public Order Ordinance.
S S
8. On 30 August 2019 the Regional Commander of Hong Kong
T T
Island held a press conference and explained the reasons why the CHRF
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
public meeting and the public procession was prohibited. He also corrected
C the rumour that a religious procession was exempted under the Public C
Order Ordinance. This news report was widely broadcast and printed in at
D D
least 13 media outlets. Annex 1 of the Summary of Facts contains those
E details. E
F F
9. An unauthorized assembly did take place on 31 August 2019.
G By 12:35 pm, the 2nd defendant was videoed assembled together with large G
crowds at Southorn Playground and chanting political slogans; anti-
H H
government and anti-police slogans. The police use an amplifier and gave
I a “level 2A” warning to the crowds whilst a yellow warning flag was raised I
and displayed with the warning printed on it for all to see. The crowd was
J J
warned that the meeting was an unauthorized assembly and they may be
K prosecuted for a criminal offence. K
L L
10. Instead of dispersing, some members of the crowd approached
M the police with hostility and verbally abused as well as insulted those M
officers present. In order not to escalate rising emotions and to avoid any
N N
conflict, these police officers withdrew and return to Police Headquarters
O to guard that building and monitor the situation. O
P P
11. By 1 pm the crowds had swelled inside the Playground and
Q by then the other 2 defendants, the 1st and 3rd defendants were present. Q
During the whole day the 3 defendants were almost, at all times, together
R R
rd
during the meeting and procession. The 3 defendant was holding a
S placard and interviewed by a reporter in the Playground. He said that he S
knew the police had banned all marches that day but they had a right to
T T
march. They wanted to gather and protest for the 5 demands.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 12. At 1:30 pm the procession began and the 3 defendants with a C
large number of participants marched to the Chinese Methodist Church and
D D
stayed there for a while blocking the carriageways of Johnston Road and
E Fenwick Street. They then marched to the Police Headquarters and E
blocked the junction of Fenwick Street and Hennessy Road as well as
F F
Lockhart Road and Arsenal Street. The 3rd defendant had to resort to
G directing traffic and reminding the crowds to beware of vehicles. G
H H
13. A 2nd warning was given from the steps of the Police
I Headquarters in light of the traffic disruption and crowds on the I
carriageways. The police gave another warning verbally and displayed a
J J
yellow flag. Despite this the defendants and others continued to occupy
K the carriageways. They did not disperse. K
L L
14. The 1st defendant was interviewed by reporters outside the
M Police Headquarters and stated he had come out that day in order to express M
the view that they would continue to fight for “5 demands”. He did not
N N
answer the question when asked if he was worried he may be arrested for
O participating in a procession. O
P P
15. In total on 4 occasions “Level 2B” warnings were given from
Q the steps of the Police Headquarters with yellow flags raised at the same Q
time. The 3 defendants together with hundreds then walked towards
R R
Queensway and occupied at least 2 carriageways outside Pacific Place
S making it difficult for vehicles to pass. Again the 3rd defendant had to S
direct traffic and the crowds with the assistance of the 2nd defendant.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. The 1st defendant was interviewed again and said he was
C participating in the procession to show that Hong Kong citizens would not C
be intimidated by the actions of the police.
D D
E 17. In the video footage when the defendants reached the junction E
of Garden Road and Queensway, the 2nd and 3rd defendants can be seen
F F
shouting at participants to go to St John’s Cathedral first. The crowds
G occupied the carriageways and affected traffic again. As participants G
followed directions, there was chanting of political slogans. The
H H
3 defendants were last seen stood together outside St John’s Cathedral at
I about 2:25 pm singing religious songs. I
J J
18. From there, the police did not allow the procession to proceed
K towards Government House. Whilst others in the procession proceeded up K
Garden Road to attempt to go to Government House, the 3 defendants were
L L
no longer seen in the procession. The procession was directed away by the
M police. M
N N
19. At that point the police issued another verbal warning and
O raised a yellow flag. Whilst these warnings were given, the police again O
were subjected to abuse and insults by participants of the procession. There
P P
was even an attempt by a woman to break through the police cordon line
Q but was unsuccessful. Q
R R
20. All of the news footage and interviews as well as the police
S videos of the meeting at Southorn Playground and the public procession S
are attached to the Summary of Facts in Annex 2. All the relevant videos
T T
identifying the defendants, what they said to the press and what they said
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
in speeches and slogans is in Annex 2. MFI-4 is a record of all of the video
C footage and what was played in open court. C
D D
21. It was admitted that during the public procession the crowds
E with the defendants walked on carriageways which caused serious E
disruption to the traffic. Vehicles including public transport were stuck on
F F
many roads around Wanchai, Queensway as well as Garden Road and
G Lower Albert Road. In fact, the traffic on Garden Road was affected until G
8 pm that night.
H H
I 22. The 1st defendant, Mr Lai Chee Ying and the 3rd defendant, I
Mr Lee Cheuk Yan were convicted by me on 1 April 2021 of organising
J J
and knowingly taking part in a public procession which was an
K unauthorized assembly on 18 August 2019, only 14 days before the K
unauthorized assembly of this charge.
L L
M Mitigation and background information of the defendants M
N N
The 1st defendant
O O
23. The 1st defendant is now 73 years old and has no previous
P P
convictions. He was born in the Mainland and came to Hong Kong as a
Q teenager by himself. He started from humble beginnings working as a Q
handyman in a factory to become a self-made and successful businessman.
R R
He founded the retail brand Giordano. He sold his shares in that to focus
S on the media industry in the 1990s. He had by then founded “Next Digital S
Ltd” which later listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
24. He is married with 6 children and many grandchildren. In
C mitigation I have been urged to take into account that he has through his C
businesses made significant contributions to the media industry and the
D D
economy in Hong Kong. His more advanced age has been stressed as well
E as several medical conditions controlled by medication. Written mitigation E
is at MFI-1.
