Chan Long-shing denied leave to appeal to top court
SingTao · 2 SOURCESabout 4 hours ago6 MIN
Summary
Former Hong Kong Journalists Association chairperson Chan Long-shing (陳朗昇) has been denied a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal over his conviction for obstructing a police officer in the due execution of duty and his five-day jail sentence. The case stems from an identity check outside MacPherson Stadium in Mong Kok on 7 September 2022, when Chan was there with a photographer to cover a Lang Ping Estate owners’ meeting. Deputy High Court Judge Winnie Wong Sze-lai said section 54(1) of the Police Force Ordinance clearly empowers officers to stop a person and require production of identity documents, rejecting the defence argument as not a true question of law. Chan said after the ruling that he was not surprised and would apply directly to the Court of Final Appeal Appeal Committee, adding that the case might not be heard until at least 2027
Key Points
- Chan was convicted in 2023 of intentionally obstructing Police Constable 26781 outside MacPherson Stadium, 38 Nelson Street, Mong Kok, and was jailed for five days.
- The incident happened on 7 September 2022 when Chan and a photographer went to report on a Yuen Long Lang Ping Estate owners’ meeting held in Mong Kok.
- Prosecutors said Chan refused to show his Hong Kong identity card and caused a loud disturbance; he had also faced an alternative charge of obstructing a public officer
- His proposed appeal question asked whether section 54(1) of the Police Force Ordinance independently authorises police to demand identity documents outside powers expressly given by other laws.
- Wong said the wording of section 54(1) is coherent and unambiguous, and accused the appellant of inserting words into the statute to manufacture an interpretation dispute.
Why It Matters
The ruling leaves intact the lower courts’ reading that section 54(1) gives police a standalone power to stop people and require identity documents in suspicious circumstances, an issue Chan said he wanted clarified for the public. For Hong Kong readers, the case remains relevant because it concerns the legal threshold for street identity checks and the limits of challenging those checks in court.