Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disorderly conduct

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2022

香港特別行政區訴譚得志

Citation

[2022] HKDC 343
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC930/2020

Court fixed individual starting points for each category of offending, treated certain groups of offences as concurrent to apply totality, and increased weight for aggravating factors (leadership role, use of youth, contempt for law, offending while on bail, offences after NSL); absence of genuine mitigation and lack of remorse justified a punitive and deterrent aggregate sentence of 40 months imprisonment plus a fine of HKD 5,000.
20 Apr 2022

香港特別行政區訴譚得志

Citation

[2022] HKDC 343
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC928/2020

Court found the offences, committed in the context of major public disorder and including reoffending while on bail and after the National Security Law, warranted immediate custodial sentences. The court fixed individual terms (Count 1: 2 years; seven seditious counts aggregated to 21 months with specified concurrency; Count 6: 18 months with partial concurrency; Count 3: 1 month concurrent; Count 8: fine HKD5000) and applied concurrency/totality adjustments to an effective total sentence of 40 months imprisonment and a fine of HKD5000; mitigation claims (religion, education, political motive…
13 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC38/2014

Bail pending the application for leave to appeal was refused because the remaining convictions for criminal damage had no reasonably arguable basis for leave to appeal (credibility findings are for the trial magistrate), and even if the third charge were set aside the applicant would still have to serve immediate custodial sentences on the criminal damage offences; therefore bail would be inappropriate.
18 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC14/2012

Convictions under s.17B(1) and s.17B(2) could not stand: s.17B(1) requires a purpose to prevent the transaction of the gathering's business in a substantial practical sense (not a momentary interruption), and s.17B(2) requires that disorderly conduct be intended or objectively likely to provoke a breach of the peace by others; the evidence did not establish those elements (staff and persons present acted with restraint and there was no real likelihood others would resort to violence), therefore the appellants' convictions were quashed and appeals allowed.
18 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC12/2012

s.17B(1) requires a purpose to prevent the transaction of the gathering's business meaning a practical or substantial prevention or substantial impairment, not a momentary interruption; s.17B(2) requires that the disorderly behaviour be intended to provoke or objectively likely to cause others to commit a breach of the peace (violence or threatened violence by others). On the facts the prosecution failed to prove the requisite purpose under s.17B(1) or the requisite likelihood/intent under s.17B(2); accordingly convictions could not be sustained though appellants' actions were disorderly and…
18 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. WONG HIN WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG HIN WAI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC13/2012

Convictions under s.17B(1) and s.17B(2) were unsustainable: s.17B(1) requires purpose to prevent or substantially impair the transaction of the gathering's business which was not proven (only brief interruption occurred); s.17B(2) requires that disorderly conduct was intended to provoke or was likely to cause a breach of the peace by others — there was no evidential basis that others present (security, staff, public) were likely to be provoked to unlawful violence given their restraint and training — accordingly both statutory elements failed and appeals allowed.
27 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC45/2012

Leave to appeal was granted so that the Final Court can determine the elements of the offences under s.17B(1) and s.17B(2) of the Public Order Ordinance and to require full argument from all parties on both offences; no determination on the merits was made at this stage.
27 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC39/2012

The Court granted leave to appeal to determine the elements of s.17B(1) and s.17B(2) of the Public Order Ordinance and directed that the appeals address both offences so that the proper statutory definitions and distinctions (notably the purpose/intent requirements) can be authoritatively settled; the grant of leave is procedural and not an endorsement of non-peaceful protest.
5 May 2009

HKSAR v. CHAN PUI SANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN PUI SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA205/2009

Given the admitted facts, the magistrate's oral reasons were adequate in context and his written findings legitimately elaborated the reasoning; the magistrate correctly applied the law that a real likelihood of breach of the peace suffices for conviction even if no actual breach occurred, therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Mar 2007

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI YUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1051/2006

Mens rea for the offence is intention to commit the disorderly act (intent to take photographs under the victim's clothing); whether a breach of the peace was likely is a factual question for the magistrate to infer; objectively, taking or attempting to take photos under a woman's clothing in a public place amounts to disorderly conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, therefore the conviction is upheld.