June 4 vigil host abided by the law as its gathering had fewer than 50 people says organiserMembers of an alliance that organised Hong Kong’s annual June 4 vigil visited Victoria Park for the same event last year in a group of fewer than 50 as police had banned the rally, a court heard on Friday.A group of more than 50 people is deemed a public gathering and will require no objection from the police to proceed, as stipulated in the Public Order Ordinance.In the case of the June 4 candlelight vigil, the force issued a letter of objection three days earlier to the organising party, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, to stop crowds from congregating, in view of Covid-19, to commemorate the 1989 Beijing Tiananmen Square crackdown.Although the Victoria Park rally was prohibited, the lighting of candles by individuals was not, whether in that park or at other places, defendant Chow Hang-tung told the District Court on Friday.Chow testified that the alliance, of which she was then vice-chairwoman, did not appeal against the police’s decision, which was released on June 1, 2020, because they would rather use the time to focus on preparing contingency plans to be carried out three days later.“We did not want to waste our time appealing. We have to prepare for the contingency plans such that the June 4 mourning could proceed,” Chow said.She added: “The government exaggerated the pandemic situation in Hong Kong. They used public health concerns as an excuse to ban the rally. It is an abuse of power.” The government never suggested precautionary measures to the alliance despite public health being such a concern, Chow told the court.Chow has denied charges of taking part and of inciting others to take part in the unauthorised assembly. Her co-defendants are media tycoon Jimmy Lai, who faces the charge of inciting others to take part, and former journalist Gwyneth Ho, who is accused of taking part in the event.In response to the police ban, Chow said, the alliance came up with a four-part contingency plan that included appealing to the public to participate in online mourning, go to different locations around the city to mourn in small groups, and send photos to the alliance about individuals’ mourning. The alliance also formed its own group of not more than 50 members and picked a place to mourn together.Chow explained that the alliance chose to mourn at Victoria Park because it was a symbolic place. “The candlelight vigil was held in Victoria Park for the past 30 years. The candlelight at Victoria Park must continue,” she said.Furthermore, Chow said, the alliance had publicly announced its cancellation of the June 4 vigil, so visitors to the park that night and their activities were unrelated to the alliance.Head prosecutor Laura Ng pointed out that video clips previously played in court showed the alliance’s then chairman, Lee Cheuk-yan, distributing candles to the public at the park on the afternoon of June 4 and saying: “You are welcome to get the candles. Let’s go to Victoria Park together.” The videos were evidence of incitement to join the unauthorised assembly, Ng said.Chow rebutted that argument, saying Victoria Park was only one possible location for June 4 mourning. The alliance had appealed to the public to mourn in every corner across the city in small groups, as suggested in its contingency plans, she reiterated.Ng went on to say that Chow moved away mill barriers which were condoning off the football pitches inside Victoria Park. The prosecutor suggested that the action showed the alliance was expecting more people to join the gathering as evening approached. “Why did you pull down the mill barriers if there were only 50 people or less?” she asked.Chow replied that she needed to let her group enter the football pitches. “We did not care about other mill barriers,” she said.The defendant added that she would take responsibility for speeches and decisions made by the alliance, but maintained the alliance did not ask the public to join its own gathering at Victoria Park on June 4, 2020.The trial will continue on Monday before Judge Amanda Woodcock.By Y.S. Luk。 Court finds magnate Jimmy Lai has case to answer in June 4 trialMedia tycoon Jimmy Lai has a case to answer regarding his alleged incitement of others to join an unauthorised assembly on June 4 last year, a Hong Kong court has said.The District Court decided on Thursday that Lai’s trial would proceed, after prosecution evidence showed the defendant saying he would definitely attend the banned candlelight vigil at Victoria Park and appealing to the public not to be scared of the authorities.The vigil was an annual event organised by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China to mark the 1989 Beijing Tiananmen Square crackdown. It was banned by the police last year on the grounds of Covid-19.Prosecutors said that on the evening of June 4, 2020, Lai suggested that then alliance chairman Lee Cheuk-yan and other people light candles at the water fountain plaza on the edge of the park. He also raised his candle alongside the others and repeated slogans shouted by Lee.“Lai was a prominent public figure,” head prosecutor Laura Ng said. “He went to Victoria Park, a sensitive location at a sensitive time, and was greeted by Lee and others. They stood together in front of the media. “These acts showed his support and encouraged others to take part in the unauthorised assembly. He made a rally impact by appearing.”Ng continued: “Since Lai did not go inside Victoria Park that night, there was a purpose for him to turn up at the water fountain plaza, that is, to show support and make an appearance, and to attract media attention to incite [others].”Later that night, Lai granted a media interview at a church in Shau Kei Wan. Upon learning from the reporter that numerous vigil participants had appeared at the park, he said he felt “encouraged”, according to video clips of the interview presented by the prosecution in court.Robert Pang SC, the defence counsel representing Lai, rebutted the evidence as merely indicating his client’s intention to incite. It failed to prove any words were said, or acts done, that amounted to incitement, Pang argued.Judge Amanda Woodcock decided that the prosecution had a prima facie case against Lai. The defence will open its case on Friday. Lai’s co-defendants are Chow Hang-tung, former vice-chairwoman of the alliance, and Gwyneth Ho, a former journalist.On Thursday, the court also heard testimony from prosecution witness So Ka-lai, a police officer who was responsible for estimating the number of participants inside the park on June 4. So said it was his first time handling such a task and the police had no internal guidelines on how to gauge participation at the event.The police officer said he relied on an estimation method posted by the University of Hong Kong on the internet. That night, he made a visual assessment of how full each of the park’s six football pitches was and, based on the capacity of each square metre to accommodate 2.8 people, he arrived at the figure of 20,839.Another prosecution witness was Chau Yin-fung, then assistant manager of the government’s Leisure and Cultural Services Department at Victoria Park. He testified that the alliance applied on June 29, 2019, to use the six football pitches and four basketball courts between May 31 and June 4, 2020.The department had a practice of processing venue applications for non-designated uses only two to three months prior to the event date, the court heard, which meant it would look into the alliance’s submission only around March or April 2020.As the football pitches and basketball courts were closed beginning March 28, 2020, due to Covid-19, Chau told the alliance that processing of its application had been suspended.Still, large crowds entered the park on June 4, pulled down the mill barriers fencing off the football pitches and sat down. Chau said he told the security guards not to take any action because their personal safety came first. The security guards then told the participants that public gatherings were not allowed.Station sergeant Lee Man-bun, who was tasked with traffic control that night, told the court that roads around Victoria Park, including Kingston, Great George and Paterson streets, were closed off for about two hours due to many people entering and leaving the park.By Y.S. Luk。