F F
G The 2nd defendant G
H H
25. The 2nd defendant is 72 years old and on the date of this
I offence had no previous convictions. After he was convicted of this sole I
charge on his own plea, he discharged his legal team to mitigate for himself.
J J
It was confirmed that his plea was unequivocal before I released his legal
K representation. Despite this, his counsel did inform me in open court that K
he was a Justice of the Peace and had been awarded the Silver Bauhinia
L L
Star in 2009. He is a married man with children. He was a teacher and
M then an Assistant Professor at the University of Hong Kong. He is still an M
Honorary Assistant Professor now after retirement. It is also well-known
N N
he served several terms as a Legislator and was actively involved with the
O Democratic Party and other pro-democracy parties. O
P P
26. It appeared his legal team was discharged because he did not
Q want to put forward any mitigation. He did however want to make a Q
statement. He read out in court a statement pertaining to why he broke the
R R
law, it is marked MFI-2. He pleaded guilty but would not plead for
S leniency because he had no remorse nor did anything wrong. S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
27. His motivation was civil disobedience. He wanted to protest
C against the Public Order Ordinance by means of civil disobedience. He C
participated because the right of demonstration and procession is
D D
constitutionally guaranteed. He also wanted to protest against the abuse of
E power by the police for prohibiting peaceful demonstrations and E
processions. He therefore defied the law in the name of civil disobedience
F F
in a peaceful manner. He had nothing to say in mitigation.
G G
The 3rd defendant
H H
I 28. The 3rd defendant is 64 years old and on the date of this I
offence had no previous convictions. He was a politician and was a serving
J J
member of the Legislature for many years. He founded and is still
K connected to the Labour Party. He is now the General Secretary of the K
Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and Vice-chairman of the
L L
Labour Party.
M M
29. He graduated from the University of Hong Kong in 1978 with
N N
a civil engineering degree. I have heard full mitigation, MFI-3, including
O a letter from the 3rd defendant read out in open court. O
P P
30. He too admits he broke the law but his motivation was like
Q the 2nd defendant, civil disobedience. He pleaded guilty but does not admit Q
he has done anything wrong in affirming the rights of Hong Kong people
R R
to peaceful procession. He too says he participated because the right of
S procession is constitutionally guaranteed. He too defied the law in the S
name of civil disobedience in a peaceful manner. I have read his letter and
T T
I know where he gets his inspiration from.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C Mitigation C
D D
31. The 2nd and 3rd defendants do not express regret or admit
E wrongdoing because of their political beliefs or demands and are entitled E
to take or express this stance. Their political beliefs or demands are not
F F
my concern in sentencing. I have had the benefit of written submissions
G prepared by counsel and need not set it out here. G
H H
32. I do not agree with the submission in mitigation that they were
I just like any other participant that day answering a call to pray for sinners; I
that they were no different from any other person there. The 3 defendants
J J
are well known and stood out from the crowd. Protesters are seen
K following their directions as to traffic and route. K
L Civil Disobedience L
M M
nd rd
33. The 2 and 3 defendants raise the concept of civil
N N
disobedience to justify their breaches of the law. This concept is recognised
O
in the Courts of Hong Kong. The conscientious objections and genuine O
beliefs of a defendant may be taken into consideration as the motive for
P P
offending but the court will not evaluate the worthiness of any causes
Q espoused by an offender. The weight to be attached to a motive will vary Q
depending on the circumstances.
R R
S 34. As the Court of Final Appeal said in Secretary for Justice v S
Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 at para 75 that it is not the task of
T T
the courts to take sides on issues that are political or to prefer one set of
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
social or other values over another. In any event, the act of civil
C disobedience here was not expressly directed towards section 17A of the C
Public Order Ordinance as an unjust law but was committed in the course
D D
of protesting against the government and the police over several issues.
E E
Principles of Sentencing
F F
G 35. There are no prevailing guidelines or tariffs for sentences for G
the present charge that existed at the time of the offence. The great majority
H H
of the past cases with a similar offence do either involve a bind over order
I or a financial penalty but none of those cases referred to stem from the I
social unrest and turmoil of 2019.
J J
K 36. Public order offences have been established as an exception K
to the general principle that a deterrent sentence should not be passed on a
L L
person with a clear record and I have referred myself to page 13, lines 4-9
M of R v Nguyen Quang Thong & Ors (1992) 2 HKCLR 10. All defendants M
here had a clear record.
N N
O O
37. I have been referred to reasons for judgement arising from
P P
HKSAR v Chow Ting HCMA 374/2020, a bail application pending a
Q magistracy appeal. I thank the prosecution for a translation of those Q
reasons. There, Barnes J refused bail pending appeal for the applicant
R R
Chow Ting. She had been sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for
S incitement to knowingly take part in an unauthorized assembly and S
knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly.
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
38. The facts of that case are set out in those Reasons for
C Judgement and involve large crowds of protesters gathering first in the C
vicinity of the Central Government Offices on 21 June 2019 before more
D D
crowds proceeded to besiege the Police Headquarters. That was a day that
E ended in violence, conflict, damage to property, an attack on the police E
headquarters itself and its operation as well as severe traffic disruption until
F F
the early hours of the morning.
G G
39. The relevance of that case and the Reasons for Judgement is
H H
because the learned Magistrate referred to the sentencing considerations
I and factors set out in the Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 2 I
HKLRD 699; sentencing guidelines for offences of unlawful assembly.
J J
K 40. Barnes J was only concerned with the application for bail K
pending appeal and not the appeal itself which is still to be heard but she
L L
did state the reasons why she found the applicant had failed to demonstrate
M that her appeal had a very high or reasonable prospect of success. More M
importantly, and relied on heavily by the prosecution here is that she agreed
N N
with the learned Magistrate and found nothing wrong with her “drawing
O on” the sentencing factors in Wong Chi Fung when deciding a custodial O
sentence was appropriate and said it was clearly far from being wrong in
P P
principle.
