- 2021-12-09_19h49_58.jpg (63.66 KiB) Viewed 1294 times
香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
33 歲男保險經紀被指作為 Telegram（TG） 頻道的管理員，於 2019 年反修例運動期間，發布或轉發煽動他人使用暴力、阻礙港鐵運作、與中大衝突等訊息，如「殺畜生， 一人一支鐵通鏹水係基本」。他早前承認煽惑暴動、煽惑縱火等 9 罪，今（6 日）在區域法院被判監禁 4 年 10 個月。法官郭啟安指，被告煽惑行為是火上加油、衍生暴力、鼓吹仇恨及加深社會撕裂，又向被告說：「既然你為咗心目中嘅正義以身試法，必須承擔法律後果」。他寄語被告汲取教訓，出獄後重投社會，「唔好辜負家人期望。」
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
- 2021-12-09_21h07_17.jpg (75.33 KiB) Viewed 1294 times
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
【六四和平集會案】何桂藍：判刑是對去年現身維園港人的判刑
六四和平集會案，3 名罪成被告先後陳情。被告鄒幸彤陳詞完畢，另一被告何桂藍陳情只有一句：「無論用咩法律言辭堆砌都好，今日對我嘅判刑，都係對每一個喺 2020 年 6 月 4 日維園出現過嘅香港人嘅判刑…」
【六四和平集會案 李卓人、黎智英刑期與其他集結案同期執行】
去年六四和平集會，24 名民主派人士，被控「煽惑他人參與未經批准集結」及「明知而參與一個未經批准集結」等罪，案中 8 人今日接受判刑。法官胡雅文表示，各被告傲慢地認為悼念六四比保護其他人的健康或公眾衞生更為重要，有須要判處阻嚇刑罰，最終判處 8 人監禁 4 個月 2 星期至 14 個月。
其中李卓人及黎智英，分別判囚 14 個月及 13 個月，法官認為，將本案刑期，與早前其他未經批准集結案的刑期同期執行，是公平和合適的做法。換言之，兩人計及所有定罪的總刑期，維持 20 個月，未有因今次六四集會案而加長。
六四和平集會案，3 名罪成被告先後陳情。被告鄒幸彤陳詞完畢，另一被告何桂藍陳情只有一句：「無論用咩法律言辭堆砌都好，今日對我嘅判刑，都係對每一個喺 2020 年 6 月 4 日維園出現過嘅香港人嘅判刑…」
- 2021-12-13_20h04_04.jpg (70.46 KiB) Viewed 1244 times
【六四和平集會案 李卓人、黎智英刑期與其他集結案同期執行】
- 2021-12-13_20h09_54.jpg (69.32 KiB) Viewed 1244 times
其中李卓人及黎智英，分別判囚 14 個月及 13 個月，法官認為，將本案刑期，與早前其他未經批准集結案的刑期同期執行，是公平和合適的做法。換言之，兩人計及所有定罪的總刑期，維持 20 個月，未有因今次六四集會案而加長。
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
【六四和平集會案】鄒幸彤陳情全文：當集體行動受譴責 對個人的憐憫只是鬧劇
2021/12/13 - 12:403.4k
編按：去年六四和平集會，24 名民主派人士，被控「煽惑他人參與未經批准集結」及「明知而參與一個未經批准集結」等罪。黎智英、鄒幸彤及何桂藍 3 人不認罪受審，上周四（9 日）於區域法院被裁定全部罪成，押至今早（13 日）求情。法官胡雅文聽取陳詞後，將三人判刑押至下午，將連同於開審前認罪的 5 人，即李卓人、蔡耀昌、梁耀忠、梁錦威及胡志偉一同判刑。
其中鄒幸彤今早解聘律師團隊自行陳情。她在庭上讀出英文陳情信，指今次審訊並非針對她本人，而是針對支聯會過去 31 年來，悼念六四的傳統。她強調，受良知驅使的人不會被牢獄嚇怕。無論法律及禁令如何嚴苛，燭光必定可以延續下去。她最後提到，自己只不過是這些有良知之人的其中一員，這也是她希望法庭判刑時考慮的唯一基礎，並指「當集體行動受到譴責，對個人的憐憫只是一場鬧劇。」
Chow Hang Tung (D13)’s Mitigation Statement
Your Honour, you will not hear from me any moving life story and personal particulars, for this trial is not about me.
What has been put on trial here is perhaps the last candlelight vigil in Victoria Park for a long time to come, and definitely the last time that the Hong Kong Alliance could appear in Victoria Park on June 4th now that the Hong Kong Alliance was “killed” by the Government. It is a trial of this 31 years of tradition, this decades-long symbol of resistance that has been forcibly put to an end, first through the present prosecution, then continued through ever-escalating measures by the authorities.
Let us not delude ourselves that this is all about COVID-19 and that the criminalization of the vigil is only an exceptional measure at an exceptional time. What happened here is instead one step in the systemic erasure of history, both of the Tiananmen Massacre and Hong Kong’s own history of civic resistance.
The fact that this case relied heavily on publicly collected evidence that are no longer publicly available, either because the media publishing them had shut down, or the organisation hosting them had been banned, is saying something about the kind of repression and fear that has swept over Hong Kong in a mere one and a half year time. The shrinking, no, the collapse of the space for free expression, association and political action, is a prevalent experience that is every bit as common and as painful, if not more painful, than the COVID-19 situation in this city.
Yet while the Court sees fit to take judicial notice of the situation of a health crisis, it acts as if the parallel political crisis does not exist. It declines to hear any evidence of what “us” as an organisation, as a people, are experiencing in this pandemic of political repression. It refuses to see the wider context under which this case happened, in the name of focusing only on relevant and admissible evidence.
A collective act of some 20,000 people has been branded as "criminal," yet their experience is irrelevant. History is irrelevant. Politics is irrelevant. Views of the purported decision makers matter but not of those commoners who were affected but excluded from the decision-making process. The reality of political repression never stands a chance in court since no evidence of the kind would ever be admissible.
In closing its eyes to the obvious the Court risks making itself irrelevant to the ailments of our times. In purporting to maintain political neutrality the Court is in effect affirming the unequal power wielded by the Government in instituting political charges against its opponents, emboldening the authorities to take over more restrictive action that squeeze out the rights of the citizens.
Throughout the trial the greatest injustice in this case remains hidden and unmentionable, for who are truly responsible for inciting hundreds of thousands of people to gather in Victoria Park on June 4th, years after years? They are the murderers who killed at will in Beijing 32 years ago, with tanks and guns. Yet the killers were never punished by any court of law, while those who demand truth and accountability were relentlessly criminalised. This has continued non-stop for 32 years in mainland China, and is now also happening in Hong Kong.
With power and law in their hands, the killers think that they can sit easily in their thrones by controlling the discourse of right and wrong, guilt and innocence. I, for one, refuse to play along and submit to my so-called guilt. If this country still cares to maintain any resemblance of fairness, let's put those murderers on trial instead of us. Let's put those criminals behind bars instead of honouring them as our great leaders. Let the truth of Tiananmen Square be freely discussed and redress be given to the long suffering Tiananmen Mothers.
What stands condemned here is 31 years of effort in calling those criminals to account, in standing beside victims of the Massacre, in continuing their unfinished quest for democracy.In designating the vigil as criminal a proud tradition of Hong Kong stands condemned, signifying to the world that this city is no longer the heaven for free speech it once was. One country has completely overwhelmed Two System, leaving no trace of the kind of life we once look for granted, including the freedom to light a candle on June 4th.
What stands condemned here is also individual agency. The court seems unable to grasp that each individual, being his or her own master, deciding his or her own action, should not be criminalised just because such act is echoed by many. It seems unable to appreciate that a leaderless movement where people are not just mindless followers in a crowd is possible. It is significant that last vigil was also the first time where the vigil has no definite organiser, no centralised theme. The organising role of the Hong Kong alliance faded into the background, with individuals taking up their own initiatives to give a much wider variety of meaning to candlelight on this day. Indeed the meaning of remembering Tiananmen has always been evolving, through the participation of hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers throughout the years. Hong Kong alliance provided one platform but was never the sole driver. Different groups and people devise their own action to mark the date, thus participated in a continuous dialogue over the meaning and importance of commemorating the Massacre.
Victoria Park was filled with slogans, songs and flags that are related not only to June 4th, but at the heart of the freedom struggle in Hong Kong. We are different and decentralised, yet we act in solidarity, united by our conviction that the government's blatant attempt at erasing history and suppressing activism must be resisted. When history is not forgotten, it lights our path to the future. As on that beautiful night last year, where candlelight lit up all over Hong Kong and in Victoria Park, and the spirits of 1989 and the movement in Hong Kong rhymed. Such a diversified vigil, where every individual took up the responsibility to act and all kinds of views were expressed, is perhaps a fitting finale to this 31 years of tradition, showing the way how this decades long campaign for justice and democracy will continue despite the fact that the Alliance is no more.
With the present trial and conviction, the meaning of remembering Tiananmen undergoes another evolution. No longer is it the same taraony suffering whose relevance wanes as each day passed. Nay, now it is a suppression shared across time, across distance, across identities. When the label of "criminals' is casually put onto all who dared to light a candle on that day, the struggle becomes as much as about history as about protecting our rights and future, here at home. If those in power had wished to kill the novement with prosecution and imprisonment, they shall be sorely disappointed. Indeed what they have done is breathing new life into the movement, rallying a new generation to this long struggle for truth, justice and democracy.
People moved by casience (編按：應為 conscience) cannot be deterred by jail. Rest assure that the candle light will live on, despite bans and ever more restrictive "laws". I am but a humble member of these people of conscience, and this is the only basis I ask the court to sentence me on.
For when mass action is condemned, individual leniency is but a farce.
2021/12/13 - 12:403.4k
- 2021-12-13_20h24_04.jpg (83.69 KiB) Viewed 1243 times
其中鄒幸彤今早解聘律師團隊自行陳情。她在庭上讀出英文陳情信，指今次審訊並非針對她本人，而是針對支聯會過去 31 年來，悼念六四的傳統。她強調，受良知驅使的人不會被牢獄嚇怕。無論法律及禁令如何嚴苛，燭光必定可以延續下去。她最後提到，自己只不過是這些有良知之人的其中一員，這也是她希望法庭判刑時考慮的唯一基礎，並指「當集體行動受到譴責，對個人的憐憫只是一場鬧劇。」
Chow Hang Tung (D13)’s Mitigation Statement
Your Honour, you will not hear from me any moving life story and personal particulars, for this trial is not about me.
What has been put on trial here is perhaps the last candlelight vigil in Victoria Park for a long time to come, and definitely the last time that the Hong Kong Alliance could appear in Victoria Park on June 4th now that the Hong Kong Alliance was “killed” by the Government. It is a trial of this 31 years of tradition, this decades-long symbol of resistance that has been forcibly put to an end, first through the present prosecution, then continued through ever-escalating measures by the authorities.
Let us not delude ourselves that this is all about COVID-19 and that the criminalization of the vigil is only an exceptional measure at an exceptional time. What happened here is instead one step in the systemic erasure of history, both of the Tiananmen Massacre and Hong Kong’s own history of civic resistance.
The fact that this case relied heavily on publicly collected evidence that are no longer publicly available, either because the media publishing them had shut down, or the organisation hosting them had been banned, is saying something about the kind of repression and fear that has swept over Hong Kong in a mere one and a half year time. The shrinking, no, the collapse of the space for free expression, association and political action, is a prevalent experience that is every bit as common and as painful, if not more painful, than the COVID-19 situation in this city.
Yet while the Court sees fit to take judicial notice of the situation of a health crisis, it acts as if the parallel political crisis does not exist. It declines to hear any evidence of what “us” as an organisation, as a people, are experiencing in this pandemic of political repression. It refuses to see the wider context under which this case happened, in the name of focusing only on relevant and admissible evidence.
A collective act of some 20,000 people has been branded as "criminal," yet their experience is irrelevant. History is irrelevant. Politics is irrelevant. Views of the purported decision makers matter but not of those commoners who were affected but excluded from the decision-making process. The reality of political repression never stands a chance in court since no evidence of the kind would ever be admissible.
In closing its eyes to the obvious the Court risks making itself irrelevant to the ailments of our times. In purporting to maintain political neutrality the Court is in effect affirming the unequal power wielded by the Government in instituting political charges against its opponents, emboldening the authorities to take over more restrictive action that squeeze out the rights of the citizens.
Throughout the trial the greatest injustice in this case remains hidden and unmentionable, for who are truly responsible for inciting hundreds of thousands of people to gather in Victoria Park on June 4th, years after years? They are the murderers who killed at will in Beijing 32 years ago, with tanks and guns. Yet the killers were never punished by any court of law, while those who demand truth and accountability were relentlessly criminalised. This has continued non-stop for 32 years in mainland China, and is now also happening in Hong Kong.
With power and law in their hands, the killers think that they can sit easily in their thrones by controlling the discourse of right and wrong, guilt and innocence. I, for one, refuse to play along and submit to my so-called guilt. If this country still cares to maintain any resemblance of fairness, let's put those murderers on trial instead of us. Let's put those criminals behind bars instead of honouring them as our great leaders. Let the truth of Tiananmen Square be freely discussed and redress be given to the long suffering Tiananmen Mothers.
What stands condemned here is 31 years of effort in calling those criminals to account, in standing beside victims of the Massacre, in continuing their unfinished quest for democracy.In designating the vigil as criminal a proud tradition of Hong Kong stands condemned, signifying to the world that this city is no longer the heaven for free speech it once was. One country has completely overwhelmed Two System, leaving no trace of the kind of life we once look for granted, including the freedom to light a candle on June 4th.
What stands condemned here is also individual agency. The court seems unable to grasp that each individual, being his or her own master, deciding his or her own action, should not be criminalised just because such act is echoed by many. It seems unable to appreciate that a leaderless movement where people are not just mindless followers in a crowd is possible. It is significant that last vigil was also the first time where the vigil has no definite organiser, no centralised theme. The organising role of the Hong Kong alliance faded into the background, with individuals taking up their own initiatives to give a much wider variety of meaning to candlelight on this day. Indeed the meaning of remembering Tiananmen has always been evolving, through the participation of hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers throughout the years. Hong Kong alliance provided one platform but was never the sole driver. Different groups and people devise their own action to mark the date, thus participated in a continuous dialogue over the meaning and importance of commemorating the Massacre.
Victoria Park was filled with slogans, songs and flags that are related not only to June 4th, but at the heart of the freedom struggle in Hong Kong. We are different and decentralised, yet we act in solidarity, united by our conviction that the government's blatant attempt at erasing history and suppressing activism must be resisted. When history is not forgotten, it lights our path to the future. As on that beautiful night last year, where candlelight lit up all over Hong Kong and in Victoria Park, and the spirits of 1989 and the movement in Hong Kong rhymed. Such a diversified vigil, where every individual took up the responsibility to act and all kinds of views were expressed, is perhaps a fitting finale to this 31 years of tradition, showing the way how this decades long campaign for justice and democracy will continue despite the fact that the Alliance is no more.
With the present trial and conviction, the meaning of remembering Tiananmen undergoes another evolution. No longer is it the same taraony suffering whose relevance wanes as each day passed. Nay, now it is a suppression shared across time, across distance, across identities. When the label of "criminals' is casually put onto all who dared to light a candle on that day, the struggle becomes as much as about history as about protecting our rights and future, here at home. If those in power had wished to kill the novement with prosecution and imprisonment, they shall be sorely disappointed. Indeed what they have done is breathing new life into the movement, rallying a new generation to this long struggle for truth, justice and democracy.
People moved by casience (編按：應為 conscience) cannot be deterred by jail. Rest assure that the candle light will live on, despite bans and ever more restrictive "laws". I am but a humble member of these people of conscience, and this is the only basis I ask the court to sentence me on.
For when mass action is condemned, individual leniency is but a farce.
