- 11
A
B
-
education appeared to be a more effective tool to remedy misconceptions
that the Song might be broadcast etc in whichever manner one wished with
A
B
impunity.14
C
D
C
15.
Noting that the evidence was that the Government required a
D
valid court order to show the IPOs that the relevant content of the Song
E
F
was a violation of the Hong Kong law, the Judge doubted if the injunction
would have such effect because it only targeted the use of the Song for
unlawful acts.15
G
H
E
F
He further reasoned that since the IPOs should be aware
of their duties to act within the law and should not act in a way to aid and
abet the commission of offences by others, it was difficult to understand
G
H
how the injunction might add to the deterrence of the criminal law. 16
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
I
16.
The Judge next referred to the conflicts and inconsistencies of
the injunction with the relevant criminal laws; such as the uncertainty as to
how any enforcement action in the civil domain against breaches of the
injunction would operate compatibly and coherently with the requirements
mandated in the criminal regime under the NSL;17 the civil court being
called upon to pronounce whether a party had committed acts in breach of
NSL 21 when the same legal and factual questions would have to be
determined in criminal proceedings against the same party;18 the disparity
J
K
L
M
N
O
between the time limits for prosecution of the offence under the NAO and
P
criminal contempt;19 and double jeopardy.20
P
Q
Q
R
R
S
14
15
16
T
17
18
19
U
V
20
Decision, [58].
Decision, [63].
Decision, [64].
Decision, [68].
Ibid.
Decision, [69].
Decision, [71].
S
T
U
V