Q Q
41. Wong Chi Fung was an application for review for offences
R R
relating to unlawful assemblies. In the context of unlawful assemblies
S involving violence, it was held by the court that the sentencing court’s main S
consideration is the punishment of the offender, as well as deterring others
T T
from breaking the law in a similar manner. These are the weighty factors
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
and the offender’s personal circumstances will not be regarded as
C significant mitigation. The Court of Final Appeal endorsed those C
observations in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21
D D
HKCFAR 35.
E E
42. The Court of Appeal found it necessary to expound on the
F F
principles on sentencing in unlawful assemblies that involved violence. In
G paragraph 108 Poon JA, as he then was, set out the sentencing principles G
applicable to the charges. Particularly, in paragraph 127 he stressed that
H H
the sentence imposed must be appropriate to the punishment of the
I offenders but also takes into account the factor of deterrence on the basic I
premise that public order must be maintained and reflects the gravamen of
J J
the offence of unlawful assembly.
K K
43. In paragraph 135 he identified facts relevant and pertinent to
L L
unlawful assembly offences involving violence. But before that Poon JA
M discussed not only unlawful assembly involving violence but also unlawful M
assembly involving no actual violence.
N N
O 44. In the judgement of Secretary for Justice v Chung Ka Ho O
CAAR 4/2020 the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 53 it could be seen
P P
from Wong Chi Fung that cases that warrant the courts serious treatment
Q include an unlawful assembly without actual violence, which could Q
become imminent, given the overall circumstances. Essentially, the Court
R R
of Appeal said it is artificial and unreasonable to divide unlawful
S assemblies by violence when passing sentence; it all depends on the actual S
circumstances in each case. Equally, the Court of Appeal did not say
T T
deterrent sentences should not be imposed in the absence of actual violence.
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
C 45. The Court of Appeal in Chung Ka Ho at paragraph 55 point C
out that the factors identified by Poon JA in paragraph 135 in Wong Chi
D D
Fung can if adjusted, apply equally to unlawful assemblies with no
E violence. Therefore, it is not right to suggest that the judgement in Wong E
Chi Fung is solely applicable to unlawful assembly involving violence.
F F
G 46. Although Wong Chi Fung involved an unlawful assembly G
involving violence, Barnes J saw nothing wrong with the magistrate
H H
drawing on the sentencing considerations because the charges in both
I Wong Chi Fung and Chow Ting were contrary to the Public Order I
Ordinance. Secondly the maximum penalty for those offences in those
J J
cases were the same. Thirdly both cases were of a similar nature in that
K they involved crowd gatherings and lastly those demonstrations and K
gatherings arose from social issues.
L L
M 47. Although this case before me involves an unauthorized M
assembly on 31 August, if I take into account the overall circumstances,
N N
the social unrest witnessed from June 2019 that was as relentless as it was
O violent and disturbing then I find I can consider sentencing principles such O
as protecting the public, meting out penalties, open condemnation and
P P
deterrence as set out by Poon JA in Wong Chi Fung. I too can draw on the
Q sentencing principles in that authority but bear in mind this charge involves Q
an unauthorised not an unlawful assembly.
R R
S 48. The facts of this case and offence affected the public; S
members of the public not participating. There was traffic disruption and
T T
carriageways were blocked. By listing as a principle “meting out
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
penalties”, the Court of Appeal were reiterating the obvious and that is any
C sentence imposed ought to be commensurate with the offence committed. C
One that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the
D D
offender. The open condemnation factor is self-explanatory, the sentence
E ought to reflect the social disapproval of the offence and the criminal E
conduct of the offender.
F F
49. The factor of deterrence serves as a warning to others and
G G
prevents the offender from reoffending. The need for deterrent sentences
H cannot be limited to an unlawful assemblies or more serious public order H
offences. The need to consider a deterrent sentence will often depend on
I I
the prevailing circumstances at the time. In fact, all sentencing principles
J applied to determine an appropriate sentence should take into account the J
prevailing tumultuous situation of 2019.
K K
L 50. The fact I draw on the aforesaid sentencing principles does L
not mean I am retrospectively imposing a more severe sentence based on
M M
new sentencing guidelines from the Court of Appeal in Wong Chi Fung.
N N
Reasons for Sentence
O O
P 51. This unauthorized procession was peacefully but we know P
from experience, in particular in those volatile months in 2019 that when a
Q Q
large number of demonstrators gather, emotions are likely to run high
R which means those situations have an inherent risk of breaking out into R
violence.
S S
T 52. It is a serious factor that despite that risk and knowing the T
Commissioner of Police had banned all meetings and processions of the
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
CHRF that day and why, the defendants went to join with others in
C Southorn Playground to participate in a procession and ignore the ban and C
reasons for it.
D D
E 53. An unauthorized assembly was planned in advance to protest E
against the government and the police, calling it a “Pray for sinners” march.
F F
All 3 defendants made a conscious decision to take part in it and to then
G deliberately ignore all the police verbal warnings and flags telling them to G
disperse or face prosecution.
H H
I 54. It was deliberately provocative and inflammatory, in light of I
the prevailing social unrest and previous attacks on the Police Headquarters
J J
to specifically march there. The Police Headquarters was not a church so
K the insinuation according to the theme and route of the procession was that K
the police were sinners.
L L
M 55. Their decision to participate and their decision to ignore the M
numerous police warnings, because of who they are, may have encouraged
N N
others to participate and believe they can break the law with impunity.
O People can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviour and O
follow certain actions. Influential people can draw a crowd and can wield
P P
a certain influence.
Q Q
56. This is why after careful consideration of the above principles
R R
and factors; I find an immediate term of imprisonment the only appropriate
S sentencing option. This offence was committed deliberately and S
intentionally at a time when there were incidents of social unrest almost
T T
daily. They chose to participate in yet another unauthorised assembly with
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
a significant crowd when they must have known the chances were high of
C more violence erupting. C
D 57. The background and facts of this case call for a custodial D
sentence. I have referred myself to Wong Chi Fung at paragraph 172 where
E E
what Pang JA said is applicable to this case and the circumstances that were
F prevailing in Hong Kong at that time. That is even though the charge was F
more serious. I quote;
G G
“172. I agree with the judgements of Yeung VP and Poon JA.
