Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/46

-46- 132. We agree with the Prosecution’s submission that as demonstrated by his driving route, having passed through Checkline 1 and Checkline 2, the Defendant could have left the scene along Hennessy Road and travelled to Causeway Bay. Instead, the defendant made a turn from Hennessy Road to Fleming Road and then another turn to Lockhart Road; thereafter he further drove past Checkline 3 turning into Jaffe Road. The Defendant’s intention to target police checklines on the material day is beyond dispute.

133. Based on the Defendant’s driving route that afternoon, we reject the Defence’s suggestion that he was avoiding the Police. Instead, the Defendant must have been (i) directing his actions against police officers at police checklines challenging the law and order; and (ii) at the same time parading around the area whilst flying the flag with the Slogan on his back.

G.2 Meaning of the Slogan and incitement to commit secession

134. As concluded in paragraph 34 above, the issue before the court is: having regard to the natural and reasonable effect of displaying the flag with the Slogan on it in the particular circumstances of this case and when viewed as a whole, is such display of the Slogan capable of inciting others to commit secession. However, before we could deal with this issue, we have to first examine whether the Slogan as at 1 July 2020 was capable of carrying the relevant secessionist meaning, namely, separating the HKSAR from the PRC.