R1–4 admitted liability for criminal contempt of court. During the Occupy Movement, Rs participated in a protest and refused to leave despite repeated announcements by the police and bailiffs executing an injunction order. R1 and R4 also resisted arrest. At the present sentencing hearing, R1, then aged 30 and now a community development officer, submitted in mitigation that she had no intention to challenge the law and had since shifted her focus from politics to people’s livelihood. R2, then aged 21, had no political affiliation and was now an estate agent. He submitted he joined the protest because he was discontent with the way certain police officers had treated protestors. R3, then aged 19, had no political affiliation and was now a dental clinic assistant. R4, then aged 30, was a security guard.
Held, that given Rs’ limited involvement in the protest, and in the case of: R1, her early plea and remorse; and R2, his personal circumstances, relatively young age, limited education and clear record, a 1-month sentence of imprisonment suspended for 12 months combined with a fine of $10,000 was sufficient for each of them. The fine was payable within 3 months by R1, R3–4, and 6 months by R2 as his income was unstable (Secretary for Justice v Cheng Kam Mun (No 3)  2 HKLRD 768 applied). (See paras. 6–7, 9–11, 13–14, 16–17.)
This was a hearing to sentence the first to fourth respondents for criminal contempt. The facts are set out in the judgment.