1. The appellant strongly opposed a project for extending the South-East New Territories landfill. She and several others staged demonstrations in the public gallery at two meetings of the Legislative Council’s Public Works Subcommittee when the project was discussed. 2. On the first occasion, she removed her jacket so that the characters 保衛將軍澳 (“Defend Tseung Kwan O”) were displayed on the T-shirt that she was wearing and also handed to another protester a paper poster depicting a Nazi Swastika with the characters 毒氣集中營 – 堆填區 (“Poison Gas Concentration Camp – Landfill”) which he displayed in the public gallery above the conference room. This led to a commotion as security guards sought to seize the sign, leading to one guard sustaining bruising on her left wrist. The incident caused the Subcommittee’s meeting to be prematurely adjourned. 3. On the second occasion, the appellant and several others in the public gallery chanted slogans and were warned by the Subcommittee’s chairman that they would be ejected if they did not stop. As they ignored the warnings and linked arms to resist ejectment, the meeting was adjourned and reconvened in a different conference room about an hour later with the public excluded from attendance. 4. The appellant was later convicted of contravening section 12(1) of the Administrative Instructions for Regulating Admittance and Conduct of Person, which provides that “No person shall, in a press or public gallery, display any sign, message or banner”. She was also convicted of contravening section 11 which requires persons entering or within the precincts of LegCo to behave in an orderly manner. 5. She argued on appeal that those sections violated her right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 16 of the Bill of Rights and so were unconstitutional. 6. Dealing with arguments made on both sides, the Court held first that the appellant’s right to freedom of expression was applicable. It was not excluded by virtue of LegCo having the right under the law of property to deny admittance to members of the public. 7. Second, the Court held that the principle that the Court should not intervene with the internal processes of the LegCo does not apply to its regulation of the admittance and conduct of strangers to the LegCo complex. In any case, that principle would have to give way since the Court is duty-bound to examine the validity of sections 11 and 12(1) in so far as they impose restrictions on the exercise of a constitutional right. 8. Third, the Court rejected the argument that section 11 is invalid because it lacks legal certainty. When properly interpreted in the light of its context and purpose, it makes it clear what precisely a person must avoid doing. 9. Fourth, the Court rejected the argument that the words of section 12 amounted to a blanket prohibition on the display of any sign, message or banner and thus were far too broad a restriction on the right to free expression. When properly interpreted, the section was aimed only at displays which entail the risk of disorder in public galleries and which may disturb LegCo sittings and the rights of others observing the proceedings. 10. The Court held that the restriction on the right to freedom of expression imposed by section 12 is proportionate and constitutionally valid. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.