17. No specific definition of what is and what is not pavement obstruction can be found in case or statute law. Custom and usage (the origins of the Common Law) have enabled the public to make full and varied use of its pavements within practical limits of tolerance safety and convenience. There should be no problem in a wide, clear, lightly used pavement accommodating a smallish demo.
18. The “custom and usage” of this pavement from 158 to 162 shows that it readily accommodates long-term clutters (e.g. the storage of 8’ long police barriers across the ped. flow, trees set into the pavement, the sporadically tolerated demo outside 162). It also accommodates short-term clutter (e.g. 5 or 6 large cars parking 3 abreast in 2 rows in front of 160, taxis and cars “dropping off” on the pavement outside 160). For the future, the pavement area available for pedestrians between 158 and 162 will be more than halved and the local police have not registered any objection that such a substantial reduction could cause obstruction. Final plans will allow 3 meters, pavement could easily accord Demos. Specifically, the police left their extensive barriers fencing off between 2/3’s and 1/3 of the available pavement for days and days after the 14th of March. They were unlit and unmarked and caused no injury or obstruction to anybody. Although the police alleged explanation for this is interesting, it does not lie in their mouth to say that they would seek to prevent a possible recurrence of a relatively small mobile obstruction (the demonstration) by putting in its place in the pavement an obstruction much larger, less visible and more solid than that which it is seeking to prevent. The police are wildly optimistic to believe that a court will not see through that nonsense. A sensible view is that the pavement outside 160 was wide, open, and could and did successfully accommodate the police fencing operation for days. It is logically and demonstrably unlikely therefore that a small human demo. could cause obstruction injury etc.
１８. 从158到162号这段人行道的“风俗和习惯”显示出，它能轻易地容纳长期摆放的杂物（例如在行人来往的地方横放着8英尺长的警方屏障；在行人路上植树；偶尔被容忍的在162号外的示威）。它还能容纳短期存放的杂物（例如有5到6辆车，3辆一排，分两行并排於160号前面；的士和车辆在160号外面的人行道上“上落客货”） 。将来，158到160号这段人行道将会被缩减至少一半，但警方却没有收到关于这次人行道大幅度的收窄可能会导致阻街的反对意见。人行道最终会被收窄至3米，因为它容易用作示威。特别是打从3月14日起，警方就一直用大量的路障，封锁了现场人行道的1/3到2/3的范围。这些路障未有安上照明也未有标志，但却没有对任何人构成伤害或阻碍。虽则警方对以上现象的所谓解释相当有趣，说为了防止一个相对地小型的流动障碍（示威活动）再发生，取而代之在人行道上摆放一个更大、更不易觉察以及更结实的障碍物，他们倒没有说谎话。警察过于乐观地相信法庭不会识破这种无稽之谈。一个合理的观点就是，在160号外面的人行道宽敞、开阔，而且在实质上能够容纳警方长达几天的封锁措施。就这观点而言，不难合理推断一个小规模的人为示威行动是不可能导致阻碍或伤害等。
19. Against that background where is there any clear objective and accurate evidence that the demo. might block access to the podium?
(1) The security officers? Both said that the demo blocked the pavement/podium access. That claim is destroyed by the video/photo/and scale plans.
(2) The superintendent? He said that a worker (who could not now be traced or even described) approached to within 2 or 3 feet and “simply could not get through” because the gap left “was only 2' to 3'”. Shown photos which demonstrated the gap to be nearer 9' (now proved by the scale plan videos etc.) the superintendent spoke rather feebly about the possibility of intimidation. The word “feebly” is chosen advisedly because:
(a) only the worker himself could give admissible evidence as to whether he was “intimidated”. He was not called.
(b) there were several uniformed P.C.’s and security officers in the immediate vicinity, to calm any imaginary fears.
(c) Hong Kong`s long standing experience of citizens of demonstrations.
20. This, indirect evidence (that some people were obstructed is led to prove a likelihood that people might be obstructed ━ for example workers coming out for lunch (presumably after 1.10 pm!) to a part of Connaught Road totally devoid of Restaurants. The contemporary events on this pavement both before and after March 14 and to the East and West demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that no one was likely to be obstructed/injured by this relatively small demo.
21. By the time the P.T.U. units arrived outside 160, no valid observations of “normal” traffic could now be made. The police had created a tumult where, in their absence, their had been relative peace and quiet.
