Hong Kong court grants partial victory to Jimmy Lai, 6 ex-opposition lawmakers over roles in banned 2019 march during anti-government protests
- Court quashes one of two charges against seven over banned march during 2019 unrest
- Seven were convicted in 2021 of organising and taking part in unauthorised assembly involving 1.7 million people
The Court of Appeal on Monday found the seven opposition figures, including veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming, could not be held liable for organising the assembly turned march on Hong Kong Island on August 18, 2019.
But the three presiding judges unanimously upheld the trial court’s finding that the appellants had taken part in the unapproved rally that began as a lawful assembly.
The bench also ruled as lawful a notification scheme which required protesters to obtain police approval to stage demonstrations, adding the accused could not challenge the legality of their prosecution after flouting a law which was constitutionally sound.
The verdict means shorter jail terms for Lai, the founder of the now-closed Apple Daily newspaper, and three former opposition lawmakers – Lee Cheuk-yan, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Cyd Ho Sau-lan.
But all seven, who include ex-legislators Albert Ho Chun-yan and Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, have already completed their sentences.
On the record, Lai’s 12-month jail term was reduced to nine months, while the sentences handed to Lee Cheuk-yan, Leung and Cyd Ho were cut to between five and 12 months.
Hong Kong’s High Court rejects bid by Jimmy Lai to drop national security case
District Court Judge Amanda Woodcock handed suspended jail sentences to Martin Lee, Albert Ho and Ng, while sentencing the remaining four to jail for eight to 18 months.
Former politicians Au Nok-hin and Leung Yiu-chung, who received 10 months behind bars and a suspended jail sentence respectively, did not file an appeal.
Mr Justice Andrew Macrae, vice-president of the Court of Appeal, on Monday said the seven could not be held liable for organising the unlawful march just because they had led the procession by holding a large banner in front of the crowd.
Macrae, who was joined by madam justices Maggie Poon Man-kay and Anthea Pang Po-kam on the bench, stressed that organisation was not a term of art.
“An organiser must take some responsibility for, or do something active to plan, arrange, or manage, an action or event. It is that evidence which we regard as lacking in the case of each of the [appellants],” Macrae said in a 60-page judgment.
“An inference that because they were at the front of the procession, they must have organised it (or even assisted in organising it) is not a realistic or suitable substitute for evidence that they were involved in its organization.”
But the three judges dismissed the defence’s challenge against the legality of the unauthorised assembly offence under the Public Order Ordinance.
7 convicted over unauthorised march in Hong Kong say they were mere participants
Macrae referred to a 2005 Court of Final Appeal ruling, which decided not to rectify a lower court’s verdict that the police notification scheme was constitutional.
The defence cited a 2021 landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court and argued the trial judge should have considered whether the seven appellants’ arrests and prosecutions amounted to a disproportionate interference of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
But Macrae said the bench remained bound by the 2005 precedent in the absence of any up-to-date decision by the city’s top court, adding none of the European cases submitted by the defence involved a legal regime that resembled the local situation.
The judges also refused an appeal by Lai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Leung Kwok-hung and Cyd Ho against their sentences for the participation charge.
They said the pre-planned procession was intended to flout the law and cause widespread disruption in the community, adding the trial judge was correct to take into account what she said was “the prevailing tumultuous situation of 2019” in sentencing.
Ng declined to comment on the ruling outside court, saying she and her lawyers had to study the judgment before deciding the way forward.
“We will be studying the judgment and consulting our lawyers before saying anything further,” she said.
Martin Lee, who also appeared in court to hear the verdict, did not respond to questions from the press.
Lai is also serving a 69-month jail sentence at the maximum-security Stanley Prison on fraud charges stemming from the improper use of his publication’s office space.
