-4-
offences between November 2017 and January 2020 in respect of all of which he was fined.
7. In mitigation, Mr Grossman submitted that this being the first NSL case and that the court’s reasons for verdict are now widely circulated, others would know the consequences if they were to carry out similar acts like those of the Defendant and so the deterrent effect is achieved. Mr Grossman further submitted that the Defendant was instrumental in bringing out this warning to the public and in the circumstances, the court could consider imposing a more lenient sentence.
8. In respect of the Article 21 offence, Mr Grossman suggested that what is “serious” under the Article should be an actual effective one-on-one communication between the incitor and the incitee. Since what the Defendant did was simply raising a flag while driving around, it was said that the incitement was of a minor nature and nobody was actually affected other than by cheering and clapping hands. Therefore, Mr Grossman urged us to treat the circumstances of this offence as belonging to the category of “a minor nature” which would attract “fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, short-term detention or restriction” under Article 21 of the NSL.
9. For the Article 24 offence, Mr Grossman submitted that the Defendant was not mounting a deliberate attack on the police with the intention to cause serious bodily injuries or to kill. He also made the observation that the injuries of the police officers
