Lawyers HK Zoom Forum 19 June 2020 – Privacy Notice

The personal data collected in this form (“the Data”) will be used by Lawyers HK Limited (“Lawyers HK”) for the purposes of considering and processing your registration (“the Registration”) to attend the legal forum to be held on 19 June 2020, making logistical arrangements, compiling statistics and keeping records of your attendance, facilitating the applications for Continuing Professional Development and/or Risk Management Education accreditation of such forum if we consider appropriate, other related matters and/or keeping you informed of any future activity of Lawyers HK at Lawyers HK’s discretion.

In order for Lawyers HK to process the Registration, it is obligatory for you to supply Lawyers HK with the Data requested in this form except as otherwise indicated. The consequence for you if you fail to supply such Data is that Lawyers HK will not be able to process the Registration.  

The Data may be provided to such persons within Lawyers HK whose proper business it is to have access to and assist in the processing of the Registration and related matters.  The Data may also be provided to the CPD course facilitators / workshop leaders / presenters, the Law Society of Hong Kong and other persons who may help Lawyers HK in attaining the purposes mentioned above.  

Any Data that is provided to anyone outside of Lawyers HK will be restricted to what is necessary and not excessive to achieve any intended purpose.

You have the right to request access to and correction of the Data. Any such request should be addressed to the data protection officer of Lawyers HK at

Completing the Registration is not a guarantee that you will have a seat in the legal forum. Whether registrants will be assigned seats shall be at Lawyers HK’s discretion taking into account the timing of the registration and other factors it considers appropriate.


#披露 受 #廉政公署 調查人士身分等資料是否違法?

根據香港法例第201章 《#防止賄賂條例》第30(1)條,任何人明知或懷疑就任何被指稱或懷疑已犯第II部份所訂罪行的調查正在進行,如無合法權限或合理辯解,而向(a) 該受調查人披露他正受調查的事實或該項調查的任何細節;或 (b)公眾、部分公眾或任何特定人士披露該受調查人的身分或該受調查人正受調查的事實或該項調查的任何細節,即屬犯罪,一經定罪,可處 #罰款$20,000及 #監禁1年

Under Section 30(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), any person who, while knowing or suspecting that an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II is taking place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to (a) the person who is the subject of the investigation (the subject person) the fact that he is subject to, or any details of, such investigation; or (b) the public, a section of the public or any particular person the identity of the subject person or the fact that the subject person is subject to, or any details of, such investigation, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

其實郭榮鏗究竟代表誰⁉️⁉️⁉️🧐 Who does Dennis Kwok still represent⁉️⁉️⁉️🧐

#香港大律師公會 及 #香港律師會
就 在 高 等 法 院 大 樓 上 的 辱 駡 性 塗 鴉 之 聲 明

香 港 大 律 師 公 會 及 香 港 律 師 會 關 注 傳 媒 報 導 於 2020 年 1 月 1 日 在 高 等 法 院 大 樓 上 具 名 針 對 法 官 的 辱 駡 性 塗 鴉 。 有 關 塗 鴉 令 人 髮 指 並 應 予 以 嚴 正 譴 責 。

《 #基本法 》 第 八 十 五 條 規 定 , 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 法 院 獨 立 進 行 審 判 , 不 受 任 何 干 涉 。 法 院 所 作 出 的 判 決 , 其 分 析 和 理 據 均 詳 細 刊 載 於 判 決 書 中 。 如 要 挑 戰 法 院 的 裁 決 , 上 訴 才 是 恰 當 的 程 序 。

有 關 辱 罵 性 言 論 暗 示 司 法 裁 決 是 基 於 或 受 到 政 治 考 慮 影 響 而 作 出 , 這 是 完 全 沒 有 根 據 的 。 任 何 基 於 法 官 在 履 行 司 法 職 責 時 的 決 定 , 而 侮 辱 或 威 嚇 法 官 和 任 何 企 圖 向 法 官 施 加 公 眾 壓 力 的 行 為 , 都 是 對 法 治 和 司 法 誠 信 的 侮 辱 。

香 港 律 師 會 及 香 港 大 律 師 公 會 強 烈 譴 責 這 些 違 法 行 為 , 並 重 申 其 致 力 捍 衛 香 港 的 法 治 和 司 法 獨 立 的 共 同 決 心 。

Joint Statement of The Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong on graffiti concerning a judge on High Court Building

The Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong note media reports referring to the abusive graffiti against a named judge on the High Court building on 1 January 2020. The graffiti are outrageous and firmly condemned.