H H
The more one feels about an issue, the more one wishes to press one’s
point and the more one desires that there should be progress in the
I matter. This is all very understandable. However, if in the course of I
advocating one’s demand, one is given to the position that some long
and well established law is but an unreasonable restriction on the right
J to freedom of expression, plus indulging one in the self-satisfaction of J
having broken the law as one pleases, that is not a situation which
K would on any ground enable the courts to pass unduly lenient sentences. K
An offender who is inflicted with such an attitude not only breaks the
law in conduct, but in his mind too he harbours contempt and regards
L himself as being above the law. With respect to controversial matters of L
public debate where emotions are easily stirred, the grave
consequences of such an attitude gaining ground are self-evident. …”
M M
N Starting Point and Sentence N
O O
58. I have taken into account all mitigation put forward on behalf
P of the defendants and although the 2nd defendant did not put forward any P
personal mitigation for the court to consider, I did have information placed
Q Q
before me pertaining to his positive good character.
R R
59. I have borne in mind the offence, facts of the case and the
S S
relevant sentencing principles referred to above in particular deterrence. I
T stress the fact this offence was committed deliberately and intentionally at T
a time when there were frequent and prevailing incidents of social unrest
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
and violence. It was a direct challenge to law and order despite a ban from
C the Commissioner of Police. C
D D
60. After all matters are taken into consideration including the
E fact the procession was peaceful, in my judgement, the starting point of 12 E
months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
F F
G 61. All defendants indicated their pleas less than a week before G
their trial commenced. I have taken into account the authority of HKSAR v
H H
Ngo Van Nam (2016) 5 HKLRD 1 and apply a discount of 25% to the
I starting point for their pleas. This reduces the starting point to a sentence I
of 9 months’ imprisonment.
J J
K 62. That discount for a guilty plea has an allowance for a clear K
record built into it. Unless there is more, such as evidence of positive good
L L
character then, there should be no further discount for a clear record. All
M the defendants here had a clear record at the time of the offence. M
N N
The 1st defendant
O O
63. The 1st defendant is 73 years old. I have heard mitigation
P P
st
relating to that and his health. I will give the 1 defendant a further
Q reduction of one month for these factors which would bring the sentence Q
down to 8 months’ imprisonment.
R R
S 64. I can see no reason to reduce that sentence any further. S
Therefore, I sentence the 1st defendant to 8 months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
The 2nd defendant
C C
nd nd
65. The 2 defendant is 72 years old. I will give the 2 defendant
D D
a further reduction of one month for that factor. This brings his sentence
E down to 8 months’ imprisonment. E
F F
66. He wants no leniency from this court as he says his actions
G were to protect his right of assembly and an act of civil disobedience. G
Certainly the civil disobedience was non-violent. I have taken account
H H
what he said in MFI-2 but much of his statement and grievances relate to
I what happened in Hong Kong after he committed this offence. I
J J
67. Other than his service as a Legislator for many years, the 2nd
K defendant is known for his dedication to education and social work K
especially at the grassroots level. His Silver Bauhinia Star Award under the
L L
honours system of Hong Kong means he was recognised for either taking
M a leading role in public affairs or voluntary work over a long period of time M
for the good of Hong Kong.
N N
O 68. I find that award to be evidence of exceptional public service O
and commitment therefore, that fact as well as his age gives me a valid
P P
reason to suspend that 8-month term of imprisonment.
Q Q
69. I sentence the 2nd defendant to 8 months’ imprisonment
R R
suspended for 12 months.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
70. The 2nd defendant is warned that if he is convicted of an
C offence punishable by imprisonment in the following 12 months from C
today then he will almost certainly serve this term of 8 months.
D D
E The 3rd defendant E
F F
71. The 3rd defendant is 64 years old. From information received,
G I have considered his commitment and contribution to public service G
especially where the welfare of workers is concerned. Such service
H H
deserves recognition and for that I give the 3rd defendant a further discount
I of 3 months. I
J J
72. I can see no reason to reduce that sentence any further.
K Therefore, I sentence the 3rd defendant to 6 months’ imprisonment. K
L L
M M
N N
O ( A J Woodcock ) O
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 537/2020
C [2021] HKDC 447 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 537 OF 2020
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LAI CHEE YING (D1) I
YEUNG SUM (D2)
J J
LEE CHEUK YAN (D3)
K --------------------------------------- K
L L
Before: Her Honour Judge A J Woodcock in Court
M Date: 16 April 2021 M
Present: Ms Priscilia Lam, Counsel on Fiat, Ms Karen Ng, Senior
N N
Public Prosecutor (Acting) and Mr Edward Lau, Public
O Prosecutor, for HKSAR/ Director of Public Prosecutions O
Mr Edwin Choy leading Mr Jeffrey Tam C K and Mr Ernie
P P
st
Tung, instructed by Robertsons, for the 1 defendant
Q Mr Man Ho Ching of Ho Tse Wai & Partners, for the 2nd Q
defendant
R R
Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat, instructed by JCC Cheung & Co,
S for the 3rd defendant S
Offence: Knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly (明知而
T T
參與未經批准集結)
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C ----------------------------------------- C
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
D D
-----------------------------------------
E E
1. The 3 defendants pleaded guilty to one charge of knowingly
F F
taking part in an unauthorized assembly, contrary to section 17A(3)(a) of
G the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245. An indication of their plea came a G
few days before their trial was due to commence.
H H
I 2. The particulars are that on 31 August 2019, without lawful I
authority or reasonable excuse, all 3 defendants knowingly took part in a
J J
public procession which took place in contravention of section 13 of the
K Public Order Ordinance which was an unauthorized assembly by virtue of K
section 17A(2)(a) of the same Ordinance.
