1. These cases concern the alleged commission of criminal contempt by the Respondents for what they had done on 26 November 2014 in the portions of Nathan Road between Argyle Street and Dundas Street in Mong Kok, Kowloon (“the Area”). It was alleged that the Respondents interfered with and/or impeded the due execution of the injunction order made by Au J on 10 November 2014 (amended 21 November 2014) in HCA 2104/2014 (“the HC 2104 Action”) by refusing to leave the area covered by the injunction order despite repeated warnings. The present cases are not about the right or wrong of the “Occupy Movement”. Factual Background 2. Most of the factual backgrounds of these proceedings are not in dispute. As a result of what was generally known as the “Occupy Movement”, a significant part of the public highway in Mong Kok, namely the Area, was occupied by a crowd of protestors since late September 2014. The Plaintiffs in the HC 2104 Action made an ex parte application for an injunction against those occupying in the Area. 3. Poon J (as he then was) granted the injunction order. On 24 and 27 October 2014, the hearings were heard before Au J, who continued the injunction order pending the delivery of the final decision. On 10 November 2014, Au J handed down the judgment continuing the injunction order. The injunction order was subsequently amended on 21 November 2014 (“the Amended Injunction Order”). The Court of Appeal also refused to grant leave to appeal against Au J’s order dated 10 November 2014. The Court notes that each step of the injunction proceedings was widely reported by the local media. 4. The Amended Injunction Order was duly served by advertising the same in one Chinese and one English newspapers on 24 November 2014. A Bailiff officer also served the order by placing it (together with the Notice of Injunction Order dated 24 November 2014) in clear plastic envelopes in eleven different prominent locations in the Area. The Court notes that both the service of the order and the intention of the Plaintiffs and the Bailiff to take action on 26 November 2014 to execute/carry out the Amended Injunction Order were widely reported by the local media. 5. The Court further notes that the Bailiff had executed another injunction order in similar terms granted by Au J in another case in an area at Argyle Street. The enforcement action was also widely reported by the local media. 6. On 26 November 2014: (1) At about 8:40 am, an Assistant Chief Bailiff (PW2) made an announcement through loudhailer to the crowd at the junction of Argyle Street and Nathan Road that the Bailiff officers were there to enforce the Amended Injunction Order. PW2 warned that any person who obstructed the execution might be guilty of contempt of court. Following that, the Plaintiffs’ legal representatives made an announcement repeating the contents of the Amended Injunction Order. PW2 then announced that the lawful agents of the Plaintiffs would execute the Amended Injunction Order and clear the obstacles at the Area within 30 minutes; (2) An Acting Assistant Chief Bailiff (PW4) and the Plaintiffs’ legal representatives repeated the announcements at about 8:45 am near the junction of Nelson Street and Nathan Road; (3) PW2 and the Plaintiffs’ legal representatives repeated the announcements at about 8:51 am at the junction of Shantung Street and Nathan Road; (4) PW4 and the Plaintiffs’ legal representatives repeated the announcements at about 9:05 am at the junction of Dundas Street and Nathan Road; and (5) Finally, at about 9:49 am, PW4 and PW2 announced at the junction of Argyle Street and Nathan Road near to the barricade that the lawful agents of the Plaintiffs would execute the Amended Injunction Order and clear the obstacles in the Area. 7. In the 1st-4th announcements, the crowd was repeatedly advised to obey the Amended Injunction Order and to leave the Area immediately. Following the making of the 5th announcement, at about 9:53 am, PW2 requested the Plaintiffs’ legal representatives and lawful agents to clear the barricades. While parts of the barricades were cleared at the junction of Argyle Street and Nathan Road, there was a commotion in the crowd in about 9:59 am. Another Assistant Chief Bailiff (PW5) warned the crowd that their actions had impeded the bailiffs’ execution of the Amended Injunction Order. Despite the warning, the crowd did not desist. The Chief Bailiff (PW6) then requested the assistance from the police at about 10:00 am. 8. At about 10:05 am, a Chief Inspector of Police (PW7) gave a warning that any person who obstructed or interfered with any bailiff or person assisting him in enforcing the order of the Court might be in breach of the court order and obstructing the administration of justice. It was also warned that such conduct might