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
拒被告保釋上訴許可 終院判辭：黎智英案高門檻適用 國安法結合23條詮釋 羊村案涉危國安
《羊村》案5人被控《刑事罪行條例》下串謀刊印或複製煽動刊物罪，涉案的前言語治療師總工會秘書伍巧怡就保釋被拒上訴至終審法院，上周四遭拒絕許可。終院昨日頒下判辭，稱《基本法》第23條列明本港應自行立法禁止煽動叛亂，而《國安法》中的危害國安罪行不限《國安法》列明的罪行，將基本法23條結合《港區國安法》詮釋下，本案的煽動亦是危害國安罪行，應採納嚴格的保釋門檻。
申請人伍巧怡（28歲）被控違反《刑事罪行條例》第 10（1）（c）條，至今還押逾3個月。終院首席法官張舉能、常任法官李義及常任法官霍兆剛在判辭表示，本案重點在於兩個問題：一是「黎智英案」，終院就「危害國安罪行」定下更嚴格的保釋門檻，是否僅限於《港區國安法》列明的罪行；二是申請人並非面對國安法下的控罪，上述保釋門檻是否仍然適用。
指國安法未涵煽動叛國 其他法律需並行維護國安
終院判辭首先引述國安法第7條表示，香港應當盡早完成《基本法》規定的維護國家安全立法，完善相關法律。終院認為，國安法雖然列明「四大罪行」，但沒有直接涵蓋叛國、煽動等屬於刑事罪行條例的罪名，提供的法律框架並不完整。不過，終院表示國安法的立法原意，是與本港的法律並行運作（operate in tandem），共同維護國家安全。
稱無指明國安法罪行 危害國安不限於《國安法》
終院表示，國安法提及的危害國安罪行，沒有指明是否國安法下的罪行，或者基於其他香港法律。因此，黎智英案定下危害國安罪行的嚴格保釋門檻，所指的是「能夠」（capable of）構成國安法下控罪，或者在其他香港法例中涉及危害國安的罪行。對於申請方主張僅限於《國安法》控罪，終院稱說法無合理可爭辯之處。
至於申請人面對的串謀刊印、發布、分發、展示或複製煽動刊物罪，是否歸類為危害國安罪行？終院引述基本法第23條表示，香港應自行立法禁止任何叛國、分裂國家、煽動叛亂等的行為，將基本法第23條結合國安法第7條去看，本案的煽動控罪屬於危害國安罪行。故此，「黎智英案」定下的保釋門檻必定適用於本案，終院駁回本宗上訴許可申請。
終院最後表示，既然本案採用更嚴格的保釋門檻，司法機關應確保案件及時辦理，避免被告受審前被長期還押。案中5名被告為黎雯齡（25歲）、楊逸意（27歲）、伍巧怡、陳源森（25歲）、方梓皓（26歲），同報稱言語治療師。
【案件編號：FAMC 32/21】
判辭詮釋提23條 湯家驊：釐清危害國安範圍
終審法院法官在判辭提出，要將《基本法》第23條結合《港區國安法》第7條詮釋。據悉，律政司早前就在書面陳辭以基本法23條闡述國安法的立法背景。行政會議成員、資深大律師湯家驊表示，23條未完成立法，「法庭無可能講未立法的罪行」，判辭只是引述23條部分罪行，旨在釐清危害國安罪行的範圍。
湯家驊表示，終院判決沒有擴闊危害國安罪行的定義，「煽動他人犯國安法一定是危害國安罪行，但（控罪）不會延伸至煽動隨地吐痰、違例泊車」。湯強調，羊村繪本案提控的《刑事罪行條例》在回歸前已經存在，當年立法原意是保障英女王權威，「除了港區國安法，刑事罪行條例、《官方機密條例》都是一套國安法」。假設有人向立法會選舉票站縱火，會否被視為干犯危害國安罪行？湯說，為脅迫政府而縱火，可能犯下國安法「四大罪行」中的恐怖活動罪。
吳宗鑾：危害國安罪「本來就闊」
大律師吳宗鑾表示，本案沒有擴大危害國安罪行的範圍，危害國安罪行「本來就比較闊」，包括刑事罪行條例下的叛逆、煽動等罪。吳舉例，假設有人干犯不誠實使用電腦罪，控方可以指控疑犯有意危及國安，法庭就會視之為危害國安罪行，申請保釋不會容易。
前刑事檢控專員江樂士則稱，從國安法第3條可見，司法機關有責任保障國家安全，不只規管國安法下的罪行，亦可以根據其他相關法律。
《羊村》案5人被控《刑事罪行條例》下串謀刊印或複製煽動刊物罪，涉案的前言語治療師總工會秘書伍巧怡就保釋被拒上訴至終審法院，上周四遭拒絕許可。終院昨日頒下判辭，稱《基本法》第23條列明本港應自行立法禁止煽動叛亂，而《國安法》中的危害國安罪行不限《國安法》列明的罪行，將基本法23條結合《港區國安法》詮釋下，本案的煽動亦是危害國安罪行，應採納嚴格的保釋門檻。
申請人伍巧怡（28歲）被控違反《刑事罪行條例》第 10（1）（c）條，至今還押逾3個月。終院首席法官張舉能、常任法官李義及常任法官霍兆剛在判辭表示，本案重點在於兩個問題：一是「黎智英案」，終院就「危害國安罪行」定下更嚴格的保釋門檻，是否僅限於《港區國安法》列明的罪行；二是申請人並非面對國安法下的控罪，上述保釋門檻是否仍然適用。
指國安法未涵煽動叛國 其他法律需並行維護國安
終院判辭首先引述國安法第7條表示，香港應當盡早完成《基本法》規定的維護國家安全立法，完善相關法律。終院認為，國安法雖然列明「四大罪行」，但沒有直接涵蓋叛國、煽動等屬於刑事罪行條例的罪名，提供的法律框架並不完整。不過，終院表示國安法的立法原意，是與本港的法律並行運作（operate in tandem），共同維護國家安全。
