Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/53

-53- understanding of the meaning of the Slogan and if he did not understand it to convey the meaning of Hong Kong Independence, he would not be mentioning the location of a “safe spot”. Whether it was in fact a “safe spot” or not, it showed the Defendant’s state of mind at the time. Equally, Dinosaur BB would not need, in the dialogue with the Defendant, to repeatedly tell the Defendant to take care if the Defendant was merely trying to display a flag conveying innocent meaning.

149. We also find the Defendant’s repeated challenge to the police checklines, a symbol of law and order, a clear illustration of his determination to attract as much public attention as possible and to leave a great impact and a strong impression on the people.

150. Considering all the above, we are sure that, as evidenced by the convoluted route he chose, the Defendant was out there deliberately displaying the flag. We are also sure that the Defendant fully understood the Slogan to bear the meaning of Hong Kong Independence and by displaying, in the manner he did, the flag bearing the Slogan, the Defendant intended to convey the secessionist meaning of the Slogan as understood by him to others and he intended to incite others to commit acts separating the HKSAR from the PRC.

151. The Defendant was not simply meeting his friends for lunch as testified by DW3 and we reject her evidence on this. Mr Grossman also suggested that the Defendant was a first-aider trying to help out on the day, but there was no evidence before us as to this. In any event, the suggestion did not sit well with DW3’s evidence that the Defendant was planning to join them for lunch in Causeway Bay that day.