A part-time food service worker has received a suspended jail sentence for harassing a judge and his wife with repeated phone calls in breach of a Hong Kong court’s injunction order.

Chan Po-hong, 19, was jailed for two weeks at the High Court on Monday for contempt of court after he admitted making eight prank calls to the judicial officer and his family over a nine-minute span on December 6, 2020.

But Mr Justice Russell Coleman suspended the sentence for a year, saying the defendant’s actions “were probably as a result of his own immaturity and personality”, in particular his autism.

On a separate note, Coleman expressed concern that the Department of Justice’s decision to press a criminal charge against Chan on top of the civil contempt proceedings might create an impression that justice was not properly and fairly administered.

Chan is the first person to be sanctioned for a breach of the interim injunction, granted by the same judge in October 2020, against doxxing and harassing judicial officers and their families.

The court heard the then 17-year-old student pulled off the prank “for fun” by making use of his targets’ personal details leaked on social media.

He said he targeted the judge in question because he thought he was a “blue-ribbon” supporting the government.

The judge’s wife picked up three of the six calls made to her phone, but the caller remained silent.

The personal data of the judge and his spouse had been misused on other occasions for the registration of organ donations, Covid-19 tests, HIV tests and subscription to services for which they had not applied.

The couple had received so many phone calls they had to unplug their landline phone and reject calls made to their mobile phones from unrecognised numbers.

Chan was arrested in March 2021 and charged with making persistent phone calls three months later, but that case was put on hold pending the outcome of the contempt proceedings.

The justice secretary’s counsel, Martin Ho Cheuk-hang, had urged the court to impose a jail term measured in months, saying the defendant’s conduct constituted a direct assault on the due administration of justice and had a chilling effect on people he regarded as holding opposite political views.

While finding the malicious use of a judge’s private data wholly unacceptable, Coleman accepted Chan’s offence was not the worst of its kind.

He took into account Chan’s immediate recognition of his transgression, his genuine remorse and his ability to better manage his behaviour compared to before.

The court also highlighted the “unfortunate” delay of nearly two years for the department to initiate civil proceedings against Chan, during which Hong Kong had “turned over a new leaf” and the defendant had “turned the page”.

Instead, what had troubled the judge was determining the appropriate sentence in light of the parallel proceedings.

“There may well be room for people to wonder if pursuing this particular individual in two sets of proceedings, left hanging over him until now approaching [two] years after the event, is really in the public interest or leads to justice being administered,” Coleman said.

“For the [secretary for justice] to pursue both criminal and civil contempt proceedings against an individual arising out of precisely the same circumstances might not give the right impression as regards the proper and fair administration of justice.”

That said, the judge decided that sentencing could proceed on the assumption there would be no double punishment for the defendant.

The criminal case against Chan will resume at Eastern Court next month. Making persistent phone calls is punishable by up to two months’ imprisonment and a HK$2,000 fine (US$254).