constitute a criminal contempt of court and an offence under the Summary Offences Ordinance. Another warning was given at about 10:15 am, where the crowd was requested to stop obstructing or interfering with the bailiffs in clearing or removing the obstructions on the road, failing which they might be arrested for suspected criminal contempt of court, resisting or obstructing a public officer, and other offences that they were suspected to have committed. Between 10:25 am to 12:00 p.m., public announcements were made advising the crowd, the onlookers and the press of their own safety as the police might raise the level of appropriate use of force. The crowd was advised to leave the Area via Tsim Sha Tsui direction in an orderly manner and not to obstruct police officers in the execution of their duties. 9. At about 11:07 am when the police checkline reached the junction of Shantung Street and Nathan Road, PW7 gave a final warning to the crowd gathered there. The crowd was also advised to leave the Area via Tsim Sha Tsui direction. Afterwards, the police started arresting people who refused to leave the Area. The Area was cleared at about 12:40 p.m. Legal Principles of Criminal Contempt 10. It was argued that the necessary mens rea for criminal contempt was the intention to interfere with the administration of justice. The Court rejects this argument. In reliance on the Court of Appeal decision in Secretary for Justice v. Ng Wai Bing[1](which is binding on the Court), the legal principles regarding criminal contempt are as follows: (a) Proof of a specific intent to interfere with the administration of justice would not be a prerequisite for liability for criminal contempt; (b) The applicant only needs to show the basic intent, that is that the respondents intended to perform the acts which constituted the actus reus of the contempt; (c) The act which is said to constitute criminal contempt of court is the conduct calculated to prejudice or interfere with the due administration of justice, and it is inherently likely to do so. 11. Applying the said principles to the present proceedings, the Applicant needed only to prove that each of the Respondents remained in the Area with the intention to remain therein. Further, their conduct in remaining was inherently likely to prejudice or interfere with the due administration of justice. Whether each of the Respondents did in fact obstruct or interfere with those who were responsible for clearing up the obstacles was not part of the legal requirement. If the Respondent did in fact obstruct or interfere with the clearing up of the obstacles it would more certainly amount to a criminal contempt. 12. It is further argued that mere presence at the scene only amounted to disobedience of the Amended Injunction Order, hence civil contempt. The Court disagrees. The Court takes the view that that might be the case prior to the 26th November 2014 but this argument ignores (1) the factual matrix leading to the granting of the Amended Injunction Order, (2) the wide reporting of each step of the injunction proceedings, (3) the extensive media coverage of the clearance on the previous day, (4) the wide reporting of the intended clearance on 26 November 2014, and (5) the repeated warnings given by the Bailiffs that the crowd should leave the Area immediately. 13. Whether each of the Respondents chose to remain, and did remain, in the Area would be a matter of fact and degree in every instance, whether or not the alleged contempt is made out. 14. The Court further holds that seriousness of the conduct is not an additional element of criminal contempt. Police Power of Arrest 15. As has been noted by the Court of Appeal in HCMP 3028/2014[2], steps would be taken by the Bailiff so that all parties concerned would be given the last opportunity to comply with the order voluntarily. Whether a police officer would like to repeat the steps before exercising his power to arrest was a matter for him to decide. Accordingly, so far as the police power of arrest is concerned, the relevance lies in the fact that by the time the police took the arrest action, the Respondents were still present at the Area. The circumstances of the Respondents’ arrest bore little relevance as to whether they committed criminal contempt. The Pleaded Case 16. During the trial and particularly in the final submissions of the Respondents, it was complained that the Applicant had relied on new grounds which caused unfairness to the Respondents. The alleged new grounds contained detailed description of the Respondents’ movements, which went beyond the original case pleaded by the Applicant. 