20 Hong Kong protesters to face punishment for contempt of court in Occupy case
Nine found guilty for obstructing bailiffs at Mong Kok rally site and will join 11 others in facing possible prison terms
Nine Hongkongers were convicted of criminal contempt of court on Friday in the latest round of prosecutions over the 2014 Occupy protests, and will face punishment along with 11 others, including jailed student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung.
The High Court will sentence all 20 at a later date over the common law offence, which carries no maximum sentence but can range from a fine to a jail term, lawyers said.
Mr Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai rejected the defence claim that the nine did not obstruct a court-ordered street clearance in Mong Kok in 2014, during 79 days of road blockades in the name of civil disobedience to fight for greater democracy.
Dozens of supporters rally round jailed activists at Occupy contempt trial
Twenty people were arrested for refusing to leave when bailiffs acting on a court order cleared the protest site on Nathan Road on November 26, 2014. Taxi and minibus drivers secured the court order, complaining that the protests blocking one of Kowloon’s busiest thoroughfares were affecting their livelihood.
The Department of Justice then started contempt of court proceedings against those arrested. Eleven of them, including Wong, who is currently serving a six-month jail sentence for another Occupy-related protest, admitted to the charge in July. But nine, including jailed political activist Raphael Wong Ho-ming, contested the charge and were put on trial.
During the trial, they insisted they had either failed to hear the announcements asking them to leave the site or were in the process of leaving when they were arrested.
But the judge disagreed. In a 44-page written judgment, he noted that the clearance operation had been publicised and it was “highly unlikely that any citizen of Hong Kong would misapprehend the situation”. Those who remained at the site knew precisely what they were doing, he said, and this caused “interference with the due administration of justice”.