L L
M The Facts M
N N
3. All 3 defendants agreed the Amended Summary of Facts. By
O way of background, it was agreed that from June 2019 there were many O
violent incidents that erupted during certain protest events including
P P
confrontations between members of the public and members of the Hong
Q Kong Police Force. Q
R R
4. The Civil Human Rights Front, “CHRF” had submitted a
S notification of an intention to hold a public meeting and procession on S
31 August 2019. They intended to hold a public meeting at Chater Garden,
T T
Central and then a public procession from Chater Garden to the Liaison
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Office of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR. The subject
C matter of the meeting and procession was anti-government and a demand C
for universal suffrage.
D D
E 5. In light of the ongoing prevailing social unrest and violent E
incidents in the preceding weeks and having regard to the interests of
F F
public order, public safety and for the protection of the rights and freedom
G of others, the Commissioner of Police prohibited the holding of the public G
meeting and objected to the holding of the public procession. There was
H H
an appeal that was dismissed.
I I
6. After that, there was a call on line and amongst netizens
J J
appealing to the public to gather at Southorn Playground in Wanchai at
K around 12:30 pm on 31 August 2019 to participate in a “Pray for Sinners” K
procession. They were to assemble at 12:30 pm and start a procession at
L L
1 pm. It was erroneously announced that a religious procession did not
M need police notification or permission. M
N N
7. They were to walk from the playground along Hennessy Road
O to Queensway to Upper Albert Road and to Government House. They O
would make stops to pray for “sinners” at the Chinese Methodist Church
P P
in Wanchai then the Police Headquarters as well as St John’s Cathedral
Q before proceeding to Government House. The Commissioner of Police Q
never received any notification from any person or organisation either
R R
pursuant to section 8 or 13A of the Public Order Ordinance.
S S
8. On 30 August 2019 the Regional Commander of Hong Kong
T T
Island held a press conference and explained the reasons why the CHRF
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
public meeting and the public procession was prohibited. He also corrected
C the rumour that a religious procession was exempted under the Public C
Order Ordinance. This news report was widely broadcast and printed in at
D D
least 13 media outlets. Annex 1 of the Summary of Facts contains those
E details. E
F F
9. An unauthorized assembly did take place on 31 August 2019.
G By 12:35 pm, the 2nd defendant was videoed assembled together with large G
crowds at Southorn Playground and chanting political slogans; anti-
H H
government and anti-police slogans. The police use an amplifier and gave
I a “level 2A” warning to the crowds whilst a yellow warning flag was raised I
and displayed with the warning printed on it for all to see. The crowd was
J J
warned that the meeting was an unauthorized assembly and they may be
K prosecuted for a criminal offence. K
L L
10. Instead of dispersing, some members of the crowd approached
M the police with hostility and verbally abused as well as insulted those M
officers present. In order not to escalate rising emotions and to avoid any
N N
conflict, these police officers withdrew and return to Police Headquarters
O to guard that building and monitor the situation. O
P P
11. By 1 pm the crowds had swelled inside the Playground and
Q by then the other 2 defendants, the 1st and 3rd defendants were present. Q
During the whole day the 3 defendants were almost, at all times, together
R R
rd
during the meeting and procession. The 3 defendant was holding a
S placard and interviewed by a reporter in the Playground. He said that he S
knew the police had banned all marches that day but they had a right to
T T
march. They wanted to gather and protest for the 5 demands.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 12. At 1:30 pm the procession began and the 3 defendants with a C
large number of participants marched to the Chinese Methodist Church and
D D
stayed there for a while blocking the carriageways of Johnston Road and
E Fenwick Street. They then marched to the Police Headquarters and E
blocked the junction of Fenwick Street and Hennessy Road as well as
F F
Lockhart Road and Arsenal Street. The 3rd defendant had to resort to
G directing traffic and reminding the crowds to beware of vehicles. G
H H
13. A 2nd warning was given from the steps of the Police
I Headquarters in light of the traffic disruption and crowds on the I
carriageways. The police gave another warning verbally and displayed a
J J
yellow flag. Despite this the defendants and others continued to occupy
K the carriageways. They did not disperse. K
L L
14. The 1st defendant was interviewed by reporters outside the
M Police Headquarters and stated he had come out that day in order to express M
the view that they would continue to fight for “5 demands”. He did not
N N
answer the question when asked if he was worried he may be arrested for
O participating in a procession. O
P P
15. In total on 4 occasions “Level 2B” warnings were given from
Q the steps of the Police Headquarters with yellow flags raised at the same Q
time. The 3 defendants together with hundreds then walked towards
R R
Queensway and occupied at least 2 carriageways outside Pacific Place
S making it difficult for vehicles to pass. Again the 3rd defendant had to S
direct traffic and the crowds with the assistance of the 2nd defendant.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. The 1st defendant was interviewed again and said he was
C participating in the procession to show that Hong Kong citizens would not C
be intimidated by the actions of the police.
D D
E 17. In the video footage when the defendants reached the junction E
of Garden Road and Queensway, the 2nd and 3rd defendants can be seen
F F
shouting at participants to go to St John’s Cathedral first. The crowds
G occupied the carriageways and affected traffic again. As participants G
followed directions, there was chanting of political slogans. The
H H
3 defendants were last seen stood together outside St John’s Cathedral at
I about 2:25 pm singing religious songs. I
J J
18. From there, the police did not allow the procession to proceed
K towards Government House. Whilst others in the procession proceeded up K
Garden Road to attempt to go to Government House, the 3 defendants were
L L
no longer seen in the procession. The procession was directed away by the
M police. M
N N
19. At that point the police issued another verbal warning and
O raised a yellow flag. Whilst these warnings were given, the police again O
were subjected to abuse and insults by participants of the procession. There
P P
was even an attempt by a woman to break through the police cordon line
Q but was unsuccessful. Q
R R
20. All of the news footage and interviews as well as the police
S videos of the meeting at Southorn Playground and the public procession S
are attached to the Summary of Facts in Annex 2. All the relevant videos
T T
identifying the defendants, what they said to the press and what they said
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
in speeches and slogans is in Annex 2. MFI-4 is a record of all of the video
C footage and what was played in open court. C
D D
21. It was admitted that during the public procession the crowds
E with the defendants walked on carriageways which caused serious E
disruption to the traffic. Vehicles including public transport were stuck on
F F
many roads around Wanchai, Queensway as well as Garden Road and
G Lower Albert Road. In fact, the traffic on Garden Road was affected until G
8 pm that night.
