SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHENG KAM MUN

HCMP 2916 & 2923/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2916 OF 2015

_____________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2923 OF 2015

_____________________

_______________________________

R E A S O N S   F O R   S E N T E N C E

_______________________________

1.  The respondents appear before this court for determination of their sentence. They both admitted their liability for criminal contempt on the basis of the following facts.

The Admitted Facts

2.  As a result of what was generally known as the “Occupy Movement”, a significant part of the public highway in Mongkok, namely, the westbound carriageway of Argyle Street between the junction of Tung Choi Street and Portland Street and the streets nearby had been occupied by different individuals since late September 2014.  The general public was prevented to a varying extent from using the relevant roads/streets.  

3.  On 20 October 2014, Chiu Luen Public Light Bus Company Limited (“the Plaintiff”) in HCA 2086 of 2014 (“the underlying civil action”) made an ex parte application on notice for an injunction against persons unlawfully occupying or remaining on the public highway, namely, the westbound carriageway of Argyle Street between the junction of Tung Choi Street and Portland Street (“the Way” / “the Area”), and/or other persons hindering or preventing the passing or repassing of Argyle Street.  

4.  On the same day, an injunction order was granted until the return date on 24 October 2014.  

5.  The granting of the ex parte injunction order was widely reported in the mass media including, inter alia, English and Chinese newspapers with wide circulation in Hong Kong, major radio and television service providers such as Radio Television Hong Kong, Commercial Radio Hong Kong, and Television Broadcasts Limited, etc, and various sources on the internet.

6.  By a judgment dated 10 November 2014, the ex parte injunction was ordered to be continued (“the Injunction Order”).  The terms of the order made essentially were as follows: 

(1) the Defendant(s), and each of them, whether by themselves / himself, their / his servant(s) or agent(s) or any of them or otherwise howsoever be restrained from:

(i) preventing the demolition or removal by the Plaintiff of the temporary structures along the Way;

(ii) blocking up, or obstructing or permitting the blocking up or obstructing of the gateway, entrance or yard providing access from the Way; and

(iii) placing or allowing to be placed on the Way anything substantially restricting, preventing or otherwise interfering with the reasonable use of the Way;

(2) the bailiff be authorized to take all reasonable and necessary steps to assist the Plaintiff to effect the clearance and removal of the obstructions as provided in the Injunction Order;

(3) the bailiff be authorized and directed to request the assistance of the police where necessary;

(4) any police officer be authorized to arrest and remove any person who the police officer reasonably believes or suspects to be obstructing or interfering any bailiff in carrying out his or her duties; and

(5) any person so arrested by the police be brought before the Court, under lawful or legal processes, as soon as practicable for further directions.

7.  Applications for leave to appeal were dismissed by the Court of Appeal.  The dismissal of the applications was likewise widely reported by the local media.  

8.  The Injunction Order was served on the 1^st Defendant ^[1], by placing an advertisement in one Chinese and one English newspaper; and placing the Injunction Order in a clear plastic envelope and attached to a board or post, or other prominent location in the Way, together with a notice (in Chinese and English) notifying the Defendants:  

(1) of the obligations and rights of the 1^st Defendant; and

(2) that the 1^st Defendant could obtain copies of the Injunction Order and other relevant court documents by applying to the Plaintiff’s solicitors at an identified address during normal office hours upon payment of the usual photocopying charges.

9.  The service of the Injunction Order was widely reported by the local media.

10.  Prior to 25 November 2014, it was already widely reported in the local media that the Plaintiff and the bailiff were going to take action on 25 November 2014 to execute/carry out the Injunction Order. 

11.  On 25 November 2014, the bailiff executed the Injunction Order in Mongkok at the Plaintiff’s request. 

12.  At about 8:00 am, Sergeant Li Kwong (PW1) set up three loudspeakers and two metal stages at Argyle Street junction Nathan Road, and two loudspeakers and one metal stage at Argyle Street junction Portland Street. 

