Convicted Protester Defiant at Sentencing

In November 2019 students clashed with police at CUHK

Yesterday five former Chinese University students were jailed for up to 59 months each for rioting and flouting a ban on wearing masks at public gatherings during clashes with police on the university campus in November 2019.

When handing down the sentences to the five at West Kowloon Court, Deputy Judge Kathie Cheung Kit-yee said the defendants must have chosen to remain at the scene either to take part in the violence or abet the criminal acts of their comrades.

She said the lack of evidence over the defendants' level of involvement was no reason to reduce their jail sentences, because all participants in a riot shared the same culpability regardless of their roles in it.

5 were arrested at the bridge near CUHK entrance

"Hong Kong is a place which upholds the rule of law, and a peaceful and tranquil community which shows no tolerance aimless acts that seriously disturb the peace, especially those targeting law enforcement officers," Cheung said.

Three men aged 23 and one aged 20 were all sentenced to 57 months in jail, while one female defendant, Foo Hoi-ching, 23, was handed a 59-month sentence.

The five were arrested near the bridge near CUHK's entrance where protesters hurled objects at police. At the time protesters had just thrown 23 Molotov cocktails and other hard objects at police.   

Foo, a nursing student, remained defiant during mitigation, saying she was not sorry for what she had done and found Cheung's ruling unreasonable.

She wrote a letter to the court that was quickly translated on Twitter by Tsui Lok-man, a former assistant professor at CUHK's School of Journalism and Communication:

Foo says authorities free to interpret the law

"First of all, this letter of plea is not intended to gain the mercy of the judge.

"In asking for the background report, I honestly have no regrets for my actions, and I also have nothing to say to the judge in my plea, because I do not agree with the law itself, nor do I feel I have done anything wrong.

"Simply put, I do not think this is a reasonable sentence. In the eyes of some people, 'the law is the law, and if you break the law, you need to bear responsibility'.

"Others may also believe that the court's ruling proves that the protesters' behaviour is wrong, and their actions in vain. But I believe that authority does not equal correctness.

"First of all, the laws of Hong Kong today are not recognized by its people, nor does society have any space to discuss whether the law is reasonable or not. Second, the Public Order Ordinance is vague by design, to enable the authorities to freely interpret and control it.

She says the law controls people, not for justice

"After 2019, riot cases have increased rapidly, and the courts have given a new interpretation to the definition of a riot, such that increasingly more behaviour is now classified as "illegal behaviour", enabling more and more people to get convicted, and allowing the authorities to further repress dissidents.

"Under a totalitarian regime, the law is only a bloodless but violent tool of the authorities to control the people, and the court is not a place of justice.

"In such a place, only attention is being paid to social order on a surface level, but the root cause of what is tearing the society apart is ignored.

"When the penalties for political cases gets heavier, some defendants will please guilty or appeal to the judge, in order to reduce their sentence, but this does not necessarily mean they agree that the current law is moral or just.

Foo no longer believes in the HK judicial system

"The judge may point out that if you are not satisfied with the ruling, you can appeal. However, I no longer believe in Hong Kong's judicial system, and even the highest courts may not listen to the voices of dissidents.

"I just want to take this opportunity to express my dissatisfaction. If the court hears what I have said, and believes that it is justified in giving me a heavy sentence to make me regret and reflect, then it will be just as it is."

 

法官閣下：

首先表明，我無意以這封求情信來博取法官閣下的憐憫。

我索取背景報告時，我坦言對於自己的行為並無後悔，亦沒有說話要向法官閣下求情，因為我並不認同法例本身，亦不覺得自己有做錯的地方。簡單而言，我不認為這是合理的判決。

在某部分人眼中，示威者「犯法就係犯法，就係要負責」，有些人亦可能認為法庭的裁決證明了示威者的行為是錯誤，是徒勞無功的。但我認為，權威並不代表正確。

首先，香港現時的法律，並非由人民共同認可，社會並沒有空間討論現行法律合理與否。其次，暴動條例的定義本來就模糊不清，以便政權靈活解釋和操控。2019年後暴動案件急升，法庭時而重新詮譯暴動定義，令更多行為被列為「法律不認可的行為」，從而令更多人入罪，令政權得以打壓異見者。

極權下的法律只是政權用以規範人民行為的不流血暴力手段，而法庭也不是一個彰顯公義的地方。這裏只會流於表面地關注社會秩序，並不會著眼社會撕裂的根本原因。

當政治案件的刑罰日益加重，有些被告會選擇認罪或向法官求情，以減輕刑期，但或許並不代表他們認同現行法律具有道德正當性。法官閣下可能會指出，若不滿閣下裁決，大可以申請上訴。然而，本人已不再相信香港的司法制度，再高級的法庭亦不見得會聆聽異見者的聲音。

我只是希望藉此機會表達我的不滿。如果法庭聽畢本人以上的言論，認為可以用重判形式令本人從而後悔及反省，那便悉隨尊便。

 

Donald Tsang Found Guilty

Donald Tsang emerges from the courthouse with his family

Today Hong Kong has reached another new low -- its former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has been found guilty of misconduct in public office.

It was the charge of discussing Wave Media's broadcast license but failed to disclose it was a conflict of interest because he was also negotiating a Shenzhen penthouse with one of Wave Media's shareholders, Bill Wong Cho-bau.

Designer Barrie Ho was involved in renovating the flat

However, Tsang, 72, was not found guilty of public office in the charge in Tsang's failure to disclose his relationship with designer Barrie Ho Chow-lai when he nominated him for a civic award. Ho was involved in the HK$3.5 million renovation of the Shenzhen flat.

The defense had said it was not necessary for Tsang to declare the connection, because if he did, it would put pressure on others to approve Ho's nomination.

