Judges on the Hong Kong Court of Appeal have adjusted the convictions of seven prominent pro-democracy activists. For Associated Press, Kanis Leung reports that these include Jimmy Lai, the entrepreneur who founded the Apple Daily newspaper; Marin Lee, founder of a political party in Hong Kong; and five former Hong Kong lawmakers. The seven are to be regarded as formally culpable only for participating in, not also organizing, an unauthorized assembly (“Prominent Hong Kong democracy activists partially win bid to quash convictions over 2019 protest,” August 14, 2023).
Judge Andrew Macrae said he and other judges of the Court of Appeal unanimously quashed their convictions over the charge of organizing an unauthorized assembly. But their convictions over taking part in an unauthorized assembly were upheld.
Hence, the four activists who served their jail terms in prison have had part of their sentences in the case quashed, he said. . . .
“An inference that because they were at the front of the procession, they must have organized it . . . is not a realistic or suitable substitute for evidence that they were involved in its organization,” the judgment said.
All appellants have served out their sentences for this case. But Lai, Leung, Ho and Lee Cheuk-yan remained in custody as they were also charged under a national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020 following the massive protests.
Will such a minor demur, issued long after the fact, have any practical effect?
According to the report, “All appellants have served out their sentences for this case.” And four of the persons charged are still being held on other bogus charges. The ruling also implies that the Chinese state would be justified in arresting, convicting, and imprisoning any of the other Hong Kongers who participated in the 2019 protests. That’s hundreds of thousands of people.
If the judges want to accomplish justice here—or try to accomplish it—let them order the releases of Lai, Leung, Ho, and Lee Cheuk-yan, declare the 2020 National Security Law illegitimate, and affirm the rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
Of course, this wouldn’t work; it would also make targets of the judges themselves. But pretending to abide by the rule of law and due process in a way that implicitly sanctions the whole corrupt political and judicial setup that has supplanted what Hong Kong used to be is not the judges’ only possible alternative.