13.  Between 9:20 am and 9:26 am, in front of the barricades at Nathan Road near the junction of Argyle Street, Assistant Chief Bailiff Ms Chim Fung-ling, (PW2) accompanied the Plaintiff’s legal representative to make the following announcement through the loudhailer in the following terms:

“各位在場人士注意，我哋係司法機構執達事務組嘅執達主任。

根據高等法院案件編號2014 年第2086 號於2014 年11 月10 日所發出嘅命令，執達主任會協助原告人嘅合法代理人清除及移走阻塞介乎亞皆老街西行由通菜街至砵蘭街交界的公共道路上嘅障礙物，以防干擾原告人合理使用該道路。請上述範圍內嘅人士，立即收拾你哋嘅物品離開。

任何人士，如果作出任何阻礙執達主任執行職務嘅行為，將有機會觸犯藐視法庭罪，執達主任會要求警方協助作出拘捕行動。

以下時間會由原告人代表律師，宣讀臨時禁制令嘅內容。”

14.  From about 9:25 am to 9:30 am, Senior Inspector of Police Cheung Kin-pan (PW3) stood on a metal stage at Argyle Street junction Nathan Road and repeatedly made public announcements to the obstructing crowd at Argyle Street through the PA System.  He said that the police was carrying out an operation to assist the bailiff to clear away the obstacles at Argyle Street in accordance with the Court order but not including those solely on Nathan Road.  PW3 also repeatedly advised the obstructing crowd to take away their personal belongings and leave the scene in an orderly manner following the instructions of the bailiff, and not to obstruct the bailiff from performing their duty in accordance with the Court order. 

15.  Between 10:15 am and 10:16 am, bailiffs and the Plaintiff’s legal representative and agents returned to the barricades at Argyle Street.  Acting Assistant Chief Bailiff Mr Yu Tak-shun (PW4) announced through the loudhailer that the Injunction Order would be executed immediately and clearance action would be taken accordingly. 

16.  At about 10:16 am, 11:48 am and from 12:13 pm to 12:22 pm, the agents of the Plaintiff made several attempts to clear the barricades and the tents located within the Area.  Verbal warnings were given by PW2 on a number of occasions when protestors interfered with or impeded the operation during the attempts. Clarification was made by the Plaintiff’s solicitors at the scene through the loudhailer that human beings refusing to leave the Area would also constitute obstruction under the Court order.

17.  In the meantime, PW3 repeated the public announcements at the metal stage at Argyle Street junction Nathan Road from 11:55 am to 12:00 pm.

18.  At about 12:25 pm, the situation became too chaotic and the bailiffs were prevented from executing the Injunction Order.  In this light, Chief Bailiff, Mr Kwan Sek-nam Sunny (PW5) made a formal request to the police for assistance.  Almost at the same time, PW2 gave yet another verbal warning to the crowd.

19.  At about 12:26 pm, PW2 warned the obstructing crowd in the Area again that they should not obstruct the bailiff to carry out its duties in execution of the Court order.

20.  At about 12:46 pm, PW2 together with other bailiffs and the agents of the Plaintiff reached the section of Argyle Street outside the Mongkok HSBC Centre.  Further clarification of the Court order was made by the Plaintiff’s solicitors in response to purported queries by the crowd. 

21.  At about 1:09 pm, PW5 (who was at the section of Argyle Street outside the Mongkok HSBC Centre and about to reach the section outside “Little Sheep”) indicated to the obstructing crowd that they could have 30 minutes to take away the materials.  At the same time, PW2 gave another warning to the obstructing crowd in the Area requesting them to leave with their belongings packed.

22.  At about 1:50 pm, the Plaintiff’s agents and bailiffs formed a check line with police officers following them from behind.  Afterwards, the check line moved gradually towards Portland Street along Argyle Street with the view to clearing the Area in execution of the Injunction Order.  However, the way was blocked by reporters and masked crowd who were facing the check line.  PW2 requested the reporters and the crowd to disperse through Portland Street.  However, instead of dispersing, some members of the crowd moved towards the check line thereby deliberately obstructing the bailiff in its attempt to clear up the Area.

23.  At about 2:25 pm, whilst being stalled by the obstructing crowd at the check line, PW2 announced the gist of the Injunction Order and requested the obstructing crowd to leave through Portland Street. Immediately afterwards, PW2 made a further warning to the obstructing crowd that their conduct had obstructed bailiffs in the execution of their duties and in doing so they might commit the offence of contempt of court.  The police would be requested to take arrest actions.

