There was bad news on New Year’s Eve when the Final Chamber accepted the Department of Justice’s application to appeal. In fragmentary reports of the trial earlier, the three judges, Including Mr. Ma, appeared ambivalent, challenging the prosecution’s statements at times and less pessimistic in my discussions with friends.
According to Mr Ho’s lawyer, he had handled similar appeals before, but they were not accepted by the court of final Appeal. It is reasonable that different cases of the same nature should not have different decisions. Unfortunately, the results come out, Lai Zhiying or to be chained to the prison.
On the occasion of the universal celebration, a man in his seventies had to spend his time in prison, and all he did was for the public interest, to fight against a tyrannical dictatorship. If you think about it, Hong Kong has more to lose to Lai than lai.
The judgment of the court of final appeal is too professional, some of the reasoning is difficult for us to understand, but after reading the report, I feel that the court of final appeal is not straight and strong to make a verdict, there are many doubts between the words. For example, Justice Madoli’s judgment mentioned that it is necessary to explore the correct interpretation of article 42 of the National Security Law. In other words, the judge of the court of Final Appeal still needs to “explore” how to interpret article 42 of the National Security Law.
The national Security law overpowers Hong Kong’s common law, putting the battle-hardened judges of the court of Final Appeal in a difficult position. The National Security Law and the common law are incompatible with each other. How to get through the joint between them is a major problem in terms of legal principle. The final court of appeal does not accept it, it is suspected of absolution, and it is difficult to handle it.
Mr Ma also pointed out that if the Court of Final Appeal did not accept the appeal, it would be impossible to review the error of Mr Justice Lee Yun-teng. Li yunteng believed that Lai Zhiying would not abscond on bail. He also believed that Li’s remarks were only a discussion and criticism of the incident and did not constitute a crime of colluding with foreign forces, which was Li Guan’s judgment based on evidence and jurisprudence. If the Department refuses to accept, it will be controversial and the Court of final Appeal will not have an opportunity to review Mr Lee’s views. From the perspective of the court of final appeal, we have to consider this question.
Stranger still, the prosecution to apply for temporary remand waiting for the final appeal, the defendant power derived from the court of final appeal of the Hong Kong ordinance, and provisions list only under the former litigation court and the appeals court can award this command, the court of final appeal is not in the provision of, also is the court of final appeal, there is no legal mandate treatment appeals, applications for this. Make verdicts, “it seems to be a provision hole”.
The Implementation of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance is not new today. It is puzzling that there are loopholes in the Ordinance.
In short, we lay in legal matters and had to wait for the result of the final court hearing on February 1.
I have some other thoughts on this matter. Secretary is a high court judge Li Yunteng is designated the national security law judge, his decision to give Mr Lai bail, letter, Mr Lai will not abscond, also will not continue to engage in activities against the national security law, and ruling Mr Lai’s comments just discussion and criticism of the incident, does not constitute a crime of collaborating with foreign influence, this is all quite objective, prove that even the secretary designated the national security law judge, judge itself can still be based on the spirit of the law to make a fair decision. It is a sign that the rule of law in Hong Kong is not dead.
Moreover, assuming that Mr Lee ruled against Mr Lai’s bail, Mr Lai’s side would also have to appeal to the court of final appeal, which would be the same as the Department of Justice’s appeal. That is to say, it is only a matter of time before a case reaches the final court.
The tribunal has now moved its deliberations to February 1, two months shorter than the previous one on April 1, meaning Mr Lai will spend less time in jail. Although it was a bad thing that the original bail had been suspended, the shorter remand was more or less a consideration for the court of final appeal.
The most important thing is that the case goes to the court of final Appeal, and it will be heard by the justices of the Court of Final Appeal, at least in a much better way than sending Mr Lai to the mainland to be heard on the mainland, and so far, we can have careful confidence in the impartiality of the justices of the Court of Final Appeal. There are also foreign judges of the Court of Final Appeal, all of whom have high international standing and whose judgements should conform to the highest moral standards and impartiality, otherwise it would have a negative and costly impact on their honour and professional status throughout their lives. The only thing that might help Mr Lai in the current environment is that the case goes to a court of final appeal, at least under common law, which would make it hard for the Communist party and the establishment to overturn it.
The court of final appeal to make a difficult decision, there is another possibility, is in view of the National People’s Congress (NPC) above, the court of final appeal if apply to reject the appeal, with the communist party of China to lose to the character of the victory, perhaps by the National People’s Congress to enact a bad law, Mr Lai directly to sending a mainland trial, the possibility cannot be completely ruled out. Rather than the unpredictable consequences of letting the Communist Party take over, it would be better to let the matter rest in the hands of Hong Kong’s legal system. At least Mr Lai would be treated fairly and the court of final Appeal, the last high ground of the rule of law, would do less harm.
Judges are also human beings, and different judges may have different attitudes towards professional adherence. How far judges of the Court of Final Appeal can hold out under the Security Law is, of course, only they know.
I hope Mr Lai will take care of himself and remain optimistic and firm. Behind him, there are millions of Hong Kong citizens and countries and people around the world who cherish democracy and freedom. Justice may be late, but it will not be absent.
Recent Comments