There was an approved rally at Victoria Park, and too many people to attend in that space at one time (part of the reason why they originally asked permission for a march, which was rejected).
Interesting that when the police do it and cause a riot with tear gas, it’s called dispersal, but when the organisers get the crowd to leave the venue in an orderly fashion (and peacefully to boot), it’s illegal assembly.
Obviously the result to all intents and purposes does resemble a procession, but if the reasoning of the authorities not to allow the demonstration was due, in their view, to the likelihood of violence taking place, and not due to protests being banned per se (as was the messaging from the authorities at the time - 1.5 years ago seems a lifetime away now), then pursuing the case does seem less in the interest of the public, and more in the interests of the authorities.
Of particular note to me are the two barristers caught up in the case, certainly one would think their defence was at least a reasonable one or I imagine they would have pled guilty.
https://twitter.com/samuelmchu/statu...99025016975360
https://twitter.com/_jasmineleung_/s...07363662401539
An outside observer might say what they were really persecuted for was showing the authorities had no good answer for the expectations and aspirations for a very substantial number of people in Hong Kong, even where expressed peacefully, which some might go so far as to say were the majority.