[2] On 18 November, it ruled that both the prohibition on the wearing of masks and related powers granted to the police to enforce it are inconsistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, whilst leaving the question of relief to a future hearing.

[8] However, since the government did not appeal against Article 5, power to require removal in public place of facial covering, this part remains void.

[19] If that person refuses, an offence is committed punishable with a fine at level 3 ($10,000)[15] and imprisonment of 6 months;[20] the police officer may forcibly remove it.

[23] On separate grounds it also declared all the substantive sections of the PFCR excepting that prohibiting the use of masks at an unlawful assembly inconsistent with the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights, and therefore of no effect.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the ERO was in fact constitutional on occasions of public danger, and therefore that the PFCR was not invalid on those grounds.

Do it, we will fight till the end.”[27] The central government immediately criticised the Court of First Instance's ruling, causing concern for the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary.