HKSAR v Lau Chi Fung [2025] 1 HKLRD 208, [2023] HKCA 975

Steven Kwan and Pauline Leung represented the applicant in HKSAR v Lau Chi Fung [2025] 1 HKLRD 208, [2023] HKCA 975.

D was convicted of one count of riot, concerning protests that took place in Wong Tai Sin in October 2019. D called one defence witness, who testified that D was a member of Wong Tai Sin Division of St John Ambulance but no members were deployed on the day of the offence. It was not disputed that D was in fact a qualified first-aider and on the day in question, he was not wearing black and he had first-aid items with him. The Trial Judge found that D participated in the riot by way of encouragement, namely that he was at the scene as a first-aider acting in his personal capacity as support or back up to the other participants of the riot and that first-aid assistance would be given to them. His presence therefore helped boost the confidence of the participants. D sought leave to appeal against his conviction on the ground that the Trial Judge erred in inferring and finding, based on his outfit and equipment, that D, by his presence, took part in the riot by way of encouragement.

Held, refusing D’s application and dismissing the appeal against conviction, that:

• (1) Although D was not dressed in black, he was wearing an orange vest with the words “First Aid” which was eye-catching and easy to understand. This meant that he was able and willing to provide instant medical and first-aid services during the riot while in fact, he was not in any capacity to do so. D must have known that the participants of the riot were his main service target. (See para.30.)
• (2) D did not give evidence at trial. The Court could not and was not required to guess what kind of exculpatory reasons D had for being at the scene. This did not mean that there was a reversal of burden of proof. There was no way for the Court to understand why, after the outbreak of the riot at the latest, when “onlookers” had all left, D chose to stay there. (See para.31.)
• (3) Taking into account all the relevant evidence, the Trial Judge had sufficient grounds for finding that D encouraged the riot on the day by acting as support or back up. D must have known and intended that his conduct would boost the confidence of the participants. (See para.32.)
• (4) There was no distinction between “encouragement” and “active encouragement”. “Mere presence” in itself was not enough to constitute “encouragement”, and whether any additional act constituted “encouragement” would depend on the specific circumstances. The threshold was not high. Yet, such conduct must be intentional in furtherance of the riot. D, by wearing a first-aid vest and deliberately placing himself in the core area of the riot, did not fall into the category of “mere presence” (HKSAR v Lo Kin Man (2021) 24 HKCFAR 302 applied). (See paras.33-37.)

[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKLRD.]