H H
I 22. The 1st defendant, Mr Lai Chee Ying and the 3rd defendant, I
Mr Lee Cheuk Yan were convicted by me on 1 April 2021 of organising
J J
and knowingly taking part in a public procession which was an
K unauthorized assembly on 18 August 2019, only 14 days before the K
unauthorized assembly of this charge.
L L
M Mitigation and background information of the defendants M
N N
The 1st defendant
O O
23. The 1st defendant is now 73 years old and has no previous
P P
convictions. He was born in the Mainland and came to Hong Kong as a
Q teenager by himself. He started from humble beginnings working as a Q
handyman in a factory to become a self-made and successful businessman.
R R
He founded the retail brand Giordano. He sold his shares in that to focus
S on the media industry in the 1990s. He had by then founded “Next Digital S
Ltd” which later listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
24. He is married with 6 children and many grandchildren. In
C mitigation I have been urged to take into account that he has through his C
businesses made significant contributions to the media industry and the
D D
economy in Hong Kong. His more advanced age has been stressed as well
E as several medical conditions controlled by medication. Written mitigation E
is at MFI-1.
F F
G The 2nd defendant G
H H
25. The 2nd defendant is 72 years old and on the date of this
I offence had no previous convictions. After he was convicted of this sole I
charge on his own plea, he discharged his legal team to mitigate for himself.
J J
It was confirmed that his plea was unequivocal before I released his legal
K representation. Despite this, his counsel did inform me in open court that K
he was a Justice of the Peace and had been awarded the Silver Bauhinia
L L
Star in 2009. He is a married man with children. He was a teacher and
M then an Assistant Professor at the University of Hong Kong. He is still an M
Honorary Assistant Professor now after retirement. It is also well-known
N N
he served several terms as a Legislator and was actively involved with the
O Democratic Party and other pro-democracy parties. O
P P
26. It appeared his legal team was discharged because he did not
Q want to put forward any mitigation. He did however want to make a Q
statement. He read out in court a statement pertaining to why he broke the
R R
law, it is marked MFI-2. He pleaded guilty but would not plead for
S leniency because he had no remorse nor did anything wrong. S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
27. His motivation was civil disobedience. He wanted to protest
C against the Public Order Ordinance by means of civil disobedience. He C
participated because the right of demonstration and procession is
D D
constitutionally guaranteed. He also wanted to protest against the abuse of
E power by the police for prohibiting peaceful demonstrations and E
processions. He therefore defied the law in the name of civil disobedience
F F
in a peaceful manner. He had nothing to say in mitigation.
G G
The 3rd defendant
H H
I 28. The 3rd defendant is 64 years old and on the date of this I
offence had no previous convictions. He was a politician and was a serving
J J
member of the Legislature for many years. He founded and is still
K connected to the Labour Party. He is now the General Secretary of the K
Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and Vice-chairman of the
L L
Labour Party.
M M
29. He graduated from the University of Hong Kong in 1978 with
N N
a civil engineering degree. I have heard full mitigation, MFI-3, including
O a letter from the 3rd defendant read out in open court. O
P P
30. He too admits he broke the law but his motivation was like
Q the 2nd defendant, civil disobedience. He pleaded guilty but does not admit Q
he has done anything wrong in affirming the rights of Hong Kong people
R R
to peaceful procession. He too says he participated because the right of
S procession is constitutionally guaranteed. He too defied the law in the S
name of civil disobedience in a peaceful manner. I have read his letter and
T T
I know where he gets his inspiration from.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C Mitigation C
D D
31. The 2nd and 3rd defendants do not express regret or admit
E wrongdoing because of their political beliefs or demands and are entitled E
to take or express this stance. Their political beliefs or demands are not
F F
my concern in sentencing. I have had the benefit of written submissions
G prepared by counsel and need not set it out here. G
H H
32. I do not agree with the submission in mitigation that they were
I just like any other participant that day answering a call to pray for sinners; I
that they were no different from any other person there. The 3 defendants
J J
are well known and stood out from the crowd. Protesters are seen
K following their directions as to traffic and route. K
L Civil Disobedience L
M M
nd rd
33. The 2 and 3 defendants raise the concept of civil
N N
disobedience to justify their breaches of the law. This concept is recognised
O
in the Courts of Hong Kong. The conscientious objections and genuine O
beliefs of a defendant may be taken into consideration as the motive for
P P
offending but the court will not evaluate the worthiness of any causes
Q espoused by an offender. The weight to be attached to a motive will vary Q
depending on the circumstances.
R R
S 34. As the Court of Final Appeal said in Secretary for Justice v S
Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 at para 75 that it is not the task of
T T
the courts to take sides on issues that are political or to prefer one set of
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
social or other values over another. In any event, the act of civil
C disobedience here was not expressly directed towards section 17A of the C
Public Order Ordinance as an unjust law but was committed in the course
D D
of protesting against the government and the police over several issues.
E E
Principles of Sentencing
F F
G 35. There are no prevailing guidelines or tariffs for sentences for G
the present charge that existed at the time of the offence. The great majority
H H
of the past cases with a similar offence do either involve a bind over order
I or a financial penalty but none of those cases referred to stem from the I
social unrest and turmoil of 2019.
J J
K 36. Public order offences have been established as an exception K
to the general principle that a deterrent sentence should not be passed on a
L L
person with a clear record and I have referred myself to page 13, lines 4-9
M of R v Nguyen Quang Thong & Ors (1992) 2 HKCLR 10. All defendants M
here had a clear record.
