香港特別行政區 訴 林顯誠及另一人

香港特別行政區 訴 林顯誠及另一人

Given the procedural posture (case‑stated appeal remitting the matter) and subsequent appellate guidance on drawing inferences from presence at a riot, the court found a material change in the legal context. The proposed evidence by the defendants was relevant to issues the court must now determine, would not unfairly prejudice the prosecution, and would not disrupt the orderly conduct of the proceedings. Therefore the court exercised its discretion to allow the first and fifth defendants to reopen their defence.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 340
Parties
Prosecution: 香港特別行政區; First Defendant: 林顯誠; Fifth Defendant: 陳樂燊
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 February 2025
Case Number
DCCC1017/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Remitted for Further Proceedings by Case‑stated Appeal; Application to Reopen Defence Evidence
Outcome
Application to reopen defence evidence by first and fifth defendants granted
Legal Topics
Riot, Unlawful Assembly, Use of Facial Covering, Reopening Defence Evidence, Case‑stated Appeal
Source Language
CH
Criminal Law Trial Procedure Appeal Procedure Riot Unlawful Assembly Use of Facial Covering Reopening Defence Evidence Case‑stated Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecution

林顯誠

First Defendant

陳樂燊

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Remitted for Further Proceedings by Case‑stated Appeal; Application to Reopen Defence Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow defendants to reopen their defence after they had elected not to give evidence at trial
  2. 2 Whether subsequent appellate authority constituted a material change in legal principle sufficient to justify reopening
  3. 3 Whether allowing reopening would unfairly prejudice the prosecution or disrupt the orderly progress of the trial

Ratio Decidendi

Given the procedural posture (case‑stated appeal remitting the matter) and subsequent appellate guidance on drawing inferences from presence at a riot, the court found a material change in the legal context. The proposed evidence by the defendants was relevant to issues the court must now determine, would not unfairly prejudice the prosecution, and would not disrupt the orderly conduct of the proceedings. Therefore the court exercised its discretion to allow the first and fifth defendants to reopen their defence.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen defence evidence by first and fifth defendants granted

Orders

  • Application by first and fifth defendants to reopen their defence is granted