|
HCMP 2917, 2918, 2925, 2929 & 2931/2015
[2022] HKCFI 2467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
NO 2917, 2918, 2925, 2929 AND 2931 OF 2015
-----------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE |
Applicant |
and |
| |
TANG LIN LING |
Respondent |
-----------------
| Before: |
Hon Andrew Chan J in Court |
| Date of hearing: |
4 June 2018 at 10.40 am |
| Present: |
Ms Maggie P K Wong, on fiat, for the applicant |
|
The respondent, in person |
| Offence: |
Contempt of Court |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: The respondent was found guilty of criminal contempt in the face of the court after a contested hearing. On 23 May 2018 the respondent was witnessed to have taken three photographs inside Court 28 of the High Court. As to the circumstances of her unlawful action, they can be found in my reasons for my decision and I am not going to repeat them.
This is the first criminal contempt case to have come before the High Court regarding unlawful taking of photographs inside the court. In terms of sentence there is no authority to follow in Hong Kong.
Taking photographs using mobile phones in court has become a problem and concern especially in criminal cases. The reason for this concern is obvious. In the High Court where a criminal trial is determined by a jury, taking photographs of the jurors, whether accidentally or deliberately, inevitably causes concern and unease among jurors. Jurors are also distracted from their task. They may be worried about reprisals. Jurors are very sensitive about that. The court must protect them from any form of unnecessary interference.
Once a jury has been empanelled they are protected and insulated from the general public as far as possible; they use separate staircases and lifts, they have their own waiting rooms. All these facilities are provided to ensure their privacy and safety.
Coming to court to listen to evidence, sometimes rather unpleasant evidence, and to determine the guilt of an accused may already be an intimidating experience itself. Any additional intimidation, such as their identities being revealed in social media, must be eliminated and guarded against.
Apart from jurors, all kinds of witness may also come to court to testify. Witnesses may come to court to testify under witness protection scheme. So witnesses who come under the witness protection scheme may come here to expose unlawful activities of drug syndicates or triad organisations. Co-accused may also testify against other accused in homicide cases. Victims of sexual assault may also come to testify in the High Court. Their identities and appearance on occasions must remain anonymous.
The anonymity of these witnesses and their safety are important issues. As such, illegal photography in court has every tendency to prejudice or interfere with the administration of justice.
In today’s world, photographs taken inside the court can easily be passed on to others through electronic means. The dissemination of these photographs is fast and is often non-retrievable. Once these photographs are in the hands of the bad elements, they can be misused. Photography in court must therefore be deterred.
Apart from the mischiefs mentioned above, in sentencing illegal photography in court, one must also bear in mind the nature of the proceedings, the disruption caused to the court and the potential misuse of the photographs in question.
In this case, although jury is not involved in the underlying proceedings, the underlying proceedings are highly politically charged. Video footage depicted fighting broke out between rival factions in the middle of large police presence. Two photographs taken by the respondent depict some of the respondents in the underlying proceedings, albeit because of the distance they are not readily identifiable.
As to the disruption of the court, that is self-evident. The underlying proceedings involving, I believe, eight counsel came to a complete halt. It is not difficult to imagine the costs being thrown away and this is all taxpayers’ money. In addition, two days had to be spent by this court in conducting the inquiry. The disruption is therefore considerable and expensive.
As to the misuse of those photographs, evidence has indicated that some photographs had already been uploaded onto the respondent’s WeChat account. Although there is no evidence to suggest that they are in bad hands, such risk cannot be completely ruled out.
To the respondent’s credit, she did show some remorse and tendered her apology to the court when giving evidence. As indicated, I also accept that she had no specific intention to interfere or obstruct the administration of justice. Her intention may well be simply to show off to her friends her presence in a Hong Kong court.
Having considered all the circumstances of the matter, a clang of the prison gate sentence may well be sufficient or justified in this case.
For the respondent’s act of criminal contempt she is sentenced to 7 days’ imprisonment. This, however, must not be taken that more severe punishment will not be passed in appropriate cases.
It is worthy to note sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment had been passed in the United Kingdom to a contemnor for taking illegal photography in court.
In conclusion, the respondent is sentenced to 7 days’ imprisonment for her act of criminal contempt.
This is all I wish to say about your sentence. I understand there is an application from the Secretary for Justice regarding costs.
|