稱無指明國安法罪行 危害國安不限於《國安法》
終院表示，國安法提及的危害國安罪行，沒有指明是否國安法下的罪行，或者基於其他香港法律。因此，黎智英案定下危害國安罪行的嚴格保釋門檻，所指的是「能夠」（capable of）構成國安法下控罪，或者在其他香港法例中涉及危害國安的罪行。對於申請方主張僅限於《國安法》控罪，終院稱說法無合理可爭辯之處。
至於申請人面對的串謀刊印、發布、分發、展示或複製煽動刊物罪，是否歸類為危害國安罪行？終院引述基本法第23條表示，香港應自行立法禁止任何叛國、分裂國家、煽動叛亂等的行為，將基本法第23條結合國安法第7條去看，本案的煽動控罪屬於危害國安罪行。故此，「黎智英案」定下的保釋門檻必定適用於本案，終院駁回本宗上訴許可申請。
終院最後表示，既然本案採用更嚴格的保釋門檻，司法機關應確保案件及時辦理，避免被告受審前被長期還押。案中5名被告為黎雯齡（25歲）、楊逸意（27歲）、伍巧怡、陳源森（25歲）、方梓皓（26歲），同報稱言語治療師。
【案件編號：FAMC 32/21】
判辭詮釋提23條 湯家驊：釐清危害國安範圍
終審法院法官在判辭提出，要將《基本法》第23條結合《港區國安法》第7條詮釋。據悉，律政司早前就在書面陳辭以基本法23條闡述國安法的立法背景。行政會議成員、資深大律師湯家驊表示，23條未完成立法，「法庭無可能講未立法的罪行」，判辭只是引述23條部分罪行，旨在釐清危害國安罪行的範圍。
湯家驊表示，終院判決沒有擴闊危害國安罪行的定義，「煽動他人犯國安法一定是危害國安罪行，但（控罪）不會延伸至煽動隨地吐痰、違例泊車」。湯強調，羊村繪本案提控的《刑事罪行條例》在回歸前已經存在，當年立法原意是保障英女王權威，「除了港區國安法，刑事罪行條例、《官方機密條例》都是一套國安法」。假設有人向立法會選舉票站縱火，會否被視為干犯危害國安罪行？湯說，為脅迫政府而縱火，可能犯下國安法「四大罪行」中的恐怖活動罪。
吳宗鑾：危害國安罪「本來就闊」
大律師吳宗鑾表示，本案沒有擴大危害國安罪行的範圍，危害國安罪行「本來就比較闊」，包括刑事罪行條例下的叛逆、煽動等罪。吳舉例，假設有人干犯不誠實使用電腦罪，控方可以指控疑犯有意危及國安，法庭就會視之為危害國安罪行，申請保釋不會容易。
前刑事檢控專員江樂士則稱，從國安法第3條可見，司法機關有責任保障國家安全，不只規管國安法下的罪行，亦可以根據其他相關法律。
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
快必涉煽動案陳辭 控方：不尊重中共或違法
人民力量副主席譚得志（快必）早前因在街站發表「光復香港、時代革命」等口號，被控發表煽動文字、煽動參與未經批准集結等共14罪，昨在區域法院結案陳辭。辯方指出，被告被控發表煽動文字等8罪違憲，而他針對中國共產黨的言論亦不受控罪所限；控方反駁控罪涵蓋有「最高管理力量」的中共，不承認中共領導地位的言論可被視作「挑戰憲制秩序」，亦可能違法。案件押後至明年2月22日裁決，譚得志續還押。
辯方質疑控罪只涉特區中央政府 不涵蓋中共
辯方資深大律師蔡維邦陳辭時稱，被告被控的共7項發表煽動文字及1項串謀發表煽動文字罪行條文中，指明引起對「女皇陛下」等人的憎恨及不滿，字眼其後在《釋義及通則條例》下解釋為特區政府或中央人民政府，但沒明文指出是中國共產黨，故被告涉及中共的言論不受此罪所限。
代表控方的署理副刑事檢控專員周天行則認為，套用《基本法》的條文，應以「中央」解釋「女皇陛下」，不限於中央政府，而「中央」可理解為中央政權機關。他續稱，中國憲法列明中共的領導地位，故若有人「唔尊重中國共產黨嘅領導地位，實際上係否定一國兩制憲制根基」，可能觸犯發表煽動文字罪。
周天行稱憎恨警察 必然憎恨政府
至於被告涉及辱罵警方的言論，控方認為警方作為維護本港秩序的一環，「對警察有憎恨的話，必然係對政府憎恨」，周後來補充須視乎證據。
此外，辯方就控罪不符合《基本法》中就言論自由等保障的爭議，周天行指出人大在1997年香港主權移交及去年國安法成立時，兩度檢視本港法例亦沒發現違憲，故法庭在詮釋現有法例時，「唔能夠輕易咁認為，呢條法例唔符合基本法有關保障人權嘅條文」。
蔡維邦另爭議控罪針對被告的言論引起受眾的心理反應，而引起受眾不滿、離叛、敵視等情緒，定義「虛無縹緲」，亦難以界定受眾對文字會有何特定反應，有違「依法規定」原則。
周天行陳辭指，控罪中針對受眾者情緒的字眼，可按一般意思理解，重申控方僅需證明被告意圖發表涉案文字，而該文字具煽動意圖，毋須證明被告犯案時有否煽動意圖。
昨日有旁聽者高呼「撐住呀」，譚得志揮手回應。法官陳廣池在早休後，斥旁聽者屢次叫囂，「有啲人嘅自律精神十分薄弱」，要求安排攝錄鏡頭錄影旁聽席。下午散庭前，陳官要求控方開啟鏡頭，有警員隨即按下錄影鍵，旁聽者向譚得志揮手，但沒有呼叫。
【案件編號：DCCC 927-8、930/20】