17. The Court takes the view that the Applicant’s case was clearly pleaded. It was the presence of the Respondents and their acts and movements which had caused interference and/or obstruction to the clearance operation. Even if that was not clear enough in the pleadings, the Applicant’s opening put his position beyond dispute. The fresh particulars were revealed because of the additional footage used by the Respondents in cross-examining witnesses. The Court also held that it was entitled to look at the video footage before or after those used for cross-examination since matters had to be judged in their context. All video evidence had been provided to the Respondents; and the Respondents did not challenge the authenticity of the videos. No witness was required to be recalled. In these circumstances, the Court sees no unfairness for the Applicant to rely on the fresh particulars. 18. The Applicant called a number of witnesses in these proceedings. Very little challenge was made to the credibility of the witnesses. This was so because the most crucial evidence came from the video footage taken by different teams of police officers. In such circumstances, the fact of this case, in particular the conducts of each Respondent, could be ascertained with little difficulty. The Cases of Chu Pui Yan (HCMP 778/2015), Kwok Yeung Yuk (HCMP 780/2015), & Hung Cheuk Lun (HCMP 789/2015) 19. These Respondents were all seen to be present at various times when the announcements were made. Ms Chu was seen posing photographs with a group of young people outside HSBC just after the making of the 1st announcement, and was seen either sitting or standing near a sofa outside HSBC during the making of the 2nd and 3rd announcements. Mr Kwok and Mr Hung were seen to be present behind the barricades when the 5th announcement was made. The Court has no doubt that they must have been aware of the Bailiff’s warnings. Mr Hung was also seen jeering and booing by a police officer (PW41). 20. The Court notes that, as mentioned earlier, the matters from the application to the granting of the injunction order were widely reported in the local media. It was also reported that there would be a clearance operation in Argyle Street, a very short distance away from the Area. The announcements and warnings given by various parties were clear. In such circumstances, it was highly unlikely that any citizen in Hong Kong would misapprehend the situation. The Court takes the view that those who had decided to stand in the middle of the Nathan Road within the Area knew precisely what they were doing. 21. The Court takes the view that the presence of the Respondents at the Area made the job of the bailiffs and the police officers in clearing and removing obstacles along the Area substantially more difficult. As is common in mass protests, the presence of individual protestors lend support to other fellow protestors. They banded together to fight for their beliefs. Their presence and conducts were, not only inherently likely, but factually calculated, to delay if not to frustrate the execution of the Amended Injunction Order. The Court has no doubt that the Respondents’ actions amounted to a serious interference with the administration of justice. 22. It was submitted on behalf of Ms Chu, Mr Kwok, and Mr Hung that, by the time the police took the arrest action, they were no longer able to leave the Area. As mentioned earlier (§15 above), the Court rules that the circumstances of the Respondents’ arrest bore little relevance to the commission of the offence. Having considered all the evidence, the Court is satisfied that they are guilty of criminal contempt. The Cases of Kwan Siu Wang (HCMP 788/2015), Fung Kai Hei (HCMP 791/2015), Chiu Chi Sum (HCMP 783/2015) & Chan Po Ying (HCMP 784/2015) 23. Mr Kwan was seen staying close to the barricade before he was arrested. He and Mr Fung were seen either being present behind the barricade or emerging from a tent behind the barricade after the making of the 5th announcement. Mr Fung was standing within earshot when PW7 gave the first police warning. 24. Ms Chan was seen to be heading away from the barricades towards Tsim Sha Tsui direction at about 9:53 am The Court is of the view that she would have ample opportunities to leave the Area if she wanted to do so. Instead, she returned to the Area and was seen to be moving towards the Argyle direction when PW7 gave the final warning (§8 above). At about 11:11 am, Ms Chan was seen holding a loudhailer, and Mr Chiu was standing next to her and acting as a guide leading her to move backwards against the advance of the police checkline. 