(1) Any person who at any public gathering acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the public gathering was called together or incites others so to act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.
(2) Any person who in any public place behaves in a noisy or disorderly manner, or uses, or distributes or displays any writing containing, threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.
8. Unlike the position in New Zealand, it is not an offence in Hong Kong to behave in a disorderly manner in public. To constitute an offence under s.17B(1), an accused must have acted in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of a public gathering and for an offence under s.17B(2), he must have behaved in a disorderly manner either with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace or that a breach of the peace is likely to be caused by his conduct. The reasons in the New Zealand cases for imposing a higher threshold including constitutionality considerations do not necessarily apply with the same force in Hong Kong.
9. Further, not only is disorderly behavior by itself not an offence, s.17B(2) refers also to other types of behavior such as using, distributing, displaying writing containing threatening, abusive or insulting words. These other types of behavior do not necessarily involve a serious disruption of public order. Also, neither s.17B(1) nor 17B(2) requires proof that there is an actual serious disruption of public order, only that the disorderly behavior was done with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace or had the likely effect of causing a breach of the peace. It is unlikely and I do not believe that the legislature intends by “acts/behaves in a disorderly manner” in s.17B to mean conduct causing a serious disruption of public order.
79. However, a person may provoke a breach of the peace without any violence or threat of violence on his part: “... it suffices that his conduct is such that the natural consequence of it is violence from some third party”. That third party need not be the person provoked or a by-stander, it could, for instance, be a member of the provoker’s group. The actual or feared harm must be unlawful and, where the harm is anticipated, there must be a real risk and not the mere possibility of such harm. Moreover, the anticipated harm must be imminent.
80. As appears in the passage from R v Howell cited above, a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace gives rise to a common law power of arrest without warrant. It also gives rise to a power to take measures short of arrest to prevent such breach.
83. But section 17B(2) is not designed to penalise persons who simply commit breaches of the peace. That is of central importance to the disposal of this appeal. The appellants would only be guilty of an offence under that section if their disorderly behaviour was either intended or likely to cause a breach of the peace by someone else. It is not enough to show that they were guilty both of disorderly behaviour and of committing a breach of the peace. This is a conclusion dictated by the language of section 17B(2) and reflected in the Hong Kong authorities and the authorities on section 5 of the United Kingdom’s Public Order Act 1936 from which section 17B(2) is derived and which is structured in the same way.
如果辱罵警察的人的言詞語調, 不會激使或導致第三者有所行動, 不會給人一種第三者會訴諸武力引致即時危險的印象/感覺, 這條控罪不會成立。終審法院的演繹是, 就算辱罵別人的人行為不檢, 破壞了社會安寧, 也不犯法, 辱罵人的人要激使別入破壞社會安寧才屬犯法(The appellants would only be guilty of an offence under that section if their disorderly behaviour was either intended or likely to cause a breach of the peace by someone else. It is not enough to show that they were guilty both of disorderly behaviour and of committing a breach of the peace.)。這條控罪又怎能有效地對付侮辱警察的人呢? 我斗膽問, 胡官是否熟讀上訴案例的?
故此，究竟iPhone 5是否可以突破iPhone 4的空前成功？網上流傳了一系列的短片，發現iPhone 5的外形有明顯改變，顯示屏變大了、機身薄了、感覺輕了，所以不少網民都認為，iPhone 5已回應了市場的訴求，亦開始向三星電子等主要競爭對手，寫下挑戰書，告訴市場蘋果電腦亦可以不受原有的規格所限制，別人產品的特點，蘋果亦有能力去製造出來。
可能，蘋果電腦的Die Hard粉絲，會覺得蘋果電腦從善如流，又或者對iPhone 5的新外形，感到相當高興，但實際上蘋果電腦有可能正在走下坡，原因是蘋果電腦已經出現「離經叛道」的情況，因為蘋果電腦已經與喬布斯的理念，走著相反的道路。
相信很多人的書架上，都會有喬布斯的自傳，但他的金句，大家又記得多少句？不過其中兩句，蘋果電腦的一眾管理層，應該牢牢緊記，其中一句為「You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.」另一句為「Innovation is the distinction between a leader and a follower.」
可是蘋果電腦如果真的改變iPhone及iPad的尺寸，某程度上等同於向主要競爭對手三星低頭，同時認同了別人的手機尺寸才是市場所需要，最嚴重的問題是蘋果電腦亦因此由領導者(a leader)，變成了一個跟隨者(a follower)，而這個改變，可能會成為蘋果電腦已見高峰的一個象徵。