Criminal Law Responses To Illegal Protests In Hong Kong
Criminal Law Responses to Illegal Protests in Hong Kong
In Hong Kong, protests are governed by:
Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) – regulates public assemblies, processions, and prohibits unlawful gatherings.
Criminal Offences under IPC/Local Laws – Riot, assaulting police, criminal damage, possession of offensive weapons.
National Security Law (2020) – offences such as secession, subversion, collusion with foreign forces.
Prosecutions generally fall into three categories:
Participation in unauthorised assemblies
Riot or violent acts during protests
Incitement to subversion or national security offences
Case 1: Tong Ying Kit (2020)
Facts: Tong rode a motorcycle displaying a protest flag with the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” and collided with police officers.
Charges: Incitement to secession and terrorist activities under the National Security Law.
Verdict: Convicted on both counts.
Significance: First trial under the National Security Law related to protest activity; established that protest slogans and symbolic acts could amount to criminal offences under national security legislation.
Case 2: Jimmy Lai and Others – Unauthorised Assembly (2021)
Facts: Jimmy Lai organised a large march from Victoria Park to Chater Road in 2019 without police approval.
Charges: Organising and participating in an unauthorised assembly under the Public Order Ordinance.
Verdict: Organisers found guilty of “knowingly taking part” in the assembly; some convictions for organising were overturned.
Significance: Clarifies that leading or attending an unauthorised assembly can attract criminal liability even if the assembly is peaceful.
Case 3: 31 August 2019 Riot Prosecutions
Facts: Protesters clashed with police in Causeway Bay, throwing petrol bombs and damaging property.
Charges: Riot, possession of offensive weapons, assaulting police.
Verdict: Mixed outcomes – in some trials defendants convicted of riot; others acquitted due to insufficient evidence of active participation.
Significance: Illustrates the evidentiary burden in proving riot charges; mere presence at the scene is not enough.
Case 4: Agnes Chow – June 2019 Assembly
Facts: Chow participated in an unauthorised assembly outside Police Headquarters, calling for action against government policies.
Charges: Participation in unauthorised assembly and incitement.
Verdict: Pleaded guilty; convicted.
Significance: Shows that even non-violent assembly in sensitive locations can attract criminal liability under public order laws.
Case 5: Lee Cheuk-yan – August 2019 Rally
Facts: Lee and six others organised a rally without police authorisation on 18 August 2019.
Charges: Unauthorised assembly under Public Order Ordinance.
Verdict: Lee sentenced to 14 months in prison; others received various sentences.
Significance: Demonstrates the application of criminal law to senior political figures; organisers face stricter scrutiny and penalties.
Case 6: Tsang Kin-shing – Polytechnic University Siege 2019
Facts: Tsang was involved in organising protest activities during the Polytechnic University siege, including road blockages and confrontations with police.
Charges: Riot, unlawful assembly, criminal damage.
Verdict: Convicted of unlawful assembly and criminal damage; acquitted of riot charges due to insufficient evidence of violence by the group as a whole.
Significance: Highlights differentiation between violent and non-violent protest activity in prosecution.
Case 7: Chow Hang-tung – 2019 Protests Commemoration
Facts: Organised commemorative gatherings for the 2019 protests without police approval.
Charges: Participating in and organising unauthorised assemblies, violating public order.
Verdict: Convicted; sentenced to jail.
Significance: Shows that even symbolic or memorial events can fall under criminal liability if they are unauthorised.
Key Observations
Organisers face heavier penalties than ordinary participants.
Evidence of participation matters: courts distinguish between presence and active involvement.
Riot charges require proof of violence; public order offences can be applied for non-violent but unauthorised gatherings.
National Security Law significantly expands criminal liability beyond ordinary public order offences.
Sentencing patterns vary based on scale, location, and the perceived threat to public order or state security.
RELATED Blog
comments