N N
O O
37. I have been referred to reasons for judgement arising from
P P
HKSAR v Chow Ting HCMA 374/2020, a bail application pending a
Q magistracy appeal. I thank the prosecution for a translation of those Q
reasons. There, Barnes J refused bail pending appeal for the applicant
R R
Chow Ting. She had been sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for
S incitement to knowingly take part in an unauthorized assembly and S
knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly.
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
38. The facts of that case are set out in those Reasons for
C Judgement and involve large crowds of protesters gathering first in the C
vicinity of the Central Government Offices on 21 June 2019 before more
D D
crowds proceeded to besiege the Police Headquarters. That was a day that
E ended in violence, conflict, damage to property, an attack on the police E
headquarters itself and its operation as well as severe traffic disruption until
F F
the early hours of the morning.
G G
39. The relevance of that case and the Reasons for Judgement is
H H
because the learned Magistrate referred to the sentencing considerations
I and factors set out in the Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 2 I
HKLRD 699; sentencing guidelines for offences of unlawful assembly.
J J
K 40. Barnes J was only concerned with the application for bail K
pending appeal and not the appeal itself which is still to be heard but she
L L
did state the reasons why she found the applicant had failed to demonstrate
M that her appeal had a very high or reasonable prospect of success. More M
importantly, and relied on heavily by the prosecution here is that she agreed
N N
with the learned Magistrate and found nothing wrong with her “drawing
O on” the sentencing factors in Wong Chi Fung when deciding a custodial O
sentence was appropriate and said it was clearly far from being wrong in
P P
principle.
Q Q
41. Wong Chi Fung was an application for review for offences
R R
relating to unlawful assemblies. In the context of unlawful assemblies
S involving violence, it was held by the court that the sentencing court’s main S
consideration is the punishment of the offender, as well as deterring others
T T
from breaking the law in a similar manner. These are the weighty factors
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
and the offender’s personal circumstances will not be regarded as
C significant mitigation. The Court of Final Appeal endorsed those C
observations in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21
D D
HKCFAR 35.
E E
42. The Court of Appeal found it necessary to expound on the
F F
principles on sentencing in unlawful assemblies that involved violence. In
G paragraph 108 Poon JA, as he then was, set out the sentencing principles G
applicable to the charges. Particularly, in paragraph 127 he stressed that
H H
the sentence imposed must be appropriate to the punishment of the
I offenders but also takes into account the factor of deterrence on the basic I
premise that public order must be maintained and reflects the gravamen of
J J
the offence of unlawful assembly.
K K
43. In paragraph 135 he identified facts relevant and pertinent to
L L
unlawful assembly offences involving violence. But before that Poon JA
M discussed not only unlawful assembly involving violence but also unlawful M
assembly involving no actual violence.
N N
O 44. In the judgement of Secretary for Justice v Chung Ka Ho O
CAAR 4/2020 the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 53 it could be seen
P P
from Wong Chi Fung that cases that warrant the courts serious treatment
Q include an unlawful assembly without actual violence, which could Q
become imminent, given the overall circumstances. Essentially, the Court
R R
of Appeal said it is artificial and unreasonable to divide unlawful
S assemblies by violence when passing sentence; it all depends on the actual S
circumstances in each case. Equally, the Court of Appeal did not say
T T
deterrent sentences should not be imposed in the absence of actual violence.
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
C 45. The Court of Appeal in Chung Ka Ho at paragraph 55 point C
out that the factors identified by Poon JA in paragraph 135 in Wong Chi
D D
Fung can if adjusted, apply equally to unlawful assemblies with no
E violence. Therefore, it is not right to suggest that the judgement in Wong E
Chi Fung is solely applicable to unlawful assembly involving violence.
F F
G 46. Although Wong Chi Fung involved an unlawful assembly G
involving violence, Barnes J saw nothing wrong with the magistrate
H H
drawing on the sentencing considerations because the charges in both
I Wong Chi Fung and Chow Ting were contrary to the Public Order I
Ordinance. Secondly the maximum penalty for those offences in those
J J
cases were the same. Thirdly both cases were of a similar nature in that
K they involved crowd gatherings and lastly those demonstrations and K
gatherings arose from social issues.
L L
M 47. Although this case before me involves an unauthorized M
assembly on 31 August, if I take into account the overall circumstances,
N N
the social unrest witnessed from June 2019 that was as relentless as it was
O violent and disturbing then I find I can consider sentencing principles such O
as protecting the public, meting out penalties, open condemnation and
P P
deterrence as set out by Poon JA in Wong Chi Fung. I too can draw on the
Q sentencing principles in that authority but bear in mind this charge involves Q
an unauthorised not an unlawful assembly.
R R
S 48. The facts of this case and offence affected the public; S
members of the public not participating. There was traffic disruption and
T T
carriageways were blocked. By listing as a principle “meting out
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
penalties”, the Court of Appeal were reiterating the obvious and that is any
C sentence imposed ought to be commensurate with the offence committed. C
One that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the
D D
offender. The open condemnation factor is self-explanatory, the sentence
E ought to reflect the social disapproval of the offence and the criminal E
conduct of the offender.
F F
49. The factor of deterrence serves as a warning to others and
G G
prevents the offender from reoffending. The need for deterrent sentences
H cannot be limited to an unlawful assemblies or more serious public order H
offences. The need to consider a deterrent sentence will often depend on
I I
the prevailing circumstances at the time. In fact, all sentencing principles
J applied to determine an appropriate sentence should take into account the J
prevailing tumultuous situation of 2019.
K K
L 50. The fact I draw on the aforesaid sentencing principles does L
not mean I am retrospectively imposing a more severe sentence based on
M M
new sentencing guidelines from the Court of Appeal in Wong Chi Fung.
N N
Reasons for Sentence
O O
P 51. This unauthorized procession was peacefully but we know P
from experience, in particular in those volatile months in 2019 that when a
Q Q
large number of demonstrators gather, emotions are likely to run high
R which means those situations have an inherent risk of breaking out into R
violence.