On the third charge of Tsang receiving free renovation work worth HK$3.5 million on the Shenzhen flat in exchange for approving Wave Media's application, jurors could not agree.

Some of them may have agreed with the defense that the state of the flat was uninhabitable so the renovations would have been done anyway, and in any event Tsang would only live there temporarily.

What about the HK$350K the Tsangs received from David Li?

It's surprising the jurors could not come to an agreement on the third charge listed here -- what about the HK$350,000 that was taken out of BEA chairman David Li Kwok-po and Wave Media shareholder's bank account and then half an hour later Tsang's wife Selina deposited the same amount into her bank account in the same financial institution?

In any event, Tsang will be sentenced on Monday, the maximum sentence could be seven years and a fine.

Finally some closure on this long drawn out trial, not the actual trial itself, but how long it took from him being charged to going to trial.

Prosecutors said he was a two-faced liar, who colluded with wealthy businessmen for personal gain, while the defense said Tsang would never want to sully his 45-year career in the civil service by accepting a bribe.

But it looks like on one count at least the jury believed the prosecution, and Tsang will have to pay for that.

Are there more corrupt government officials we need to know about? It just shows the government's checks and balances aren't enough to keep its officials on the straight and narrow, and that the media needs to do more to make them accountable.

Vindication for Beaten Occupy Protester

Ken Tsang outside the court today flanked by supporters and yellow umbrellas

Finally over two years later, vindication for the Occupy Movement with seven police officers convicted of kicking, punching and stepping on activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu after he was arrested and handcuffed for assaulting police.

The seven originally faced one joint count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, but were found not guilty. Instead they were convicted of lesser, alternative charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Seven police officers were convicted of assaulting Tsang

That charge carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison, while common assault is one year.

The police officers will be sentenced this Friday.

Judge David Dufton's verdict caps one of the most controversial incidents during the 79-day protest. During the trial the court heard Tsang, 41, testify how on October 15, 2014, he had poured liquid onto some police officers during a clearance operation in Admiralty.

He was arrested and zip-tied, but instead of being brought to one of the coaches to transport arrested protesters, he was taken to a substation and assaulted.

On October 14, 2014, they dragged Tsang to a substation

The 224-page judgment found that there Tsang was dumped to the ground and immediately assaulted, which resulted in injuries to his face, neck, shoulder, flank, chest and back.

Part of the assault was captured on video by several media that defense lawyers had tried to dismiss as unauthentic evidence.

While a chief inspector and senior inspector did not actually take part in the assault, but watched on, Judge Dufton pointed out: "Every police officer has a duty to intervene to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers. A police officer's duty is to keep the peace. If a police officer stands by and watches his colleague beat up a suspected person, his failure to intervene is evidence of encouragement to carry out the assault."

They were captured on video assaulting Tsang

Interestingly none of the seven officers presented evidence during the trial, though several mitigation letters written by other police officers and family members of the seven were submitted to the court during mitigation.

The police also spent a staggering HK$9 million on defense legal fees, and the force has raised over HK$10 million if the seven decide to appeal.

Just End to a Two-Year Nightmare

Justice was served today for an Indonesian domestic helper who suffered horrific torture and slave-like conditions by her employers.

Tai Chi-wai, 42 was sentenced to three years and three months in jail, while his wife Catherine Au Yuk-shan, 41, was handed a five and a half year jail sentence.

The trial which lasted several days gripped the city as the domestic helper Kartika Puspitasari, 30, testified about how she was beaten and forced to do undignified things for two years.

Kartika told of when she first arrived in October 2010, Au threw away all her clothes and forced her to wear over sized old clothes, but no underwear or bras. She also told of how Au cut off all her hair and brandished a box cutter, threatening to kill her if she let her hair grow back. Then the employer slashed her forearm and wrist with the blade, the scars still visible.

The domestic helper testified she worked seven days a week with no holiday or pay, and was forced to sleep in the kitchen. And then Au beat her often, using wire hangers, shoes, and a bicycle chain, and even scalded her face with a hot iron.

That's not all -- Kartika said in court that from June 27 to July 1 last year, before the family went on holiday to Thailand, Tai tied her legs to a chair and her hands behind her back. She testified that he left no food or water for her and literally sat there for five days until her employers came back.

The couple's defense? They claimed Kartika's injuries were self inflicted and that her claims were "ridiculous".

In giving his verdict, Judge So Wai-tak described the couple as "cruel" and "vicious", and that they had damaged Hong Kong's reputation as a safe place to work. He said that a doctor's testimony showed that Kartika could not have intentionally hurt herself because of where the marks were on her body.

According to media reports, Au and Tai were calm when the sentence was read out, and apparently were prepared for jail; they already contacted the Social Welfare Department to look after their three children ranging in age from five to 11.

Hong Kong started importing domestic helpers in the late 1970s which made it easier for women to go to work in order to contribute to a two-income household. They first came from the Philippines and more now from Indonesia.

While the monthly income they earn here is good compared to what they can earn back in their home countries, doing domestic work and looking after children and the elderly is physically demanding, and for many it's demeaning, as some have university degrees.

The majority seem get along with their employers, some have very happy relationships with their families, while Kartika's case is the other extreme as a two-year brutal physical and psychological nightmare.

This case shows how few checks and balances there are when it comes to Hong Kong families hiring domestic helpers. Since she lives with the family, the domestic helper has no choice but to live with the family and try to tolerate the situation.

Domestic helper support groups are now calling for the government to allow option of domestic helpers living with their employers so that they are not on call 24 hours a day, and also it will make it easier for them to report abuses to the police.

It will be interesting to see how the government reacts to this case and if it leads to further guidelines on how domestic helpers should be treated in Hong Kong. It cannot turn a deaf ear to these workers who make a significant contribution to the city's economy and community.