The fundamental reason why the outside world believed that Hong Kong still had an independent judicial system and remained a city under the rule of law after the handover of sovereignty in 1997 was that the English common law system was still in force; the basic guarantees of this system were included in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, that is, China guaranteed Hong Kong’s “independent judicial power and the right of final adjudication” under “one country, two systems. The existing laws will remain basically unchanged” (China’s pledge 3.3); China also pledges to protect the freedoms of the person, speech, publication, and assembly in Hong Kong (China’s pledge 3.5). However, with the passage of the Chinese Communist Party’s “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law” and the recent approval by the Court of Final Appeal of the Department of Justice to remand Lai Chi-ying in prison, the most basic protection of freedom of the person under Hong Kong law and the freedom of thought of Hong Kong people have finally become question marks.
The most shocking argument of the Department of Justice’s appeal is that the “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law” was not created under the common law system of Hong Kong, and therefore does not have the principle of “presumption of innocence” that Hong Kong law has always had. “This principle is the most fundamental cornerstone of the so-called “rule of law in Hong Kong” – that is, no one will be prosecuted for an unfounded crime. Even if one is lucky enough to win the case in the future, what about the jail time in vain? This is the most important and fundamental principle of the so-called “rule of law”. Is this still called the “rule of law”?
Even though Article 5 of the “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law” states in black and white that “a person is presumed innocent until convicted by a judicial authority”, the Department of Justice claims that Article 42 states that “unless the judge has substantial grounds for believing that he will not continue to However, the Department of Justice claims that Article 42 states that “bail shall not be granted unless the judge has substantial grounds for believing that the person will not continue to commit acts against national security” – two completely contradictory and conflicting provisions that, as expected, show that this arbitrary interpretation of the law by the Chinese Communist Party is completely ineffective – the presumption of innocence without trial. What is the point of presuming innocence without a trial; but even if innocence is presumed, bail will still not be granted, so what is the point of presuming innocence? This is like saying to everyone that you have human rights, but the government does not guarantee your safety.
According to the reporters’ quotes from the hearing, even the judge appointed by the Hong Kong Communist Party for the National Security Law is questioning the prosecution’s case as “not good and strong”, and the so-called “request for foreign sanctions” by Lai Chi-ying in the interview, as referred to in the prosecution’s evidence, appears to be only a “comment”, not a “comment”. “The defense had a case to defend itself; however, the prosecution’s evidence, which sounded so far-fetched, could be “trumped up” and went beyond the previous “incrimination by words”. “The “evidence” listed in the prosecution’s case is “evidence” that refers to Lai Chi-ying. The “evidence” cited in the prosecution’s case is that Lai Chi-ying has been “actively supporting the pan-democratic camp and opposing the Chinese Communist Party and the Hong Kong Government” for many years. It turns out that supporting the pro-democracy camp, and even supporting democracy in Hong Kong, is also part of the “crime”.
So do not need to listen to what he said, just list what he supported in the past, can also constitute part of the “crime”, and then “even if” your mouth did not say, your heart “support “even if” your mouth didn’t say it, you “support” sanctions in your mind, and then you make a few “comments” – the representative of the Department of Justice says “the court may infer that the statements are disguised requests”, which can also become This not only turns something that was originally legal into illegal, but also completely “crosses” the most basic principle of limitation – what has long been legal in Hong Kong is now “illegal”. Now it has become “illegal”. Does anyone believe that Hong Kong has the “rule of law” when such a “law” undermines all the basic principles of the rule of law?
The most basic principle of criminal law is that the penalty is proportional to the “fault”. Who has died because of these two comments? When two comments can be equated to “murder” and then sentenced to life imprisonment at any time, is there still “no change in the way of life” for Hong Kong? Is the freedom of the person, of speech and of publication “protected by law”? What is still “valid” about the so-called “one country, two systems” principle, which is guaranteed to remain unchanged for 50 years in the Sino-British Joint Declaration?
The Department of Justice insists that there is no way to prosecute in Hong Kong, and it has no intention to amend the law to do so. With two “comments”, Lai Chi-ying can invoke the National Security Law to transcend time and space, transcend the jurisdiction of the whole universe, and turn back the clock to make prosecutions.
Recent Comments