Article 85 of the Basic Law provides that the courts of Hong Kong shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. The analysis and reasoning on which a court makes a decision are set out in detail in a judgment. The proper procedure for challenging a court’s decision is by way of an appeal.

Abusive comments implying that judicial decisions were made or influenced by political considerations are wholly unjustified. Any attempt to insult, threaten and bring public pressure on a judge because of decisions made in the course of performing judicial duties is to be deplored as an affront to the rule of law and judicial integrity.

The Law Society of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong Bar Association strongly deplore these criminal acts and reiterate their joint commitment to defend the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong.


# 公民黨法律界議員 #郭榮鏗 對有人對法官做出人身攻擊,#只是表示#遺憾」及指這些行為屬於「 #不恰當」。然而,郭榮鏗同時又聲稱守護法治的最大責任在於政府,在過去半年的政治風波中,市民非常清楚看到政府濫權,警察濫捕以及濫用暴力,未受檢控才是破壞法治的真正元兇。

Dennis Kwok : personal attack on judges is regrettable

Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, who represents the legal sector, expressed only “regret” and called the conduct “inappropriate” after learning about the personal attack on a judge.

However, Kwok at the same time alleged that while the government has the responsibility to safeguard the rule of law, abuse of power by authorities and indiscriminate use of violence by the police, both unchecked, are what is actually damaging the rule of law.

刑事毀壞 & 藐視法庭


根據香港法例第200章 《#刑事罪行條例》 第60條,任何人摧毀或損壞屬於他人的財產,一經定罪,最高刑罰為 #監禁十年


對法官及司法人員作出 #人身攻擊 及 #辱駡,甚至是向他們作出威嚇,是嚴重挑戰法治及企圖影響司法獨立的行為。藐視法庭涵蓋多種不同的行為。發布誹謗法院或司法人員的言論有可能構成 #藐視法庭,一經定罪,可被判處 #罰款 及 #監禁

Criminal damage

Under Section 60 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), any person who destroys or damages any property belonging to another shall, upon conviction, be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Contempt of court

Personal attacks, insults and even threats against judges and judicial officers would severely undermine the rule of law and put pressure on judicial independence. Contempt of court covers a wide range of conducts. Scandalising the court or judicial officers may constitute contempt of court, and once convicted, shall be punishable by fines and imprisonment.

新年新希望,緩和香港的緊張氣氛 New Year Resolutions to Ease Hong Kong’s Tensions

#香港律師 – 新年新希望,緩和香港的緊張氣氛


1. #爭取和平#停止暴力



每一個人都應該 #譴責暴力,並盡力停止「示威者」的暴力及破壞行為。在暴力面前選擇沉默等同默許暴力及間接支持這些令人髮指的罪行。示威者的訴求並不能靠暴力解決,而應該通過真誠的溝通來處理。

2. #維護法治,恪守法律,耐心尋求真相











(i) 核實重要事實



(ii) #傳媒及假新聞



(iii) #教育工作



(iv) #檢控 及 #司法程序


(v) #警察


(vi) #獨立檢討


(vii) 基本法有關事項


(viii) 重建香港的資金來源


(ix) 房屋、就業、醫療及其他事項


(i) 在政府機構或其他地點內進行面對面溝通(如果可以)
(iv) 向廣大市民發出邀請參與討論
(v) 如有需要限制參與者的數目,可通過由會計師或其他專業人士監督以隨機抽樣形式作出篩選
(vi) 可以小組進行討論,並包括由沒有政治背景的律師或其他專業人士作為促進者,以及政府代表
(vii) 如果討論涉及某一界別或羣體,例如傳媒、教育工作或警察,該界別或羣體的代表亦應出席
(viii) 每一參與者應有公平的機會發表意見及聆聽
(ix) 小組討論並不是一次性的,並應該繼續進行直至有關事項已經得到充分討論
(x) 討論的內容可以被公開,但參與者的姓名及個人資料應予以保密