24.  At about 2:35 pm, PW2 requested the police to take immediate action.  Therefore, the police started to take part in controlling the crowd at the scene whereas all bailiffs retreated behind the check line. At the same time, the agents of the Plaintiff continued removing the barricades where permissible.  The crowd however continued their obstruction by deliberately remaining in the Area confronting the check line and refusing to leave.

25.  Immediately afterwards, Chief Inspector of Police Lam Chi-yuen (PW6), who was in the check line, issued a verbal warning to the obstructing crowd in Chinese and English in the following terms:

“前面人群注意。這是警方發出的警告。高等法院的執達主任，正在此根據高等法院的命令，清除及移走路上的障礙物。高等法院命令的副本，已在附近張貼，並已在報章刊登。執達主任/代表原告人的律師亦已在這裡現場解釋法院命令的要點。任何人阻礙或干擾執達主任及協助執達主任的人員執行高等法院的命令，可能違反法院命令和阻礙司法工作。這些行為可能構成刑事藐視法庭和干犯香港法例第228 章《簡易程序治罪條例》第23 條的抗拒或阻礙公職人員罪，干犯此兩項的任何一項，都可被判監禁及罰款，此外，這些行為亦可能構成其他的刑事罪行。你們必須立即停止阻礙或干擾執達主任及協助執達主任的人員，否則你們可能會被拘捕及檢控。

This is a Police warning to the crowd in front of me. The bailiffs of the High Court are now clearing and removing the obstructions here in accordance with an order / orders of the High Court.  Copies of the order(s) is / are displayed nearby and has/have been published in the newspapers.  Bailiffs / solicitors acting for the plaintiff(s) have explained the gist of the court order(s) here.  Any person who obstructs or interferes with any bailiff or person assisting him in enforcing the High Court order(s) may be in breach of court order(s) and obstructing administration of justice. Such conduct may constitute criminal contempt of court and an offence of Resisting or Obstructing a public officer under section 23 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228)^[2]. Either of these may result in imprisonment and a fine.  Furthermore, such conduct may also constitute other criminal offences.  You must immediately stop your obstruction and interference with the bailiffs and those assisting them, otherwise you may be arrested and prosecuted.”

26.  At about 2:44 pm, PW6 gave a final verbal warning to the obstructing crowd in Chinese and English in the following terms:

“前面人群注意。這是警方發出的最後警告。你們必須立即停止阻礙或干擾高等法院執達主任及協助他們的人員清除及移走路上的障礙物。如你們不立即停止，警方會按涉嫌刑事藐視法庭，抗拒或阻礙公職人員罪，和你們已涉嫌干犯的其他罪行拒捕你們，如有必要會使用最低的武力執行拘捕，而不會再作任何警告。

This is the final warning made by the Police to the crowd in front of me.  You must immediately stop obstructing or interfering with bailiffs of the High Court or those assisting them in clearing and removing the obstructions on the road.  If you do not stop immediately, police officers will arrest you for suspected criminal contempt of court, resisting or obstructing a public officer, and other offences which you are suspected to have committed, and police officers will use minimum force for making arrests if necessary.  No further warning of arrest will be issued before arrest action.”

27.  At about 3:02 pm, PW6 told the police officers at the scene to first ask the obstructing crowd to leave voluntarily and then arrest those refusing to comply.

28.  As a consequence of hearing the warnings, some members of the crowd left upon being urged or warned by police officers at various times. 

The Arrest of Mr Cheng Kam Mun

29.  Mr Cheng was subdued and arrested by Detective Senior Police Constable 23222 for the two offences at around 3:08 pm.  After arrest, Mr Cheng was brought back to Cheung Sha Wan Police Station for further enquiry. 