評：君主制度不可與中央政府相提并論，把中央等同女皇陛下有推翻中央政府之嫌。中央是中華人民共和國。
辯方質疑控罪只涉特區中央政府 不涵蓋中共。
在法津字眼上是成立，因中共稱自己是執政黨。
人民力量副主席譚得志（快必）早前因在街站發表「光復香港、時代革命」等口號，被控發表煽動文字、煽動參與未經批准集結等共14罪，昨在區域法院結案陳辭。辯方指出，被告被控發表煽動文字等8罪違憲，而他針對中國共產黨的言論亦不受控罪所限；控方反駁控罪涵蓋有「最高管理力量」的中共，不承認中共領導地位的言論可被視作「挑戰憲制秩序」，亦可能違法。案件押後至明年2月22日裁決，譚得志續還押。
辯方質疑控罪只涉特區中央政府 不涵蓋中共
辯方資深大律師蔡維邦陳辭時稱，被告被控的共7項發表煽動文字及1項串謀發表煽動文字罪行條文中，指明引起對「女皇陛下」等人的憎恨及不滿，字眼其後在《釋義及通則條例》下解釋為特區政府或中央人民政府，但沒明文指出是中國共產黨，故被告涉及中共的言論不受此罪所限。
代表控方的署理副刑事檢控專員周天行則認為，套用《基本法》的條文，應以「中央」解釋「女皇陛下」，不限於中央政府，而「中央」可理解為中央政權機關。他續稱，中國憲法列明中共的領導地位，故若有人「唔尊重中國共產黨嘅領導地位，實際上係否定一國兩制憲制根基」，可能觸犯發表煽動文字罪。
周天行稱憎恨警察 必然憎恨政府
至於被告涉及辱罵警方的言論，控方認為警方作為維護本港秩序的一環，「對警察有憎恨的話，必然係對政府憎恨」，周後來補充須視乎證據。
此外，辯方就控罪不符合《基本法》中就言論自由等保障的爭議，周天行指出人大在1997年香港主權移交及去年國安法成立時，兩度檢視本港法例亦沒發現違憲，故法庭在詮釋現有法例時，「唔能夠輕易咁認為，呢條法例唔符合基本法有關保障人權嘅條文」。
蔡維邦另爭議控罪針對被告的言論引起受眾的心理反應，而引起受眾不滿、離叛、敵視等情緒，定義「虛無縹緲」，亦難以界定受眾對文字會有何特定反應，有違「依法規定」原則。
周天行陳辭指，控罪中針對受眾者情緒的字眼，可按一般意思理解，重申控方僅需證明被告意圖發表涉案文字，而該文字具煽動意圖，毋須證明被告犯案時有否煽動意圖。
昨日有旁聽者高呼「撐住呀」，譚得志揮手回應。法官陳廣池在早休後，斥旁聽者屢次叫囂，「有啲人嘅自律精神十分薄弱」，要求安排攝錄鏡頭錄影旁聽席。下午散庭前，陳官要求控方開啟鏡頭，有警員隨即按下錄影鍵，旁聽者向譚得志揮手，但沒有呼叫。
【案件編號：DCCC 927-8、930/20】
評：君主制度不可與中央政府相提并論，把中央等同女皇陛下有推翻中央政府之嫌。中央是中華人民共和國。
辯方質疑控罪只涉特區中央政府 不涵蓋中共。
在法津字眼上是成立，因中共稱自己是執政黨。
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
立法會選舉｜廉署再拘4人涉煽惑投白票及不投票 消息稱包括前中大學生會會長蘇浚鋒 (16:02)
廉政公署今日（15日）再拘捕4人，涉嫌煽惑他人在立法會選舉投白票或不投票。據了解，被捕人包括前中大學生會會長蘇浚鋒，涉煽動他人投白票。他曾轉載立法會前議員許智峯呼籲選民投白票的帖文。至今共10人涉煽惑他人投白票或不投票，遭廉署拘捕。
今日被捕3男1女介乎22至58歲，涉立法會選舉期間，於互聯網轉載煽惑他人投白票及不投票的帖文。廉署於行動中檢走數部手提電話及兩部電腦，被捕人已獲准保釋候查。廉署不排除再有進一步執法行動。
涉煽惑投白票不投票 廉署拘4人累計10人 包括前中大學生會長蘇浚鋒
立法會選舉周日（19日）舉行，廉政公署昨日再拘捕4人，涉在互聯網轉載煽惑他人在選舉投白票及不投票的帖文，涉違反《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》，至今累計10人因轉載呼籲投白票或不投票帖文被捕。消息稱，昨日被捕的包括前中大學生會會長蘇浚鋒，他曾在facebook轉載立法會前議員許智峯呼籲投白票的帖文。
涉轉載許智峯「如水計劃」帖文
廉署昨日拘捕4人，他們涉嫌觸犯《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》第27A條，即「在選舉期間內藉公開活動煽惑另一人不投票或投無效票」。被捕3男1女年齡介乎22至58歲，涉在立法會選舉期間於互聯網轉載煽惑他人在選舉投白票及不投票的帖文，已獲准保釋候查。廉署稱仍在調查，不排除再有進一步執法行動。
消息稱被捕者包括蘇浚鋒，他今年10月30日在facebook轉載許智峯呼籲在立法會選舉投白票的帖文。許智峯在有關帖文提出「如水計劃」，呼籲港人總動員投白票，以反制「不義的選舉制度」。廉署上月公布，已獲裁判官簽發手令，通緝已離港的許智峯及沙田前區議員丘文俊，指涉煽惑他人立法會選舉投白票及不投票。
廉署在昨日行動檢走數部手提電話及兩部電腦，至今已有10人涉網上轉載呼籲投白票或不投票帖文而被廉署拘捕。干犯上述條例第27A條者，最高可被判囚3年及罰款20萬元，廉署呼籲市民嚴守法規，勿參與不法呼籲或轉載違法內容。