Lawyers HK – New Year Resolutions to Ease Hong Kong’s Tensions

Hong Kong’s social unrest has been continuing for months, exposing deep fissures within our society. As we enter the New Year and a new decade, we urge all Hong Kong residents to come together and seriously attempt to find a solution. We must all actively take steps to work towards the following to ease Hong Kong’s tensions:

1. Strive for Peace, Stop Violence

We should all strive for peace. Violence is never an option. The “we burn, you burn” slogan has not resulted in any progress towards utopia, but instead caused death, serious personal injuries, destruction and damage.

The list goes on. The cost is incalculable and continues to rise. This must stop.

Each and every one of us should condemn violence and do our part to stop the violence, destruction and disruptions caused by “protesters”. Silence in the face of violence is acquiescence and gives implicit support to those who perpetrate these heinous acts. The protesters’ concerns cannot be addressed by violence. Instead, they should be dealt with via genuine communication as we propose below.

2. Uphold the Rule of Law, Abide by the Law, Seek the Truth with Patience

The rule of law is paramount in Hong Kong and this cannot be upheld if we choose to comply with some laws but not others. We call upon protesters not to break the law. We also ask the police to use only the minimum necessary force when bringing to justice criminals who break the law.

We should keep an open mind in processing and understanding facts and context and avoid jumping to conclusions prematurely without verifying material facts or while the judicial process is ongoing. We demand those in a position of influence, such as politicians, the media and teachers, to ensure that their public assertions and commentaries are based on facts and not mere suspicions or speculations.

3. Do Justice through Proper and Speedy Prosecution and Court Processes

Justice must be done through proper prosecution and court processes. Any case of alleged abuse or illegality, whether on the part of protesters, police officers or other persons, should be dealt with properly under existing procedures. Further, thousands of persons have been arrested. We should push for increasing resources and other means to speed up the prosecution and court processes for offenders, such as special riot courts which were used in the UK to handle the 2011 riots.

4. Engage in Genuine Communication

We urge the Government to properly take time to embark on and continue with genuine communication and consultation with Hong Kong residents on important issues relating to the unrest, and take steps to allow trust and confidence to be re-built with people. We hope that after meaningful communication, the Government will have a good grasp of the views of different participants and come up with a proposal for the way forward which will be acceptable to Hong Kong residents.

We set out in Appendix 1 some important issues for communication and in Appendix 2 some parameters regarding the platforms for communication.

5. Embrace Diversity, Avoid Emotive Language and Insular Tendencies

Hong Kong prides itself as a rational, forward looking, melting pot of diverse cultures, languages and people. We must avoid having our views distorted by anger and hatred and we must constantly remind ourselves to be rational and accept each other as people having an equal stake in our city. It is easier to only speak to or be close to those who are similar to you or who agree with you and your views. This close mindedness is the path to ugly xenophobia. We urge everyone to cease using any action and language that inflames, incites or vilifies people or groups of people. We should be united with all families and friends and welcome the diversity among us.

Appendix 1

Some Important Issues for Communication

(i) Verify Material Facts

Many views have been formed based on unverified facts, rumours, allegations or even fake news. Many people tend to only focus on facts which reinforce their own views, and discount or ignore facts which work against them. We should stop making serious allegations before facts are verified or the courts have handed down judgments.

We should communicate and agree upon a list of all material facts relating to the unrest and specify which of those facts have not yet been verified or agreed. Assistance should be sought from victims of violence or other serious illegal acts, the media, public transport operators, property operators and the Government to provide material facts.

