Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/60

-60- found that the “intimidating” limb is proved, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the “coercion” limb. Suffice for us to say that we do have some reservation as to whether this element is made out in the present case. Lest there be any misunderstanding, our observation on this is, of course, confined to the present case and we are not expressing any opinion as to under what particular circumstances the “coercion” limb could or could not be proved for much would depend on the actual factual matrix.

170. We further note from the Prosecution’s submissions that their understanding of Article 24 is that the “coercion” limb is not linked to the element of “in order to pursue political agenda” which, according to them, is only relevant to the “intimidating” limb. Given the structure of and the language used in Article 24, we have reservation as to this interpretation of the Prosecution. However, as we have not heard any argument on this and as we do not find it necessary to deal with the “coercion” limb in this case, we should not be taken to have expressed any opinion on this matter one way or another.

H. Summary of findings

171. In summary, we are sure of the following:
 * (1) having regard to the natural and reasonable effect of displaying the flag with the words “ 光復香港 LIBERATE HONG KONG 時代革命 REVOLUTION OF OUR TIMES” on it and in the particular circumstances of this case, such display of