HKSAR v. Ng Kin Wai

HCCP 117/2021

[2022] HKCFI 1991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS (CRIMINAL)  NO 117 OF 2021

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Toh J in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing:  6 June 2022

Date of Decision:  6 June 2022

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.This is an application for bail from the Applicant, who had appeared before me on 11 March 2021, when his bail was revoked. At that time, I had thoroughly considered the matters put forward by both counsel, and particularly enclosures 8 and 9 which, as Ms Yang submitted, showed a clear determination to further his idea for Hong Kong independence.

2.And having evaluated all the material before me, I had formed the view that sufficient grounds exist for believing that the Respondent will continue to commit acts endangering national security if bail was granted, so his bail was revoked.

3.In this case, Mr Pang SC on his behalf has submitted that time has passed since the last application and that the applicant only wishes now to concentrate on his own self development and take care of his family, and that he no longer has a desire to advance any political platform.

4.As I have always said, this is a matter which I have to consider, doing as Anthea Pang J (as she then was)  in HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying[1] said, “a predictive and evaluative exercise”, an evaluation as to whether if granted bail on the first threshold, there are sufficient grounds to believe that he would not continue to commit acts endangering national security.

5.In the case of this present applicant, after bail was revoked on the last occasion, he clearly still at that time had a platform.  There were many shouting in Court after the Court had risen and this is all set out in the Respondent’s submission at paragraph 7.

6.As far as the video interview of the Applicant’s friend or representative outside the court building, I will not use that against him because they were statements made by someone else and not by the Applicant.  However, it is clear that the Applicant in the courtroom, after this Court had risen, had in fact responded to the shouting from his supporters.

7.It is also clear that the Applicant still has social media platforms such as Facebook and Patreon and he still has some supporters and although Mr Pang SC says there is not as many as before, however, I do not know what the numbers are. The main thing is that I have to evaluate all the material before me in doing this exercise of whether the Applicant has overcome the first threshold.  I am not satisfied that the Applicant, if granted bail, will not continue to commit acts against national security. 

8.So, the application is refused.

Ms Betty Fu, ADPP(Ag.)  of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Mr Robert Y H Pang SC and Ms Yantl S C Sze, instructed by C & Y Lawyers, for the Applicant