30.  During the operation, several police video teams were deployed to capture the incident.  As revealed from available evidence, it is clear that Mr Cheng was found present in the Area for an extended period of time prior to and during the execution of the Injunction Order:

Approximate Time	Particulars of the Acts of the respondent
9:48 am	He stood on a stage placed in Argyle Street near the junction of Nathan Road with his face masked and with a hood put on.
11:36 am	He stood next to the stage.
1:00 pm	He stood next to the stage holding a yellow banner.
1:20 pm	He walked into Argyle Street from a pavement near Portland Street holding a yellow banner.  After around 2 minutes, he left Argyle Street.
1:43 pm	He was found standing among the crowd in Argyle Street near the junction of Nathan Road with his face masked and the hood taken off.
1:44 pm	He was found standing among the crowd in Argyle Street near the junction of Nathan Road with his face masked and the hood put on.
2:48 pm	He stood in front of the Police check line at Argyle Street near the junction of Nathan Road holding an amplifier.
3:03 pm	He was still found in the crowd holding an amplifier when the Police check line was moving forward in Argyle Street outside HSBC.
3:08 pm	He was arrested by the Police.

The Arrest of Mr Au Yuk Kwan

31.  On the other hand, Mr Au was found to be present in the Area at 3:04 pm and he stayed in the crowd and obstructed the crowd to move backward.  He was arrested by Detective Police Constable 58295.

32.  In the premises, the two respondents:

(1) were in the Area, and in the case of Mr Cheng, for an extended period of time and ought to have heard the repeated requests and warnings made by the bailiff / police officers prior to the arrest;

(2) had ample opportunities to leave the Area prior to the arrest but decided against doing so; and

(3) the actions taken by them constituted a breach of the Injunction Order.  By reason of the aforesaid, both of the respondents ought to have been aware of their breach and the breach was intentional.

33.  The deliberate acts of the respondents identified above, together with their determination to continue flouting the Injunction Order, constituted interference and/or impediment to the due administration of justice by obstructing or resisting the police and/or bailiff in executing the Injunction Order, and therefore amounted to criminal contempt of court.

The Principle in Dealing Contempt

34.  The Court of First Instance of the High Court is a superior court of record.  It has been invested with power to maintain its authority and to prevent its process being obstructed and abused.

35.  A criminal contempt is engaged where there is a serious interference with the due administration of justice.  Criminal contempt proceedings become the means for the court to ensure that conducts or activities calculated to undermine the administration of justice are properly addressed.  The object of the sentence is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order and to serve a coercive function by holding the threat of future punishment as means of securing the protection which the order was primarily there to do. 

36.  In relation to sentencing, the common law power to punish for criminal contempt was described by Lord Denning MR in Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114 in the following manner:

“The powers at common law remain intact. It is a power to fine or imprison, to give an immediate sentence or to postpone it, to commit to prison pending his consideration of the sentence, to bind over to be of good behavior and keep the peace, and to bind over to come up for judgment if called upon. These powers enable the judge to give what is, in effect, a suspended sentence.”

37.  In addition to common law powers, there are specific provisions under Order 52 of the Rules of High Court which deal with penalties in contempt cases.  The power to punish for contempt of court may be exercised by an order of committal.  Moreover, the court may by order direct that the execution of the order of committal shall be suspended for such period or on such terms or conditions as it may specify.  The power to require a person guilty of contempt of court to pay a fine or to give security for good behavior has been expressly preserved. 

38.  In Secretary for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee Lisa [2011] 1 HKC 349, Chu J (as she then was) after reviewing a number of authorities, identified the relevant principles:

“Relevant principles

9. The court has a wide discretion as to the sanction to be imposed for contempt of court.  Sanction for contempt ranges from a fine to a term of imprisonment. 

10. In civil contempt, which covers breach of court order and undertaking to court, the primary concern in sentencing is to demonstrate to litigants that orders of the court are to be obeyed: Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Lam Ming Chi [1998] 4 HKC 320 at 336E. In modern times, imprisonment is regarded as a sanction of last resort.  However, where there has been deliberate and repeated breach of court orders and undertaking, a term of imprisonment is appropriate: Excel Noble Development Ltd v Wah Nam Group Ltd [2001] 4 HKC 148, at 162; Oriental Daily publisher Ltd v Ma Chiu Sing [2009] 2 HKLRD 558; and Citybase Property Management Ltd v Kam Kyun Tak (No 2) [2003] 2 HKC 108.  Further in cases of deliberate breaches of orders, the court has to take into account public interest in the administration of justice: Citybase Property Management Ltd v Kam Kyun Tak (No 2) at para 9.