鄧炳強：倘伙外力呼籲 或違國安法
保安局長鄧炳強昨在港台節目《盤點政策》表示，留意到網上有包括不在香港的人呼籲市民不投票或投白票，是違反《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》，另如所做的行為涉恐嚇成分，或連同外國勢力呼籲人不投票，更有可能違反《港區國安法》，提醒市民勿參與違反行為。他表示，不論軟對抗或硬攻擊，當局執法只有一條界線，「就是有無犯法」，舉例如呼籲不投票已屬違法。
鄧炳強說，當局會確保立法會選舉在安全、和平及不受干預下進行，其評估選舉的風險包括本土恐怖主義及孤狼式恐襲，亦會留意阻止或干擾選民進入票站等行為。他表示，留意到網上除了有人鼓勵投白票，亦有人煽動他人圍堵或攻擊票站，當局會留意網上情報並果斷執法。他說選舉當日將派軍裝警員看守票站，亦有部署快速應變部隊，另會在「策略性」地點搜查可疑者。
至於《基本法》23條立法，鄧炳強說一定不會低估立法難度，雖然市民看清楚過去兩年香港有顏色革命，但指外部勢力必然想透過香港影響國家，妖魔化或抹黑23條立法亦必然會發生，當局一定要向市民解說清楚。
廉政公署今日（15日）再拘捕4人，涉嫌煽惑他人在立法會選舉投白票或不投票。據了解，被捕人包括前中大學生會會長蘇浚鋒，涉煽動他人投白票。他曾轉載立法會前議員許智峯呼籲選民投白票的帖文。至今共10人涉煽惑他人投白票或不投票，遭廉署拘捕。
今日被捕3男1女介乎22至58歲，涉立法會選舉期間，於互聯網轉載煽惑他人投白票及不投票的帖文。廉署於行動中檢走數部手提電話及兩部電腦，被捕人已獲准保釋候查。廉署不排除再有進一步執法行動。
- 2021-12-16_11h48_09.jpg (33.51 KiB) Viewed 1217 times
立法會選舉周日（19日）舉行，廉政公署昨日再拘捕4人，涉在互聯網轉載煽惑他人在選舉投白票及不投票的帖文，涉違反《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》，至今累計10人因轉載呼籲投白票或不投票帖文被捕。消息稱，昨日被捕的包括前中大學生會會長蘇浚鋒，他曾在facebook轉載立法會前議員許智峯呼籲投白票的帖文。
涉轉載許智峯「如水計劃」帖文
廉署昨日拘捕4人，他們涉嫌觸犯《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》第27A條，即「在選舉期間內藉公開活動煽惑另一人不投票或投無效票」。被捕3男1女年齡介乎22至58歲，涉在立法會選舉期間於互聯網轉載煽惑他人在選舉投白票及不投票的帖文，已獲准保釋候查。廉署稱仍在調查，不排除再有進一步執法行動。
消息稱被捕者包括蘇浚鋒，他今年10月30日在facebook轉載許智峯呼籲在立法會選舉投白票的帖文。許智峯在有關帖文提出「如水計劃」，呼籲港人總動員投白票，以反制「不義的選舉制度」。廉署上月公布，已獲裁判官簽發手令，通緝已離港的許智峯及沙田前區議員丘文俊，指涉煽惑他人立法會選舉投白票及不投票。
廉署在昨日行動檢走數部手提電話及兩部電腦，至今已有10人涉網上轉載呼籲投白票或不投票帖文而被廉署拘捕。干犯上述條例第27A條者，最高可被判囚3年及罰款20萬元，廉署呼籲市民嚴守法規，勿參與不法呼籲或轉載違法內容。
鄧炳強：倘伙外力呼籲 或違國安法
保安局長鄧炳強昨在港台節目《盤點政策》表示，留意到網上有包括不在香港的人呼籲市民不投票或投白票，是違反《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》，另如所做的行為涉恐嚇成分，或連同外國勢力呼籲人不投票，更有可能違反《港區國安法》，提醒市民勿參與違反行為。他表示，不論軟對抗或硬攻擊，當局執法只有一條界線，「就是有無犯法」，舉例如呼籲不投票已屬違法。
鄧炳強說，當局會確保立法會選舉在安全、和平及不受干預下進行，其評估選舉的風險包括本土恐怖主義及孤狼式恐襲，亦會留意阻止或干擾選民進入票站等行為。他表示，留意到網上除了有人鼓勵投白票，亦有人煽動他人圍堵或攻擊票站，當局會留意網上情報並果斷執法。他說選舉當日將派軍裝警員看守票站，亦有部署快速應變部隊，另會在「策略性」地點搜查可疑者。
至於《基本法》23條立法，鄧炳強說一定不會低估立法難度，雖然市民看清楚過去兩年香港有顏色革命，但指外部勢力必然想透過香港影響國家，妖魔化或抹黑23條立法亦必然會發生，當局一定要向市民解說清楚。
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
【方仲賢買雷射筆案】被拒FB帖文呈堂後「有所啟發」 控方欲證方仲賢案發時有帳號 借消失的apps推論毀不利證據
