An open court and a detailed ruling in former media boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s closely watched national security trial have demonstrated the strength of Hong Kong’s rule of law, legal experts have said.
Lawyers, including the Hong Kong Bar Association, on Tuesday urged members of the public to respect the city’s judicial process and study the High Court’s judgment carefully before drawing conclusions after several Western countries criticised Lai’s guilty verdict, prompting a strong rebuke from the government.
A panel of three judges, who were hand-picked by the city’s leader to adjudicate national security cases, found Lai guilty on two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and a third of conspiracy to print seditious articles.
In their 855-page judgment, which came after a trial lasting more than 1½ years, the judges said Lai was the mastermind behind three conspiracies to instigate international sanctions and hostile activities against Hong Kong and mainland China, and to print seditious articles through the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper he founded.
The verdict drew immediate criticism from several Western countries. Britain called the prosecution “politically motivated”, while the European Union said the ruling was “emblematic of the erosion of democracy and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong”.
The United States argued that the verdict reflected the enforcement of Beijing’s laws to silence those who sought to defend freedom of speech and other fundamental rights.
Barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a member of the government’s key decision-making Executive Council, defended the judiciary, calling such criticisms a “non-issue”.
“The rule of law is all about open justice. It’s all about giving the defendant every right and administering the law truthfully, without fear or any inclination towards a particular interest or party,” the senior counsel said, noting the trial lasted 156 days, with 52 days dedicated to Lai’s testimony.
Tong argued that it was the foreign governments’ attacks that were “politically motivated”, not the case itself.
“I think that affects the rule of law in Hong Kong in the sense that they are putting pressure on our judges and they are putting politics as a substitute for law or legal principle.”
Professor Simon Young Ngai-man of the University of Hong Kong’s law school described the case as “extraordinary”, not only because of its factual complexity but also because of its implications for global politics at a time when countries were increasingly concerned about foreign intervention.
Referring to the court’s rare practice of providing detailed reasons explaining how it reached its verdicts, Young said the judgment upheld the rule of law values of fair notice, certainty and transparency, which were integral to Hong Kong’s legal system.
He also noted that the appeal mechanism ensured any unsafe or unsatisfactory convictions, or material irregularities in the trial, could be addressed.
The court will hear oral mitigation from January 12 for Lai and eight other co-defendants, including six former Apple Daily senior executives, who pleaded guilty before the trial.
“Those inclined to be critical of the case or the legal system should probably read the judgment first to assess if there were any legal errors and whether it was decided fairly and faithfully in accordance with the evidence,” Young said.
The Bar Association said Lai’s case was of “significant importance to the development of Hong Kong’s unique jurisprudence under the ‘one country, two systems’ principle”.
“Hong Kong judges will not consider any political considerations but adjudicate on the cases before them based on the law and evidence alone,” it said.
“The vast majority of criminal trials, including the one in issue, are held in open court, and the process is fully transparent.”
The association, which oversees the city’s 1,800 barristers, also expressed confidence that the judiciary would continue to operate independently, apolitically and free from any external influence or interference.
It stressed that the common law approach was used when construing the national security law, while urging the public to consider the reasons for the verdict carefully and respect the judicial process. -- SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
