Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/58

-58- law and order, the Defendant’s act in charging through the various checklines resulting in the said collision clearly illustrates his intention to disrupt the maintenance of law and order, thereby rendering law-abiding citizens to fear for their own safety and to worry about the public security of Hong Kong. If any example is required, we note ordinary citizens like PW12 and his passenger were shocked by what happened. Grossman suggested that such was only the normal reaction when one witnessed a traffic accident. We do not agree. What they witnessed was not just an ordinary traffic accident; it was a person overtaking a stationary car, continuing on despite police warnings, and finally crashing into the police officers in the execution of their duty.

G.6 Did the Defendant carry out the acts with a view to intimidating the public in order to pursue a political agenda?

164. As noted above, the Defence Experts had never disputed that the Slogan was capable of bearing a secessionist meaning, though they maintained that the Slogan was ambiguous and that there was no single correct meaning. Following our assessment of the evidence concerning the way and manner in which the Defendant displayed the Slogan and given his understanding, we are sure that the Defendant’s intention was to arouse public attention on the agenda of separating the HKSAR from the PRC, which clearly is a political agenda.

165. Even if we were wrong in finding that the Defendant understood the Slogan to mean Hong Kong Independence and adopted that meaning when displaying the flag, given the Defence Experts’ opinion as elucidated in their report and oral evidence that the Slogan could mean a desire to recover what was lost and the need for a