時任香港浸會大學學生會會長方仲賢前年在深水埗購買10支雷射筆被捕，他否認藏武、拒捕及妨礙司法公正三罪，案件今（14日）在區域法院續審。法官游德康昨拒批控方將方仲賢Facebook帖文呈堂，控方今表示「有所啟發」，不再要求法庭接納訊息內容，只欲證明方仲賢案發時擁有Facebook及Telegram帳號，望法庭推論是方重置手機令應用程式消失，再推論他意圖刪走不利證據。辯方最終同意方仲賢擁有帳號，但強調電話被重置不等於妨礙司法公正。
法官游德康昨日拒絕控方將無綫新聞片、浸大學生會及方仲賢的Facebook帖文呈堂，只批准呈遞方仲賢在事後記者會的片段。法庭今繼續處理其他證據爭議。
辯方強調重置手機不等於妨礙司法公正
控方欲呈遞方仲賢的Telegram截圖，證明他在案發時曾加入示威相關群組及收發訊息。律政司高級檢控官張卓勤表示，法官昨日的裁定對控方「有所啟發」，控方今天不會要求法庭接納訊息內容，只欲證明方仲賢在案發時擁有帳號，而手機被重置後，警方在他的電話沒發現社交媒體的應用程式。控方另希望以相同方法證明方曾擁有Facebook帳號。
游官嘗試整理控方立場，問控方是否希望法庭推論方仲賢的手機原有Telegram及Facebook應用程式，但他在被捕後重置手機，目的是消滅所有不利證據，包括電話訊息，意圖妨礙司法公正。控方同意說法。
游官表示，控方昨天以方仲賢怎樣使用社交媒體去證明他擁有帳號，做法偏頗，但若然今天申請僅限證明他有Facebook及Telegram帳號，相信辯方也未必反對。辯方索取指示後，同意方在案發時擁有帳號，但強調電話被重置不等於妨礙司法公正。
此外，控方申請呈交有關方仲賢的一連串資訊，即他於2018年9月入讀浸大，已使用案發時的電話號碼幾年。辯方反對，認為控方做法多餘，指有關方仲賢為浸大學生等資訊早在同意案情中提及。游官考慮後認為控方只是補充時間性的資料，未有造成不公，因此批准呈堂。
【案件編號：DCCC1119/2020】
評： 如雷射筆等同毒品，持有或藏有便違法，為何打開門囗售賣毒品者不違法？
- 雷射筆-方仲賢-20211214205016_7033_large.jpg (152.66 KiB) Viewed 1210 times
法官游德康昨日拒絕控方將無綫新聞片、浸大學生會及方仲賢的Facebook帖文呈堂，只批准呈遞方仲賢在事後記者會的片段。法庭今繼續處理其他證據爭議。
辯方強調重置手機不等於妨礙司法公正
控方欲呈遞方仲賢的Telegram截圖，證明他在案發時曾加入示威相關群組及收發訊息。律政司高級檢控官張卓勤表示，法官昨日的裁定對控方「有所啟發」，控方今天不會要求法庭接納訊息內容，只欲證明方仲賢在案發時擁有帳號，而手機被重置後，警方在他的電話沒發現社交媒體的應用程式。控方另希望以相同方法證明方曾擁有Facebook帳號。
游官嘗試整理控方立場，問控方是否希望法庭推論方仲賢的手機原有Telegram及Facebook應用程式，但他在被捕後重置手機，目的是消滅所有不利證據，包括電話訊息，意圖妨礙司法公正。控方同意說法。
游官表示，控方昨天以方仲賢怎樣使用社交媒體去證明他擁有帳號，做法偏頗，但若然今天申請僅限證明他有Facebook及Telegram帳號，相信辯方也未必反對。辯方索取指示後，同意方在案發時擁有帳號，但強調電話被重置不等於妨礙司法公正。
此外，控方申請呈交有關方仲賢的一連串資訊，即他於2018年9月入讀浸大，已使用案發時的電話號碼幾年。辯方反對，認為控方做法多餘，指有關方仲賢為浸大學生等資訊早在同意案情中提及。游官考慮後認為控方只是補充時間性的資料，未有造成不公，因此批准呈堂。
【案件編號：DCCC1119/2020】
評： 如雷射筆等同毒品，持有或藏有便違法，為何打開門囗售賣毒品者不違法？
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
- 2021-12-17_12h04_13.jpg (72.95 KiB) Viewed 1201 times
Re: 香港的法治核心價值這座基石是否不斷被侵蝕? P7
兩男女被指隧道內噴字 獲判無罪兼贏訟費 官：警證供不可靠
三名學生被指於 2019 年 9 月在火炭一處行人隧道，用噴漆噴字及張貼海報，被控刑事毀壞罪。經審訊後，其中一人被裁定表面證供不成立，當庭無罪釋放。其餘兩男女今 （ 16 日）亦在沙田裁判法院獲判無罪，並獲批訟費。
裁判官批評，「控方草擬控罪詳情有唔清楚同唔明確的地方」，又指觀察和拘捕兩被告的警員證供矛盾。裁判官並指，其中一警「開誠布公，不避嫌」承認自己和其他警員曾討論案情；另一警員則得知辯方有片段時，未播片已防衞性地表示不想看，不排除他「捏造部分事情，以迴避片段」。裁判官表明對兩警的證供「有保留，甚至裁定唔可靠」。
- 2021-12-17_12h30_03.jpg (85.1 KiB) Viewed 1200 times
裁判官批評，「控方草擬控罪詳情有唔清楚同唔明確的地方」，又指觀察和拘捕兩被告的警員證供矛盾。裁判官並指，其中一警「開誠布公，不避嫌」承認自己和其他警員曾討論案情；另一警員則得知辯方有片段時，未播片已防衞性地表示不想看，不排除他「捏造部分事情，以迴避片段」。裁判官表明對兩警的證供「有保留，甚至裁定唔可靠」。