Love Conquers All

Elaine To and Henry Tong on their wedding day last August

This is Henry Tong Wai-hung, 39, and Elaine To, 42. They are such a cute couple. Both are into fitness and own a gym in Sheung Wan. They are also parents to three dogs.

Last July 28 they participated in an anti-government protest at Chater Garden in Central that later went towards the liaison office in Western district, but then were arrested on charges of rioting together with a teenager, Natalie Lee Yuen-yui near the protest site. If convicted, the maximum sentence is 10 years.

While Lee pleaded not guilty, Tong and To did as well, claiming they were there to provide first aid to those who were teargassed -- they said they were never on the front lines, nor did they act violently or illegally.

The couple helped people who were teargassed

The pair was shocked to be arrested and hoped to be out on bail in time for their wedding on August 4. They managed to get out in time and were registered at Cotton Tree Drive Marriage Registry.

She wore a short white dress, and white cardigan with white boots and a veil, and he a body tight shirt with a suit printed on it and shorts, and also boots.

Thinking the wedding would be just them and two witnesses, they were overwhelmed to see family, friends, media and strangers who came to support them.

"Although there are some obstacles in the road, I have finally become Mrs Tong. I will go through the upheaval with you," To said during the ceremony as she cried.

"It is not easy to find someone in life with the same ideals, values and willing to go through ups and downs with you in the time of chaos... I will continue to love you forever," Tong said before they kissed.

But they had the riot charge hanging over their heads for almost a year.

The newlyweds were overwhelmed by supporters

Their trial was supposed to start in March, but because of the pandemic it was postponed. The actual trial took 20 days instead of the estimated 10.

During this time they also lost about two-thirds of their income at the gym because of political differences with clients, though the remaining ones have been very supportive.

In the days leading up to the verdict, they prepared for the worst, deciding who would look after the dogs, passing ownership of the gym to a friend and packing up their things.

Today was the verdict -- they were acquitted on the charge of rioting, though they were found guilty of a lesser offense of possessing a wireless radio (walkie talkies) without a permit and fined HK$1,300 each.

The student Lee was also found not guilty of rioting.

Prosecutors conceded they did not have enough direct evidence of what exactly the three defendants did at the time of the riot, despite months of investigations.

Their case was solely based on circumstantial evidence, such as the defendants' wearing black clothing, protective gear, and attempting to flee from the police.

To and Tong during one of their trial dates

District judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on found the trio not guilty of riot or the lesser, alternative charge of unlawful assembly because there was no evidence they had assembled together in common purpose with the protesters on Des Voeux Road West, where a riot broke out at 7.02pm.

However he did believe there was sufficient evidence the couple was providing first aid to people, as there were medical supplies in their belongings, and there was also CCTV footage of them treating the student Lee after she was teargassed.

To and Tong cried and hugged each other. Emerging out of the courthouse, Tong bowed to the media and supporters shouted protest slogans.

"We will not celebrate until after all who were arrested have received their fair verdicts," Tong told reporters.

At Instagram pier with their three dogs

As they were leaving, he shouted through his mask, "Hongkongers, add oil! Keep it up everyone!"

To, Tong and Lee were the first to be charged with rioting; with these verdicts, it will be interesting to see how the rest of the cases are handled.

It's interesting that despite the prosecutor's circumstantial evidence, the judge did not throw out these cases. Perhaps it was a hint to the Department of Justice that they had better have solid evidence for conviction before wasting the court's time?