1. On 10 April 2011, a prize ceremony of a MTR charity race walking event was held on a stage in Statue Square, Chater Road, Central. A number of demonstrators were present, protesting about MTR fare increases. While the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Madam Eva Cheng (the “Secretary”), was delivering a speech, Mr Chow (a demonstrator) rushed on to the stage and scattered “hell money”. After Mr Chow had been taken away from the stage, Mr Wong rushed on to the stage and snatched away the microphone, which was being used by the Secretary. 2. Mr Chow and Mr Wong were charged with the offence of behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be caused, contrary to section 17B(2) of the Public Order Ordinance. They were also charged alternatively with the offence of acting in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing transaction of the business of a public gathering, contrary to section 17B(1). They were found guilty under section 17B(2) after trial by the magistrate and were sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment. The Court of First Instance quashed their convictions under section 17B(2) but found them guilty under section 17B(1). The sentences of 14 days’ imprisonment were substituted by a fine of HK$2,000 for Mr Chow and a fine of HK$3,000 for Mr Wong. Mr Chow and Mr Wong sought to overturn their convictions. The HKSAR sought the restoration of their earlier convictions. 3. All the judges of the Court of Final Appeal considered the conduct of Mr Chow and Mr Wong unacceptable as a form of demonstration that is constitutionally protected. Both could have been charged with common assault and could have been bound over by a magistrate to keep the peace in the future. But they were not dealt with in that way and the Court had to consider whether the offences charged had been established. 4. Four of the members of the Court held that “disorderly” was an ordinary word and that whether behaviour was “disorderly” in any particular case was a question of fact that should be left to the trial court. The Courts below were clearly entitled to find that both Mr Chow and Mr Wong had acted in a disorderly manner. Tang PJ adopted a different view of “disorderly” conduct, holding that conduct could be properly regarded as disorderly only when it went well beyond what any citizen would have to tolerate. In Tang PJ’s view, although Mr Chow’s conduct could amount to disorderly conduct, it was unsafe to treat the findings made by the magistrate as a sufficient finding of disorderly conduct on the part of Mr Chow. 5. The gathering in the present case was interrupted for only around one minute. The evidence did not show an intention to “prevent” the prize ceremony taking place. Therefore, the Court unanimously allowed Mr Chow’s and Mr Wong’s appeals in relation to section 17B(1). 6. An offence under section 17B(2) requires the intended provocation or a likelihood of a breach of the peace by some other person. On the facts, it had not been shown that anybody was likely to breach the peace as a result of Mr Chow’s or Mr Wong’s conduct. Therefore, the Court unanimously dismissed the HKSAR’s cross appeal.