22. AS TO CHARGE 2 (Charge se: Banner)
(1) In their desperation to find a suitable charge, the prosecution grabbed for the straw of section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap.228). Section 4A states “any person who without lawful authority or excuse sets out or leaves or causes to be set out or left any matter or things which obstruct in a public place …..”. There is evidence before the Court that the accused were holding a banner at all times and even evidence that they at times held it very firmly. There is no evidence that they set out or left it.
Longman’s dictionary defines set out as “to put a group of things down and arrange it order, such as to set out the dinner on the table”. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s English Chinese Dictionary defines the term as to arrange or display (items). The examples given are to set out chairs for a meeting or to set out the pieces on the chessboard. The Collins Co-build English Dictionary’s states, “if you set things out, you arrange or display them somewhere. Set out the cakes attractively, using lacy dollies.” The accused did not set out or leave their banner in a public place. The obvious mischief that section 4A intends to address is when people set out something in a public place, such as a clothesline, some fish left to be dried on the sidewalk, item protruding too far on to the pavement in front of a shop, etc. It could even include a banner that was set out and left unattended. But that is not the case here. Therefore this charge should be dismissed. My Chinese language ability is non-existent, the Chinese standard of my instructing solicitor is a bit better and he, after conferring with others has instructed me that the Chinese character have the same meaning as “set out” to which I have already referred. The summer students assisting me and others have confirmed this.
(2) The banner is soft and conspicuous and inherently unlikely to obstruct/injure any pedestrian. Would the banner at 162 be tolerated if it posed any such risk? Both are acceptable clutter on a pavement as wide as this one.
(3) The charge is duplicitous as the banner is part of the same obstruction relied on in Charge 1.
（1） 控方在绝望中想要寻找适合的控罪，他们抓到了简易程序治罪条例（第228章）第4A节作为救命稻草。第4A节指出：“任何人无合法权限或解释而陈列或留下（sets out or leaves），或导致陈列或留下任何物品或东西，而这些物品或东西……在公众地方……造成阻碍……。”在庭上有证据显示出被告在整段时间里都是拿着横幅，甚至有证据显示有些时候握得很紧。没有证据显示他们陈列或留下横幅。
郎文字典中对set out（陈列）下的定义是“把一组东西放下，然后把东西有序地排列，例如在餐桌上陈列晚餐”。牛津字典界定这一词为安排或展示（东西）。字典里所提供的例子如把椅子陈列好以供开会之用，或在棋盘上陈列棋子。在Collin字典写着：“陈列东西，就是在某处把这些物件安排和展示。利用有花边的蛋糕纸，把一些蛋糕陈列得很吸引”。那些被告并没有在公众地方陈列或留下他们的横幅。第4A节意在针对的明显不良行为是人们在公众地方陈列一些物件例如晾衣绳，在路边晒干鱼类，在商店门前摆放的物件过分突出人行道等。它甚至包括一条被陈列和留下而无人看管的横幅，但这不是本案的情况。所以这条控罪应该被撤销。我没有使用中文的能力，指导我的事务律师的中文程度比我好一点，他经过和其他人交换意见后告知我中文用的“陈列”一词与我刚才所指的set out的意思一样。来帮我的暑期见习学生和其他人也确定了这一点。
23. AS TO CHARGE 3
The defence relies on the facts set out in paragraphs 1-20 to show that although the individual “removal” officers carried out their orders, all the “arrests” were flawed because the superintendent’s suspicion (if he held it) was not based on reasonable grounds.
The proper inference from the evidence is that it was impossible to properly observe the obstructive potential of the small demo after the police had fenced the area off. The PTU units, arriving long after this, simply relied on their orders. We do not complain against the individual officers for relying on their orders.
Insofar as the court is obliged to rely heavily on the Senior Police Officer present “professional view”, that he had seen obstruction committed “explicitly”, the “professionalism” of the police in this operation is not enhanced by the following “unprofessional events”
(1) An interpreter speaking the wrong language was engaged and continued to be retained even after this fact was known the police. We say that is unprofessional.
(2) Particulars from the Swiss passports were taken down despite their being no F.L.G. blacklist in H.K. We say that is unprofessional.
(3) Notwithstanding advice to go to 162, local practitioners had been regularly subjected to police questioning and banner seizure at that place. This has the appearance of “police persecution”.
(4) No attempt was made to accommodate the demo further back towards the road but still in front of 160. We say that is unprofessional.
