The judge also reiterated that it was fundamental to the rule of law that court orders be obeyed, while adding that doxxing itself was a criminal activity with consequences that should have been considered whether there was an injunction or not.

The post contained the officer’s personal data, including his full name and identification number, which was extracted from a doxxing group on Telegram known as “Dadfindboy”.

“If this officer has a conscience, please surrender,” Cheng said in her public post, which was deleted in less than eight hours. “An eye for an eye!”

Cheng later apologised to the court and those affected, saying she had unintentionally breached the injunction, which she now “thoroughly regrets”. Her motivation, she said, was sympathy for the journalist, who reminded her of the Indonesian domestic helper who worked for her family.

Outside court, Cheng said she felt relieved and thanked the judge for accepting her apology.

Her case was the second enforcement action for breaching an interim High Court injunction prohibiting the doxxing and harassment of police officers and their families.

The order was issued last October 25 as the anti-government movement entered its fifth month and tensions between police and protesters continued to escalate. Officers complained of doxxing, while demonstrators accused police of using excessive force.

In June, designer Riyo Chan Oi-yau became the first person held liable for civil contempt of court in relation to the injunction after sharing a Facebook post containing the personal details of another police officer and his family. Her post also included an “eye for an eye” message.

Coleman, who presided over that case as well, said the starting point for sentencing should be immediate imprisonment, measured in months, but eventually suspended Chan’s 28-day sentence after “anxious consideration”. He included a postscript warning that future offenders may not be so fortunate in avoiding jail.

Cheng, who has held her council seat since 1994, became chairwoman after the opposition camp’s landslide victory in local elections last November.

She was arrested over the Facebook post on March 26 under the colonial-era offence of sedition, following a report by pro-establishment lawmaker Elizabeth Quat to the privacy watchdog, which then referred the case to the Department of Justice.

But the Post understands police have concluded investigations into the sedition charges and Cheng was unlikely to face further prosecution.

Cheng initially categorically denied knowledge of the injunction, but later admitted she was aware after police examined her phone and found she had received links to a news article and an online poll about the court action.

She then admitted liability for civil contempt of court on October 6.

On Monday, counsel Martin Ho, for the secretary for justice, asked the court to immediately jail Cheng, arguing her breach was aggravated by the fact she had occupied an important public office.

“The fact that a notable politician had engaged in doxxing activities against police officers would clearly set a bad example and send a wrong message to others in our society that such conduct may be tolerated and regarded as acceptable,” Ho said. “This must be an aggravating factor.”

The court also heard that Cheng’s Facebook page had a following of more than 30,000 users, and the post in question had 127 responses, 182 shares and 933 counts of “likes” and “angry”.

The officer subsequently received some 100 nuisance calls and found his personal details sprayed onto walls in Kwun Tong and Ma On Shan.

He also discovered he had been signed up for organ donations without his knowledge and was a victim of unsolicited deliveries and fraudulent loan applications.

His wife also received up to 300 nuisance calls since March, and became scared of going out alone for fear she might be harassed.

In mitigation, defence counsel Martin Lee Chu-ming SC asked for a bindover or a fine, arguing that Cheng was a person of good character who recklessly published the post because she had forgotten about the court order.

“You don’t punish a person for forgetting something,” Lee said. “We have a defendant standing before the court with a contrite heart.”

But the judge countered: “I don’t see it as punishment for forgetting something – the punishment imposed would be for the failure to be more cautious.”

Under the District Councils Ordinance, an elected councillor will be disqualified from holding office if he or she is convicted of an offence for which the person was “sentenced to imprisonment, whether suspended or not, for a term exceeding three months without the option of a fine” in Hong Kong or any other place. But this rule does not apply in Cheng case, which is a civil one.

She has since reviewed all of her online posts to see if they might potentially harm others or break the law, vowing to be more cautious about her future publications, the court heard.

Meanwhile, the Indonesian journalist has taken legal action to force the police commissioner to reveal the identity of the officer.

A subsequent hearing revealed that police have identified the officer who fired a rubber bullet at the time Veby was shot in the right eye, but could not confirm it was the shot that left her blind.

Chief Inspector Wilson Fan Chun-yip of the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau warned members of the public not to breach the injunction order, saying the force had referred 16 cases to the Department of Justice and arrested more than 10 people in relation to doxxing cases.

He added that up to 3,800 officers had been doxxed, and said the force would not arrest people merely based on their background, but would consider all available evidence.