Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/59

-59- fundamental change in Hong Kong, we are of the view that the Slogan still advocated a political agenda.

166. As set out above, we are sure that the Defendant’s acts at the material time were acts involving serious violence against persons and/or dangerous activities which seriously jeopardised public safety or security. We are also sure that such acts were aimed at challenging the law and order in Hong Kong and had indeed caused grave harm to the society.

167. We have no doubt that the Defendant did carry out the acts with a view to intimidating the public given the gross nature of what he did and the inevitable adverse impact it would have on law-abiding members of the public. He drove through some of the major thoroughfares of Hong Kong and his acts were done in open public view. It is untenable that the Defendant did not have the public reaction on his mind.

168. We are also sure that such intimidation was for the purpose of pursuing his political agenda, in that the intimidation was targeted against those in the community who did not support the said political agenda, thereby seeking to contain or suppress counter voices. An intimidation to a section of the public was intimidation to the public all the same for a society is made up of individuals and different groups of such individuals.

G.7 Coercing the CPG or the HKSARG

169. On the Prosecution’s submission that the Defendant did what he did with a view to coercing the CPG or the HKSARG, since we have