S S
T 52. It is a serious factor that despite that risk and knowing the T
Commissioner of Police had banned all meetings and processions of the
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
CHRF that day and why, the defendants went to join with others in
C Southorn Playground to participate in a procession and ignore the ban and C
reasons for it.
D D
E 53. An unauthorized assembly was planned in advance to protest E
against the government and the police, calling it a “Pray for sinners” march.
F F
All 3 defendants made a conscious decision to take part in it and to then
G deliberately ignore all the police verbal warnings and flags telling them to G
disperse or face prosecution.
H H
I 54. It was deliberately provocative and inflammatory, in light of I
the prevailing social unrest and previous attacks on the Police Headquarters
J J
to specifically march there. The Police Headquarters was not a church so
K the insinuation according to the theme and route of the procession was that K
the police were sinners.
L L
M 55. Their decision to participate and their decision to ignore the M
numerous police warnings, because of who they are, may have encouraged
N N
others to participate and believe they can break the law with impunity.
O People can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviour and O
follow certain actions. Influential people can draw a crowd and can wield
P P
a certain influence.
Q Q
56. This is why after careful consideration of the above principles
R R
and factors; I find an immediate term of imprisonment the only appropriate
S sentencing option. This offence was committed deliberately and S
intentionally at a time when there were incidents of social unrest almost
T T
daily. They chose to participate in yet another unauthorised assembly with
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
a significant crowd when they must have known the chances were high of
C more violence erupting. C
D 57. The background and facts of this case call for a custodial D
sentence. I have referred myself to Wong Chi Fung at paragraph 172 where
E E
what Pang JA said is applicable to this case and the circumstances that were
F prevailing in Hong Kong at that time. That is even though the charge was F
more serious. I quote;
G G
“172. I agree with the judgements of Yeung VP and Poon JA.
H H
The more one feels about an issue, the more one wishes to press one’s
point and the more one desires that there should be progress in the
I matter. This is all very understandable. However, if in the course of I
advocating one’s demand, one is given to the position that some long
and well established law is but an unreasonable restriction on the right
J to freedom of expression, plus indulging one in the self-satisfaction of J
having broken the law as one pleases, that is not a situation which
K would on any ground enable the courts to pass unduly lenient sentences. K
An offender who is inflicted with such an attitude not only breaks the
law in conduct, but in his mind too he harbours contempt and regards
L himself as being above the law. With respect to controversial matters of L
public debate where emotions are easily stirred, the grave
consequences of such an attitude gaining ground are self-evident. …”
M M
N Starting Point and Sentence N
O O
58. I have taken into account all mitigation put forward on behalf
P of the defendants and although the 2nd defendant did not put forward any P
personal mitigation for the court to consider, I did have information placed
Q Q
before me pertaining to his positive good character.
R R
59. I have borne in mind the offence, facts of the case and the
S S
relevant sentencing principles referred to above in particular deterrence. I
T stress the fact this offence was committed deliberately and intentionally at T
a time when there were frequent and prevailing incidents of social unrest
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
and violence. It was a direct challenge to law and order despite a ban from
C the Commissioner of Police. C
D D
60. After all matters are taken into consideration including the
E fact the procession was peaceful, in my judgement, the starting point of 12 E
months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
F F
G 61. All defendants indicated their pleas less than a week before G
their trial commenced. I have taken into account the authority of HKSAR v
H H
Ngo Van Nam (2016) 5 HKLRD 1 and apply a discount of 25% to the
I starting point for their pleas. This reduces the starting point to a sentence I
of 9 months’ imprisonment.
J J
K 62. That discount for a guilty plea has an allowance for a clear K
record built into it. Unless there is more, such as evidence of positive good
L L
character then, there should be no further discount for a clear record. All
M the defendants here had a clear record at the time of the offence. M
N N
The 1st defendant
O O
63. The 1st defendant is 73 years old. I have heard mitigation
P P
st
relating to that and his health. I will give the 1 defendant a further
Q reduction of one month for these factors which would bring the sentence Q
down to 8 months’ imprisonment.
R R
S 64. I can see no reason to reduce that sentence any further. S
Therefore, I sentence the 1st defendant to 8 months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
The 2nd defendant
C C
nd nd
65. The 2 defendant is 72 years old. I will give the 2 defendant
D D
a further reduction of one month for that factor. This brings his sentence
E down to 8 months’ imprisonment. E
F F
66. He wants no leniency from this court as he says his actions
G were to protect his right of assembly and an act of civil disobedience. G
Certainly the civil disobedience was non-violent. I have taken account
H H
what he said in MFI-2 but much of his statement and grievances relate to
I what happened in Hong Kong after he committed this offence. I
J J
67. Other than his service as a Legislator for many years, the 2nd
K defendant is known for his dedication to education and social work K
especially at the grassroots level. His Silver Bauhinia Star Award under the
L L
honours system of Hong Kong means he was recognised for either taking
M a leading role in public affairs or voluntary work over a long period of time M
for the good of Hong Kong.
N N
O 68. I find that award to be evidence of exceptional public service O
and commitment therefore, that fact as well as his age gives me a valid
P P
reason to suspend that 8-month term of imprisonment.
Q Q
69. I sentence the 2nd defendant to 8 months’ imprisonment
R R
suspended for 12 months.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
70. The 2nd defendant is warned that if he is convicted of an
C offence punishable by imprisonment in the following 12 months from C
today then he will almost certainly serve this term of 8 months.
D D
E The 3rd defendant E
F F
71. The 3rd defendant is 64 years old. From information received,
G I have considered his commitment and contribution to public service G
especially where the welfare of workers is concerned. Such service
H H
deserves recognition and for that I give the 3rd defendant a further discount
I of 3 months. I
J J
72. I can see no reason to reduce that sentence any further.
K Therefore, I sentence the 3rd defendant to 6 months’ imprisonment. K
L L
M M
N N
O ( A J Woodcock ) O
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V