(ii) Media and Fake News

News can be untrue, inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or even fake. Media can be politically biased. Unprofessional or biased media operators are extremely poisonous to our society. We should discuss whether, and if so what, reforms to the regime regulating the media industry are required, for example, the following:

– Licensing and ongoing monitoring of media operators
– Licensing and ongoing monitoring of reporters
– Operation of RTHK
– Guidelines on impartial and accurate reporting
– Fake news law

(iii) Education Sector

An alarming number of students and people below 18 years old have been arrested. Bullying and segregation are really happening in some schools. Politically-biased teachers who exhibit intolerance to perspectives different from theirs could improperly influence students and in turn incite fear, anger and hatred. Certain teaching materials may be politically-biased. Students may also not have a proper understanding of the histories of China and Hong Kong and basic legal concepts. We should discuss how the education system and related laws and regulations should be reformed, for example, the following:

– Licensing and ongoing monitoring of schools
– Licensing and ongoing monitoring of teachers
– Licensing of teaching materials
– General education syllabus
– Learning the histories of China and Hong Kong
– Learning basic legal concepts
– Guidelines on impartiality and avoidance of bias or incomplete information

(iv) Prosecution and Court Processes

– Granting of bail
– Political bias in prosecution and court processes
– Appointment, retirement and removal of judges
– Jury system
– Legal aid system
– Guidelines on deterrent effect of sentencing

(v) Police

– Handling of complaints, investigations on alleged breaches of laws and regulations, CAPO and IPCC
– Guidelines on use of force
– Guidelines on use of tear gas
– Guidelines on display of identification information
– Laws against insulting police officers

(vi) Independent review

We should be educated on how the IPCC and an independent review committee work and how certain other riots, e.g., the 2011 UK riots and the 1967 HK riots were reviewed. We should discuss the independent review in detail, including its scope, committee’s terms of reference, membership, timing for producing report and other material aspects.

(vii) Basic Law related issues

– Dual universal suffrage regarding election of Chief Executive and Legislative Council members
– Implementing legislation for Article 23

(viii) Funding for Re-building Hong Kong

There have been concerns as to whether it is fair to use taxpayers’ monies to re-build Hong Kong following the destruction by violent protesters. We should discuss the source of funding as well as plans on how to re-build Hong Kong.

(ix) Housing, Job Opportunities, Healthcare and other issues

Appendix 2

Some Parameters for Platforms for Communication

(i) Face-to-face discussions, if possible, at Government or other premises
(ii) Measures to reduce risk of being bullied and doxxing
(iii) A sizeable team of Government representatives
(iv) General invitation to public for expression of interests to participate
(v) If required, limit the number of participants by random sampling scrutinized by accountants or other suitable professionals
(vi) Each discussion can be in small group, with facilitator(s) (lawyers or other professionals with no political affiliations) and Government representatives
(vii) For discussions relating to a sector or group, e.g., media, education or police, representatives of that sector or group should be included
(viii) Each participant should be given a fair opportunity to talk and listen
(ix) Small group discussions are not one-off, but should continue as a series of discussions until the issues have been adequately discussed
(x) Discussions may be made public but names and other personal data of individuals will not be disclosed





日期: 2019年12月23日






今年10月,來自全球超過120個資料保障執法機關的代表在「環球私隱議會」(Global Privacy Assembly)(前身為「國際資料保障及私隱專員會議」),就社交媒體及網上的極端暴力內容,促請社交媒體提供服務者保障其提供的服務免受濫用,並防止網上散佈極端暴力內容,正正彰顯諸如網上「起底」達致恐嚇或煽動行為亦不為國際社會所接受。