11. In criminal contempt, which involves interference with the administration of justice, a term of imprisonment is generally called for: see R v Montgomery [1995] 2 All ER 28, at 32j.  This is particularly the case where the interferences are grave and contumelious and contumacious: see for example Secretary for Justice v The Oriental Press group [1998] 2 HKLRD 293, at 172-176 and Secretary for Justice v Choy Bing Wing [2005] 4 HKC 416 at 445-450.

12. In considering the penalty to be imposed, the court will have regard to the facts of the case.  The acts of contempt, its nature and volume, the circumstances in which the contempt is committed as well as the gravity of the interference with the due administration of justice are the relevant considerations.”

39.  In ACCC v Chaste Corporation Pty Ltd (No 6)(2013) 223 FCR 426, the Australian court points out a number of relevant factors which may be taken into account in determining the penalty for a proved contempt, which include: (i) the contemnor’s personal circumstances; (ii) the nature and circumstances of the contempt; (iii) the effect of the contempt on the administration of justice; (iv) the contemnor’s culpability; (v) the need to deter the contemnor and others from repeating contempt; (vi) the absence or presence of a prior conviction for contempt; (vii) the contemnor’s financial means; (viii) whether the contemnor has exhibited genuine contrition and made a full and ample apology; (ix) whether the conduct falls within the most serious category of criminal contempt cases, such as to warrant the imposition of a term of imprisonment; (x) whether or not imprisonment is a “last resort” penalty in the circumstances of the case.

40.  Further, the High Court of Australia has emphasised the need for an effective remedy for contempt of court in Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98 at 115 (Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Deane JJ):

“Contempt of court is a distinctive offence attracting remedies which are sui generis: Morris v Crown Office (90). It is required of the chosen remedy that it be effective, no more but no less. For, if it is not effective, serious and lasting damage to the fabric of the law may result.”

41.  As far as large-scale protest in defiance of a court order is concerned, a helpful analysis of the considerations to be taken into account can be found in the Canadian decision of R v Bridges (No 2) (1989) 48 CCC (3d) 545.  That case involved an organized, large-scale and deliberate defiance of an injunction restraining the protesters from interfering with the operation of a pregnancy counselling and abortion services clinic. 

42.  The Canadian court placed emphasis on the “primary consideration to the principle of deterrence” where the rule of law was challenged in such a manner.  Its reasoning is summarized in the headnote:

“The contempt of court in this case was serious, representing as it did a challenge to the rule of law. There can be no more sinister or more threatening contemptuous conduct than that of organized, large scale, deliberate defiance of an order of the court. This requires that the court in sentencing the accused give primary consideration to the principle of deterrence. The sentence to be imposed must be such as to deter the accused and others like them from committing such an offence. The court must also take into account the fact that none of the accused acknowledged that they had erred and none of them offered any assurance that they would not commit further offences. On the other hand there were mitigating factors. There was a very real possibility that the strength and sincerity of the accused’s belief led them to an error in judgment. As well, they may have acted upon an erroneous understanding of the serious nature of the conduct and the court’s responsibility when faced with this kind of conduct. Finally, it may be that the accused were led astray by the leaders who were responsible for devising the strategy by which over 100 law-abiding citizens were encouraged, if not induced, to commit a criminal act.”

43.  In passing sentence, Wood J in R v Bridges (No 2) made cogent observations as to the threat to the rule of law which was posed by the defiance of the injunction at pages 547-549:

“What is very much at issue and before this court is the future survival of the rule of law. It is the rule of law which distinguishes civilized society from anarchy. Everything which we have today, and which we cherish in this free and democratic state, we have because of the rule of law. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression exist today because of the rule of law. Your right to hold the beliefs you do, to espouse those beliefs with the fervour which you do, and to attempt to persuade others to your point of view, exists only because of the rule of law. Without the rule of law there is only the rule of might. Without the rule of law the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which some of you sought to invoke, would be nothing but another piece of parchment adrift in the timeless evolution of man's history.

