24.10.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!