Secretary for Justice v. Wong Chi Fung and Others

Case No.

Court

Date17 Aug 2017

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

[English Translation – 英譯本]

CAAR No. 4 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 4 OF 2016

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC NO. 2791 OF 2015)

________________

BETWEEN
	SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE	Applicant
and
	WONG CHI FUNG (黃之鋒) (D1)	1st Respondent
	LAW KWUN CHUNG (羅冠聰) (D2)	2nd Respondent
	CHOW YONG KANG ALEX (周永康) (D3)	3rd Respondent

________________

Before: Hon Yeung VP, Poon and Pang JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 9 August 2017

Date of Judgment: 17 August 2017

Date of Corrigendum: 29 August 2017

This corrigendum supersedes the corrigendum
issued on 21 August 2017.

CORRIGENDUM

Please note the following corrections made to the Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the above case:

1.Page 2, between lines H and I in the Chinese judgment:“和平行使法律賦予權力的界線”and“干擾他人權力和自由的非法行為”should be corrected to“和平行使法律賦予權利的界線”and“干擾他人權利和自由的非法行為”.

2.Page 2, line K in the Chinese judgment:“合法行使法律賦予的權力與保護他人依法享有權力和自由是共存的”should be corrected to “合法行使法律賦予的權利與保護他人依法享有權利和自由是共存的”.

3.Page 2, line M in the Chinese judgment:“假以自由行使權力為名” should be corrected to“假以自由行使權利為名”.

4.Page 2, line N in the Chinese judgment:“亦令其他人士無法行使其應有的權力和自由”should be corrected to“亦令其他人士無法行使其應有的權利和自由”.

5.Page 2, line P in the Chinese judgment:“一鼓”should be corrected to“一股”.

6.Page 2, line Q in the Chinese judgment:“自由行使法律賦予的權力為藉口而肆意作出違法的行為”should be corrected to“自由行使法律賦予的權利為藉口而肆意作出違法的行為”.

7.Page 4, line D in the Chinese judgment:“抱撼”should be corrected to“抱憾”.

8.Page 5, line C in the Chinese judgment:“在自由行使權力”should be corrected to“在自由行使權利”.

9.Page 5, line E in the Chinese judgment:“法律保障巿民的權力和自由”should be corrected to“法律保障巿民的權利和自由”.

10.Page 8, between lines L and M in the English translation: “the 1^st respondent, on the 26 day of September 2017 [sic], and the 3^rd respondent, between the 26 day and the 27 day of September 2017 [sic]” should be corrected to “the 1^st respondent, on the 26th day of September 2014, and the 3^rd respondent, between the 26th day and the 27th day of September 2014”.

11.Page 7, line A in the Chinese judgment:“原審裁不判官”should be corrected to“原審裁判官”.

12.Page 10, line G in the Chinese judgment:“第一答辦人”should be corrected to“第一答辯人”.

13.Page 10, line H in the Chinese judgment:“政總前地園欄”should be corrected to“政總前地圍欄”.

14.Page 11, line Rin the Chinese judgment:“方證物” should be corrected to“控方證物”.

15.Page 12, between lines I and J in the Chinese judgment:“佢地遭受到既暴力對待”and“已經有我哋既朋友被捕…”should be corrected to“佢哋遭受到嘅暴力對待”and“已經有我哋嘅朋友被捕…”respectively.

16.Page 13, line A in the Chinese judgment:“穿學服的學生”should be corrected to“穿校服的學生”.

17.Page 13, between lines C and D in the Chinese judgment:“需要有心理準備被捕和被撿控，參與行動會有被拘捕和動被撿控的風險”should be corrected to“需要有心理準備被捕和被檢控，參與行動會有被拘捕和被檢控的風險”.

18.Page 13, line F in the Chinese judgment:“約有數百人”should be corrected to“約數百人”.

19.Page 13, line G in the Chinese judgment:“推倒政總地”should be corrected as“推倒政總前地”.

20.Page 13, line T in the Chinese judgment:“當時包圍旗杆的人數有好幾十”should be corrected to“當時包圍旗桿的人數有好幾十名”.

21.Page 18, line J in the Chinese judgment:“口頭勸籲”should be corrected to“口頭勸諭”.

22.Page 20, line G in the Chinese judgment:“控方沒有證供證明”should be corrected to“控方沒有證據證明”.

23.Page 20, line K in the Chinese judgment:“亦沒有證據證明各答辯人對有參與那些襲擊或者對事件知情”should be corrected to“亦沒有證據證明各答辯人有參與那些襲擊或者對事件知情”.

24.Page 20, line P in the Chinese judgment:“示威者也沒有絕對的示威權力”should be corrected to“示威者也沒有絕對的示威權利”.

25.Page 23, line N in the Chinese judgment:“刑事犯行紀錄”should be corrected to“刑事犯罪紀錄”.

26.Page 27, line F in the Chinese judgment:“懲罰的其行為”should be corrected to“懲罰其行為”.

27.Page 27, line H in the Chinese judgment:“暴力行為並非對控罪的必要元素”should be corrected to“暴力行為並非控罪的必要元素”.

28.Page 27, line L in the Chinese judgment:“參與者會有知道有被捕的風險”should be corrected to“參與者會知道有被捕的風險”.

29.Page 28, between lines F and G in the Chinese judgment:“有別於一般刑事件案件”should be corrected to“有別於一般刑事案件”.

30.Page 29, line H in the Chinese judgment:“教導所及∕或更生中心等”should be corrected to“教導所及∕或更生中心報告等”.

31.Page 29, line S in the Chinese judgment:“已反映其嚴重性”should be corrected to“已反映其嚴重性”.

32.Page 33, line R in the Chinese judgment:“答應辯人”should be corrected to“答辯人”.

33.Page 33, line S in the Chinese judgment:“刑罪”should be corrected to“刑罰”.

34.Page 35, line E in the Chinese judgment:“與本案批不可相提並論”should be corrected to“與本案不可相提並論”.

35.Page 52, line D in the English translation: “such behaviour” should be corrected to “all such behaviour”.

36.Page 36, line A in the Chinese judgment:“判刑時法庭會考慮有以下的判刑元素”should be corrected to“判刑時法庭會考慮以下的判刑元素”.

37.Page 37, line M in the Chinese judgment:“遵守香港實行法律的義務”should be corrected to“遵守香港實行的法律的義務”.

38.Page 38, line O in the Chinese judgment:“集合自由”should be corrected to“集會自由”.

39.Page 38, line S in the Chinese judgment:“為簡潔見”should be corrected to“為簡潔起見”.

40.Page 42, line H in the Chinese judgment:“挑撥生的行為”should be corrected to“挑撥性的行為”.

41.Page 43, between lines T and U in the Chinese judgment: “sheer numbers involved may had led some of the offenders to” should be corrected to “sheer numbers involved mayhave led some of the offenders to”.

42.Page 44, line A in the Chinese judgment:“麥道高法官” should be corrected to“麥德高法官”.

43.Page 45, line G in the Chinese judgment:“其至肆意及惡意使用暴力”should be corrected to“甚至肆意及惡意使用暴力”.

44.Page 46, line B in the Chinese judgment:“埾定”should be corrected to“堅定”.

45.Page 70, line G in the English translation: “Such type of sentence is punitive to the extent that it imposes restrictions on the offended and curtails his free time” should be corrected to “Such type of sentence is punitive to the extent that it imposes restrictions on the accused and curtails his free time”.

46.Page 50, line H in the Chinese judgment:“散慢”should be corrected to“散漫”.

47.Page 51, line J in the Chinese judgment:“刑罪”should be corrected to“刑罰”.

48.Page 53, line I in the Chinese judgment:“刑事撿控”should be corrected to“刑事檢控”.

49.Page 53, line L in the Chinese judgment:“撿控”should be corrected to“檢控”.

50.Page 54, line B in the Chinese judgment:“社會服令”should be corrected to“社會服務令”.

51.Page 54, line E in the Chinese judgment:“也需要顧到上文”should be corrected to“也需要顧及上文”.

52.Page 56, line F in the Chinese judgment:“目賭”should be corrected to“目睹”.

53.Page 57,line B in the Chinese judgment,“發出衝突”should be corrected to“發生衝突”.

54.Page 57, line S in the Chinese judgment:“相題並論” should be corrected to“相提並論”.

55.Page 58, between lines O and P in the Chinese judgment:“有部份人繼而強行移開圍住旗杆的鐵馬，之後參與者在旗杆下圍攏”should be corrected to“有部份人繼而強行移開圍住旗桿的鐵馬，之後參與者在旗桿下圍攏”.

56.Page 60, line G in the Chinese judgment:“撿控”should be corrected to“檢控”.

57.Page 86, line L in the English translation: “although the security guards were injured” should be corrected to “although there were security guards injured”.

58.Page 61, between lines S and T in the Chinese judgment:“原審裁判官判處答辯人等社會服務令是犯了原則性的錯誤”should be corrected to“原審裁判官判處答辯人等社會服務令或緩刑是犯了原則性的錯誤”.

59.Page 63, line G in the Chinese judgment:“透切” should be corrected to“透徹”.

	Marco So
	(for Registrar)

Dated this 29^th day of August, 2017

Translated by the Judgment Translation Unit of the Judiciary and vetted by Mr. P. Y. Lo, Barrister-at-law.