公署已去信提醒有關平台或網站營運商,高等法院已發出臨時禁制令(HCA 1957/2019),禁制任何人非法地及故意地公開警員及其家人的個人資料,以恐嚇及騷擾警員及其家人。該禁制令並禁止任何人協助、造成、慫使、促致、唆使、煽動、協助、教唆或授權他人從事上述行為。另一臨時禁制令(HCA 2007/2019),則禁制任何人非法地及故意地在基於互聯網的媒介上促進、鼓勵或煽動使用或威脅使用暴力的材料或信息,以造成香港境内任何人身傷害或財產損害。該禁制令禁止任何人故意協助、造成、慫使、促致、唆使、煽動、協助、教唆或授權他人從事上述行為。公署向有關平台或網站營運商指出,他們必須履行其法律和道德上的公司責任,即不助長或教唆違背公共利益、非法和不道德行為,避免讓其平台濫用為侵犯個人資料私隱的工具。 如平台或網站營運商故意發布或不刪除上述禁止的帖文,可能被視作為違反禁制令,而觸犯藐視法庭罪。



Date: 23 December 2019

Privacy Commissioner Provides Updates on Doxxing and Cyberbullying: Reiterating Criminal and Social Liability of Doxxers and Assisting Platforms

Since June this year, serious doxxing acts have taken place and personal data has been “weaponised”. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong (Privacy Commissioner), Mr Stephen Kai-yi WONG provides the following updates on the latest situation of doxxing and the follow-up actions carried out by the office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD).

Doxxing by Weaponising Personal Data

The Privacy Commissioner reiterated that “section 64(2) of PDPO provides that a person commits an offence if the person discloses, without the consent of a data user who controls or is in possession of any personal data of a data subject (such as public domain or platforms), especially the person who is innocent (including the spouse and children of a doxxing victim), and the disclosure causes psychological harm to the data subject, most of which came from intimidation. Upon conviction, the maximum penalty is a fine of HK$1,000,000 and an imprisonment for 5 years”

The Privacy Commissioner also stated that online social platforms and discussion forums have legal and social responsibilities of not assisting or promoting any illegal acts of doxxing.

In October this year, representatives from more than 120 data protection authorities around the globe attended the Global Privacy Assembly (formerly known as International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners). In relation to social media and online violent extremist content, the Assembly urged social media service providers to offer service protection to protect their services from being misused and prevent the dissemination of those content online. This highlights that acts of intimidation or incitement such as doxxing on the Internet are not acceptable to the international community.

The PCPD found that doxxing targets are individuals in the recent eye-catching incidents. Personal data of the individuals and their family members would be widely circulated at online platforms immediately.Overall SituationThe PCPD received the first doxxing and cyberbullying case on 14 June. As at noon 20 December 2019, the PCPD received and discovered 4,359 related cases. Totally 16 online social platforms and discussion forums, and 2,916 web links were involved.The victims of doxxing are from all sorts of backgrounds and all walks of life with various views, among which police officers and their family members are the single largest sector of people falling victim to doxxing. Of the 4,359 complaints and cases discovered in our patrol, 1,577 cases (36% of the total cases) involved police officers and their family members. There were 180 cases of doxxing on government officials and public servants (accounting for about 4% of the total cases). In addition to public servants, there are also members of the public (accounting for about 30% of the total cases) who have stated their support for the government or the Police and were doxxed.

On the other hand, some citizens were doxxed after making online comments against the government or the Police (accounting for about 10% of the total cases). Some others were dissatisfied with the behaviour of protestors and disclosed their personal data online. Also, there are websites that encourage citizens to provide the identity of protestors for bringing them to justice (accounting for about 20% of the total cases).

PCPD’s Follow-up Actions

The PCPD has referred 1,402 cases of this nature to the Police for criminal investigation and for consideration for prosecution.A total of five people have been arrested in four cases by the Police on suspicion of contravening section 64 of PDPO, including an earlier case where prosecution was made by the Police. In that prosecution case, a man was charged with “conspiracy to disclosing personal data obtained without consent from data users”.

As at noon 20 December, the PCPD has written to the related 15 platforms 140 times, urging them to remove a total of 2,497 web links and to post warnings that netizens who engage in doxxing and cyberbullying may commit a serious offence under section 64 of PDPO. Among those web links, 1,677 web links (67%) have already been removed.