25. The Court has no doubt that their decision to stay in the Area had made the removal of the barricades substantially more difficult. Furthermore, Ms Chan and Mr Chiu were aware that they were required to leave the Area but chose not to leave. The Court’s comments as regards the presence of Ms Chu, Mr Kwok and Mr Hung at the Area (see §§20 & 21 above) are also applicable to these Respondents. Their presence together with the presence of other protestors put extra burden on the people responsible for clearing out the obstacles. Accordingly, their conducts were not only inherently likely to but did factually cause prejudice to or interference with the due administration of justice. Having considered all the evidence, the Court is satisfied that they are guilty of criminal contempt. The Case of Mak Ying Sheung (HCMP 796/2015) 26. Ms Mak is the only respondent who testified in these proceedings. It was her case that she joined the Hong Kong Independent Media as an intern journalist at the beginning of November 2014. She was present at the Area on 26 November 2014 intending to interview the protestors and to take some photographs. It was admitted that she overheard the warning given by the police, but Ms Mak claimed that she did not hear the content due to the noisy background. When she heard that the police requested the crowd not to obstruct the Bailiff in removing the obstacles, she wanted to leave. However, the police did not allow her to do so because she could not produce a journalist pass. She then returned to the front of the barricade. 27. At issue was whether Ms Mak was wrongly arrested as she was doing no more than her journalistic work. 28. Having heard the evidence and viewed all the relevant video footage, the Court does not find Ms Mak a credible witness. While the Court accepts that Ms Mak joined the Hong Kong Independent Media as an intern journalist, it does not find that she was given instructions by her employer to return to the Area on 26 November 2014. On the contrary, there was evidence showing that she and her employer would meet in the following Tuesday to discuss her work. Ms Mak presented no photographs taken by her, nor was there evidence suggesting that any journalistic works had been performed on the occasion. Video footage showed that Ms Mak had been looking at her phone, instead of interviewing protestors. There was also footage showing Ms Mak shouting and raising her arms along with other protestors. In such circumstances, having considered all the evidence, the Court comes to the conclusion that Ms Mak was not doing any journalistic work on that occasion, instead she joined in the protest along with other protesters. It was held that her presence created extra burden on the people who were responsible for clearing the obstacles. Her conducts were not only inherently likely to but did factually cause prejudice to or interference with the due administration of justice. Having considered all the evidence, the Court finds that she is guilty of criminal contempt. The Case of Wong Ho Ming (HCMP 798/2015) 29. Video footage showed that, when the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ solicitors made announcements at different road junctions, Mr Wong had repeatedly asked questions on (a) whether people present in the Area amounted to obstacles, (b) whether the Plaintiffs’ agents had been properly authorized, (c) how to ensure the content of the Amended Injunction Order being communicated to the people present at the Area, and (d) demanding the Bailiff to use a bigger loudhailer. His challenges to the Bailiff and the Plaintiffs’ solicitors were broadcast to the crowd. The Court finds that the way and manners adopted by Mr Wong were intended to a certain extent, ridicule the Plaintiffs’ solicitors and to incite the crowd to continue their defiance. 30. As the Court points out earlier, matters leading to the execution of the Amended Injunction Order were widely reported in the media. If Mr Wong had any questions or doubt regarding the scope or validity of the terms of the Amended Injunction Order, he could have sought further directions or clarification from the Court. 31. After the making of the 5th announcement, Mr Wong continued his challenge by demanding for the identity of the Plaintiffs’ agents and written authorisation. His presence and challenge created enormous burden for the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ agents. At the time of issuing the first warning by PW7 at about 10:03 am (§7 above), Mr Wong decided to remain in the Area and stood in front of the barricade. When the police moved in to effect arrest, he signalled that he had no weapon on his body. The Court finds that his presence and challenge to the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ agents were not only inherently likely to but did factually cause prejudice to or interference with the clearance operation hence the due administration of justice. Having considered all the evidence, the Court is satisfied that he is guilty of criminal contempt. [1][2012] 1 HKLRD 245 [2] Judgment dated 21 November 2014