Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/57

-57- G.5 Grave harm to the society?

161. As can be seen from Article 24 of the NSL, and based on our ruling on 29 April 2021, the Prosecution has to prove grave harm being caused or intended to be caused to the society when the Defendant committed the prohibited acts. In this connection, it should be noted that the ordinary meaning of the word “harm” as set out above is wide. Further, the acts itemised in Article 24(1) to (5) are of such a broad range that it could not be suggested that “grave harm” means only physical harm. For instance, under Article 24(4), interruption or sabotage of electronic control systems for providing and managing the internet, serious or otherwise, may not cause physical injury to persons. Harm therefore is not restricted to physical harm.

162. In our view, a blatant and serious challenge mounted against the police force which is charged with the responsibility of maintaining public safety and security, and thus a symbol of law and order, will certainly instill a sense of fear amongst the law-abiding members of the public, in particular, apprehension of a breakdown of a safe and peaceful society into a lawless one. In that event, grave harm would certainly be caused to the society.

163. Turning back to the present case, we have no doubt that the Defendant mounted a deliberate and serious challenge against the police force when he ignored all the police warnings to stop and charged through the checklines, each of which was composed of more than 10 officers, ultimately colliding into the group of officers at Checkline 4, causing injuries to 3 of them. Such acts, per se, were acts targeting the police officers at the scene but given that the police force is a symbol of