(5) There is evidence from which it can be properly inferred that no.160 enjoys a special relationship with Western Police Station. (e.g. less senior officers than superintendents speak Mandarin, shop keepers complaining of obstruction do not get virtually immediate personal attendance by superintendents, C.I.P.’s, Sergeants and numerous P.C.’s. The removal of the demo on 25/8/01 (placed so far away from any access to 160) without any charges preferred is inexplicable except in terms of special police treatment for 160.
(6) The stand-off heavily controlled for so long by the police (and publicly viewed) created a situation where, if no removals were made, the police would appear to lose face. The removals can be viewed as a face saving operation and the “warnings” as “window dressing”. The warnings had no legal meaning, as I said.
(7) The normal routines of lawful arrest were not observed. There were no formal cautions and no NTPIC’s were served. No logical explanation or apology has been given to the court. Notice the word logical.
(8) The subsequent showings of video films for identification purposes were conducted in flagrant disregard of the police rules designed to safe guard the interests of both sides (relevant rules copied and enclosed).
(9) The prosecution have illogically chosen not to lay charges of resisting arrest. Such charges would have immediately focused the court’s attention on the bone fides of the removal operation outside no.160.
(10) The essential ingredients of this charge includes a requirement that the prosecution prove that the arrests were lawful. That must be done, regardless of any line that the defence might take. The defendants themselves challenged the legality of the arrests from the outset (video transcripts confirm).
(11) The introduction of allegation of previous non-criminal trespass and possible breach of the peace are potentially prejudicial and meaning-less red herrings and, against the background of this case could never provide any reasonable grounds for arrest. Trespass is a civil matter and in the absence of a crime accompanying any trespass, police favour to certain landlords should not be shown.
(12) The absence of formal arresting officers for some of the arrested persons does not assist the prosecution to begin to make its case. Notwithstanding the words in English “Arrest them” at 1.10 pm on the video/audio, the prosecution have not brought a speaker to court. This precedes inspector Ho’s instruction at 1.11 pm.
（5） 有证据可以适当推断160号拥有和西区警署的某种特别关系。例如比指挥官低级的警务人员也会说普通话，商店店主投诉受阻碍得不到指挥官、总督察、警长和大量警察的即时个人照顾。除了说160号是受到警方的特别照顾外，根本无法解释为什么2001年8月25日的示威被清场（示威地点距离160号的任何出入口如此遥远） 而却没有人被起诉。
24. AS TO CHARGE 4 (Assault)
(1) D5 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) The police video shows a contact only when D5’s mouth is closed.
(3) Neither the victim’s medical report nor the photographs show any bite.
(4) Accidental contact has not been ruled out.
25. AS TO CHARGE 5 (one of week incidents)
(1) D10 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) D10 is on video for all of her removal from the van.
(3) That continuous video shows her hand gripping and damaging a right side epaulette.
(4) Wong Mei Po (who had viewed this video) first said in evidence that her R epaulette had been damaged. Only when she was shown a police photograph did she “remember” that it was her “left”.
(5) Wong Mei Po had viewed the video without the police rules being observed. Her evidence is confused and totally inconsistent with the video. It may have been affected by this irregular viewing.
(6) Accidental but vigorous contact cannot be ruled out.
(7) The “injuries” photographed could have occurred at any stage of the removals. Never have so many phothographs been taken of so few injuries.
26. AS TO CHARGE 6
(1) D10 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) Chan Wai Man accepted that a struggling heavy woman, held by six W.P.C.’s, could have reached up to grip her shoulder neck and shirt to avoid being dropped i.e. to pull herself up. This would not be an assault.
(3) Chan Wai Man first demonstrated a left side injury. She then demonstrated a right side injury.
(4) Chan Wai Man has also been exposed to irregular video showing which may have affected her evidence.
(5) The fact that the incident only lasted 2 seconds may have prompted “the victim” to make the concession at (2) above.
(6) No injury or mark was found on her neck.
(7) The “supporting” witness who claims to have seen these assaults saw no “actual scratching” (charge 5); demonstrated different sides of the neck and could not rule out a suddenly released hand, clutching for something to pull herself up by.
（4） 陈慧雯同样不合程序地观看过录像 ，这可能会影响她的证供。
（5） 整个事件只维持了2秒，这个事实可能促使“受害者”作出上述 （2）的让步。
27. AS TO CHARGES 4, 5 & 6
In the light of the force and pain which these ladies were exposed to in chaotic circumstances, the charges of assault are fundamentally unfair to these defendants. The pain inflicted by the pressure technique is “inhuman treatment” and maybe inhuman treatment is light of the Bill of the Rights.