The PCPD has sent a letter to remind relevant platforms or website operators that the High Court has granted an interim injunction order (HCA 1957/2019) to, inter alia, restrain persons from unlawfully and wilfully disclosing personal data of Police Officers and/or their family members, intended or likely to intimidate or harass Police Officers and/or their family members. The order also restrains persons in assisting, causing, counselling, procuring, instigating, inciting, aiding, abetting or authorising others to commit any of the aforesaid acts. Another interim injunction order (HCA 2007/2019) also restrains persons from willfully disseminating any material or information on any internet-based platform or medium for the purpose of promoting, encouraging or inciting the use or threat of violence, intended or likely to cause bodily injury to any person or damage to any property unlawfully within Hong Kong. The order also restrains persons from assisting, causing, counselling, procuring, instigating, inciting, aiding or abetting others to commit any the aforesaid acts. The PCPD reminded relevant platforms or website operators that they are obligated to carry out legal and ethical corporate responsibility. They should not encourage illegal and unethical behaviour against public interest to avoid platforms being abused as a tool for infringing the privacy of personal data. If the platform or website operators deliberately publish or do not delete the aforesaid prohibited posts, it may be regarded as violation of the injunction and contempt of court.

After the interim injunction order came into effect, the PCPD received and found cases involving suspected violations of interim injunction order, and referred relevant cases to the Department of Justice for follow-up. As at noon 20 December 2019, 40 cases were referred.We will continue to spare no efforts in enforcing the law to curtail these harmful doxxing acts. Since some involved platforms are based overseas, the Privacy Commissioner has written to the relevant local data protection authorities seeking for international cooperation to combat the #doxxing acts.


在公眾地方進行 #非慈善的籌款活動 是否 #犯法

根據香港法例第228章 《#簡易程序治罪條例》第4條(17)(ii)款,任何人無合法權限或解釋而在公眾地方為 #非慈善用途的目的組織#參與 或 #提供設備 以進行任何籌款活動,或 #售賣徽章#紀念品或類似物件

的活動,或為 #獲取捐款而交換徽章#紀念品或類似物件的活動可處罰款$500或 #監禁3個月,但已獲 #民政事務局局長 發出 #許可證者除外

Under Section 4(17)(ii) of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, organizes, provides equipment for, or participates in any collection of money or sale or exchange for donations of badges, tokens or similar articles in a public place for non-charitable purposes shall be liable to a fine of $500 or to imprisonment for three months, except under or in accordance with a permit issued by the Secretary for Home Affairs.


🎄❄️☃️Warmest Seasonal Greetings to all of you here ! 🎄❄️☃️

We’ve been through a most tumultuous and difficult six months. However, through it all, one memorable good that came shining through is this chance for us to meet, chat and brainstorm digitally together.

We are honoured to know you and grateful for your ideas, comments and suggestions in our effort to bring peace, stability and rationality to our beloved Hong Kong.

Wishing you Happy Holidays, a Very Merry Christmas and may the New Year bring a bright new dawn for us all!LawyersHK






無牌管有槍械彈藥 最高刑罰是什麼?

根據香港法例第238章 《#火器及彈藥條例》第13條,任何人除非持有 #槍械或彈藥的管有權牌照 或 #經營人牌照,否則不得管有該等槍械或彈藥。任何人違反這條款即屬犯罪,一經定罪,可處 #罰款HK$100,000及 #監禁14年

Under Section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap. 238), no person shall have in his possession any arms or ammunition unless he holds a licence for possession of such arms or ammunition or a dealer’s licence therefor. A person who contravenes this Section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for 14 years.


妨礙拘捕搶犯 和 窩藏罪犯 犯咗咩法?

根據香港法例第221章 《#刑事訴訟程序條例》第90條,如某人犯可逮捕的罪行,而任何其他人知悉或相信該人就該罪行或另一可逮捕罪行有罪,並在無合法權力依據或合理辯解的情況下,作出任何作為而意圖妨礙拘捕或檢控該人,即屬有罪,一經定罪,可處監禁10年。

Under Section 90 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (#Cap. 221), if a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for 10 years.