In March last year, at an event in Tai Po to commemorate the death of Chow Tsz-lok, a student from HKUST, a photographer was accused of illegal assembly. He was convicted and sentenced to three months in prison.
The photographer refused to accept and appealed the conviction. The case will be dealt with in the High Court today (14th).
The photographer appealed that although he photographed plainclothes police officers, he did not speak up during the period and did not participate in the insulting and provocative behavior of the other defendants.
After hearing the arguments, the judge adjourned the decision until March 16, during which the photographer was allowed to remain on bail.
The trial judge alleged that the appellant held a video camera in front of the plainclothes police
The appellant, Cai Jianyu, was found to have participated in an illegal assembly in areas B and C of Tai Po Super City on March 8, 2020.
The first-instance magistrate, Su Wenlong, said in the ruling that the appellant held a video camera in front of the plainclothes police officers involved in the case and filmed them in close proximity, which was reasonably likely to disrupt social peace.
The shooting angle of the appellant is neutral in all aspects
The barrister representing the appellant pointed out that the appellant was filmed in response to the conflicting events and did not have a specific target person.
He did not speak out during the filming and did not participate in the insulting and provocative behavior of the other defendants.
He has photographed the other defendants, whose angles are comprehensive and neutral.
The court could not rule that the appellant was involved in an unlawful assembly because of his position.
It is difficult to encourage others by simply shooting
The lawyer also emphasized that the behavior of the appellant and the other defendants is completely different, and that filming alone cannot constitute an encouragement to others.
On the contrary, the appellant's other actions disproved that he did not intend to participate in the illegal assembly. For example, after the police officers were entangled, the appellant continued to film, but the magistrate in the first instance did not seem to consider the evidence in the appellant's favor.
The trial judge believed that the appellant had a consensus with the other parties involved
The first-instance magistrate believed that the appellant and the other defendants had a consensus, that the appellant would not hand over the other defendants' criminal evidence, and the other defendants allowed the appellant to continue filming.
Lawyers consider this inference too arbitrary, and point out that the appellant himself is not legally responsible to hand over relevant evidence, and he was subdued shortly after the filming.
Prosecution questions over non-simple shooting
The representative of the Department of Justice responded that the appellant was not just filming, but had closely followed the police officers involved, and photographed the police officers ahead of time, believing that the appellant was targeting the police officers, and those who had the same purpose as others harassed the police officers, abused and filmed them He aroused public anger towards the police.
Case number: HCMA421/2021
4 Men and women convicted of gathering in Hung Hom. After being arrested, they said that there was no field lecturer who said that there was an organized three strikes behind the scenes. "In the end, the final court ruled that those who were not at the scene of the riot could not be regarded as the main culprit in the July 1st March case｜Chen Haohuan and other 7 defendants were imprisoned for half a year to a year.
01 News