Hksar v Tam Tak Chi

Judgment Date02 December 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKDC 1153
Judgement NumberDCCC928/2020
Subject MatterCriminal Case
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCCC927/2020 HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

DCCC 927/2020
DCCC 928/2020
DCCC 930/2020

[2020] HKDC 1153

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 927 OF 2020

________________________

HKSAR
v
TAM TAK CHI

________________________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 928 OF 2020

________________________

HKSAR
v
TAM TAK CHI

________________________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 930 OF 2020

________________________

HKSAR
v
TAM TAK CHI

________________________

Before: His Honour Judge Ko
Date: 2 December 2020
Present: Mr Anthony Chau, Deputy Director of Public Prosecution (Ag) and Miss Crystal Chan, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
Mr Philip Dykes (SC) leading Mr Jeffrey Tam and Mr Brian Tsui, instructed by Michelle Tsoi Solicitors, for the defendant
Offence : (DCCC 927/2020)
[1] Holding or convening an unauthorized assembly (舉行或召集一個未經批准集結)
[2] Disorderly conduct in a public place (公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為)
[3] Refusing or wilfully neglecting to obey an order given by an authorized officer (拒絕遵從或故意忽略遵從授權人員 作出的命令)
[4] Uttering seditious words (發表煽動文字)
(DCCC 928/2020)
[1]、[3] & [5] to [7] Uttering seditious words (發表煽動文字)
[2] Disorderly conduct in a public place (公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為)
[4] Conspiracy to utter seditious words (串謀發表煽動文字)
(DCCC 930/2020)
[1] Incitement to knowingly take part in an unauthorized assembly (煽惑他人明知而參與未經批准集結)
[2] Uttering seditious words (發表煽動文字)
[3] Disorderly conduct in a public place (公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為)

________________________

R U L I N G

________________________

1. Under article 44(3) of The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (“the National Security Law”), all proceedings in relation to the prosecution for offences endangering national security in the District Court shall be handled by the designated judges in the District Court.

2. The prosecution has applied for assignment of a designated judge to handle these proceedings based on, inter alia, the above provision. The applicability of the National Security Law to these cases is disputed by the defence, who argues that the sedition offences under section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, with which the defendant is charged are not offences endangering national security. The dispute will have to be determined by the court.

3. The prosecution further seeks a direction that the application be listed before a designated judge for argument. That is also disputed by the defence, who contends that if the prosecution’s direction is allowed, it would have granted what the prosecution applied for at the outset.

4. At the last hearing, I adjourned the proceedings to today and invited for submissions to better appreciate the argument of both sides. I am grateful for the submissions of the parties.

5. Having considered their submissions, I can see the possibility of ultra vires if the application is not determined by a designated judge. A non-designated judge who rules in favour of the prosecution would in effect be confirming that he/she personally lacks jurisdiction to handle the argument in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT