Leticia Wong Man-huen, former Civic Party Shatin District Councillor, and her then district councillor assistant were issued Fixed Penalty Tickets for violating the social gathering ban in Hong Kong when they set up the booth outside City One MTR (Mass Transit Railway) Station for distributing anti-pandemic materials with several members of the “Hong Kong Student’s Concern Groups Alliance,” which opposed the reformation of the subject of Liberal Studies in secondary schools, on Feb. 20, 2021.
They both pleaded not guilty and chose to defend themselves. The case was heard in the Shatin Magistrates Court on July 15, and Magistrate Pang Leung-ting denounced the four police officers’ testimony as one-sided, subjective, and unreliable.
They were acquitted of all charges as the prosecution failed to prove that the two groups involved were connected or had a common purpose.
Leticia said after the hearing that this was a summons for social distancing two years ago, and the judge’s ruling was just something reasonable. It was ridiculous that she had to appear in court many times for something with simple logic such as “mother is a woman.”
She did not think the acquittal meant justice had arrived, but she was glad to see that there is still some logic in the Justice system.
Leticia and her then assistant, Mr. Mai, were charged with participating in a prohibited group gathering. The two pleaded not guilty and chose to defend themselves.
According to the summons, they participated in a prohibited group gathering at Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Feb 20, 2021.
The prosecution alleged that the two defendants and several other members of the Hong Kong Student’s Concern Groups Alliance set up a booth to distribute leaflets on that day, violating the pandemic prevention regulations.
The defendants stated in self-defense that the Hong Kong Student’s Concern Groups Alliance were two different groups. They were only distributing anti-pandemic materials and performing the duties of district councillors. Therefore they should be exempted.
The magistrate pointed out in his ruling that the prosecution failed to provide communication records, such as WhatsApp records, to prove that the defendants had prior contact with the Hong Kong Student’s Concern Groups Alliance or jointly called others to go to the booth.
Meanwhile, the clip from police provided by the prosecution clearly showed that the second defendant distributed calendars to passersby, not the flyers claimed by the police officer when he gave evidence.
The magistrate pointed out that although the clip showed that Leticia had put away a Hong Kong Student’s Concern Groups Alliance banner, he believed that the prosecution’s conclusion related to the Hong Kong Student’s Concern Groups Alliance was “arbitrary and unfair to the defendant.”
The magistrate judged the evidence of the police officers was not objective and reliable. One of the sergeants negotiated with the two defendants and seemed to have misunderstood the powers conferred on the police by the law. For example, he could not refer to which regulation empowered him to terminate the booth’s operation.
Case number: STFS15, 16/2021
