刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice
刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice
刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
11<br />
[English digest<br />
<strong>of</strong> MA 1270 <strong>of</strong><br />
2003, above]<br />
Tong J<br />
(28.6.2004)<br />
*Cheung Waisun<br />
& Robert K Y Lee<br />
#I/P<br />
(1) KOO<br />
Sze-yiu<br />
(2) LEUNG<br />
Kwokhung<br />
Disturbance which interrupted the proceedings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Legislative Council/s 17(c) <strong>of</strong> the Legislative Council (Powers<br />
and Privileges) Ordinance, Cap 382/Applicability/Notion <strong>of</strong><br />
stare decisis/Difference in maximum penalties under s 8 and<br />
s 17(c), Cap 382<br />
The Respondents were jointly charged with the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong><br />
creating a disturbance in the Legislative Council Building on 26<br />
February 2003, which interrupted the proceedings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Legislative Council while the Council was sitting, contrary to s<br />
17(c) <strong>of</strong> the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges)<br />
Ordinance, Cap 382.<br />
Both Respondents pleaded not guilty. Having heard the<br />
submissions, the magistrate acquitted them after trial and<br />
dismissed the charge. In his verdict, the magistrate ruled that the<br />
charge should have been one under s 8 and s 20 <strong>of</strong> the same<br />
Ordinance instead <strong>of</strong> under s 17(c). The magistrate, however,<br />
refused to exercise the power vested in him by s 27 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, to amend the charge to one under<br />
s 8. The Appellant appealed against the magistrate’s<br />
determination by way <strong>of</strong> case stated, pursuant to s 105 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227.<br />
There was little in dispute regarding the evidence. The<br />
magistrate ruled that the Appellant had established the following<br />
basic facts :<br />
(1) About 5:30 pm on 26 February 2003, the<br />
Legislative Council was conducting the First and<br />
Second Reading <strong>of</strong> the National Security<br />
(Legislative Provisions) Bill at the Legislative<br />
Council Building at 8 Jackson Road, Central.<br />
When the former Secretary for Security (Mrs<br />
Regina Ip) was about to make her motion speech<br />
on the Second Reading <strong>of</strong> the Bill, a group <strong>of</strong><br />
Legislative Councillors stood up to protest and<br />
walked out <strong>of</strong> the Council Chamber. At this<br />
juncture, some person(s) threw pieces <strong>of</strong> paper<br />
from the No. 2 public gallery down to the Council<br />
Chamber. The first and second Respondents also<br />
stood up from their seats in the No. 2 public<br />
gallery and shouted slogans (protesting against<br />
Article 23 and demanding retraction <strong>of</strong> the blue<br />
Bill). The second Respondent also tried to display<br />
a black fabric banner;<br />
(2) LegCo security <strong>of</strong>ficers came up to stop the two<br />
Respondents, told them to keep quiet and to return