…

Your conduct does not embarrass this court, it challenges its very existence.  The breach of an order of this court is not a crime against the judge who issued it, it is an attack upon the institution itself – that institution which alone stand between the rule of law and anarchy.  The inherent jurisdiction of this court to punish for contempt does not exist for the purpose of preserving judicial vanity.  It is the sole device by which the court can ensure its own continued effectiveness in the struggle to preserve the rule of law.  Thus it is that the more serious the contempt the more serious the threat to the rule of law.  In the whole spectrum of conduct classified as contemptuous, there can be none more sinister or more threatening than that of organized, large scale, deliberate defiance of an order of the court.”

I entirely endorse Wood J’s view.  With the sentiment as expressed, I come to deal with the two respondents. 

HCMP 2916/2015

44.  The respondent in this matter Mr Cheng was at the material time 26.  He was employed as an assistant to one Legislative Councillor and making $15,000 a month.

45.  It can be seen from the police video that Mr Cheng had been found in the Area for a prolonged period of time.  He was seen to be carrying a yellow banner and also an amplifier at different stages.  He was seen wearing a mask and a hood but his face and profile could clearly be seen. 

46.  Judging from the period of time that he stayed at the Area and the paraphernalia that he carried, it can hardly be disputed that his involvement in the occupation, thus his conducts in contempt, was extensive and deep.  There is little doubt that he was involved in the organization of the occupation of the Area.  His conducts constituted a flagrant defiance of the Injunction Order on the day in question.

47.  Not only did Mr Cheng pay little respect to the Injunction Order, he was also late to the court on the day of his hearing.  In the course of the proceedings, he was found to be toying with his mobile phone till he was ordered to stop.  Little remorse has been shown by Mr Cheng.  I do not accept that he has purged the contempt.  It therefore comes with no surprise that following the present incident, he was involved in another case which resulting in him being convicted of obstructing public officers in the execution of their duty and sentenced to 21 days’ imprisonment.  Since that event took place afterwards, it will not affect any penalty imposed.

48.  Bearing in mind the extensiveness of his contempt and the matters to which I have referred, it appears clear that the appropriate option opened to the court is one of immediate imprisonment.  Having considered past precedents both in Hong Kong as well as other common law jurisdictions, it is ordered that Mr Cheng to serve an imprisonment term of 3 months.

HCMP 2923/2015

49.  The respondent in this matter Mr Au Yuk Kwan was at the material time 21.  He was a casual waiter earning $10,000 per month.  In mitigation, it was submitted by Mr McCoy that Mr Au had no political affiliation to any party or organization.  He was present at the barricades simply to show his support for the “Occupy Movement”.  It was further submitted that Mr Au did not have any specific intention in challenging the court. Because of his limited education level, Mr Au was not fully aware of the role played by the police, though he did have the necessary knowledge regarding the existence of the court order.  Further, Mr Au had also unreservedly apologized to the court and pleaded for leniency.  It was hence submitted that the contempt committed by Mr Au was towards to lower end of the spectrum and warranted a non-immediate custodial sentence.

50.  I agree.

51.  I have the opportunity in watching the police’s video, thus Mr Au’s activities during the final stage when the police was clearing up the barricades.  Essentially what Mr Au did was no more than refusing to leave the scene when repeated announcements had been made by the bailiffs and police officers.  When being arrested by police officers, he also put up struggle, causing minor scratches on the forearm of one police officer.  I however accept that the injuries caused to the police officer might have been accidental rather than intentional given the chaotic circumstances at the time. 

52.  Bearing in mind the limited role played by Mr Au and his personal circumstances, his age, educational level, clear record and the extent of his involvement, a suspended sentence combined with a fine in my view will exert sufficient deterrent effect. 

53.  With the above in mind, Mr Au will be fined a sum of $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Mr Au will have 3 months to pay the sum.  In default, he will go to prison for one month. 

Costs

54.  The respondents do pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings including all costs reserved on an indemnity basis. The respondents’ own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

[1] ie the original Defendant being “Persons unlawfully occupying or remaining on the public highway namely, the westbound carriageway of Argyle Street between the junction of Tung Choi Street and Portland Street and/or other persons hindering or preventing the passing or repassing of Argyle Street.”

[2] Hereinafter referred to as “the two offences”