National Security Law Displaces Basic Law

Lai was seen briefly as he entered the Court of Final Appeal

 

This morning Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying briefly came out of prison to hear the Court of Final Appeal's ruling on whether he should have been granted bail on December 23 while waiting to face trial on charges of fraud and colluding with foreign forces.

The CFA ruled it could not overturn NSL

But at that time he was sent back to jail on December 31, when the Court of Final Appeal ruled the Department of Justice could appeal the High Court judge's decision.

Just before 10am, Lai was briefly seen wearing chains around his waist as he walked into the CFA; his die-hard supporters lined up last night to ensure they got a seat in the gallery, while his detractors held up posters and claimed he violated the national security law -- but that trial isn't until April 16.

However, Lai's time in the court was only for a few minutes, and he won't be spending Chinese New Year with his family.

In December he had been granted bail after paying a HK$10 million bond, but today the Court of Final Appeal found the judge who had released him, based his decision on an erroneous interpretation on a key provision of the national security law.

Chief Justice Cheung was involved in the ruling

Recently installed Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kiu-nung said Lai could apply for bail again at the High Court, as the Court of Final Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to handle his application.

In addition the court said the Beijing-imposed security law, which criminalizes acts of secession, subversion and terrorism, was not open to constitutional review, and that Hong Kong's most senior judges had no power to correct parts of the legislation alleged to run counter to the Basic Law, or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied in Hong Kong.

Charges related to the national security law will be scrutinized at a higher standard, which means defendants hardly have any chance of getting bail. Hong Kong's justice system is being brought into line with China's very swiftly, with the Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah making this possible.

In other words, since the national security law was implemented by the National People's Congress and Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Hong Kong judges have no right to amend anything to do with it.

Tong allegedly drove into police officers

It also means that the Basic Law does not protect people's rights when it comes to breaching the national security law.

Today it was also announced that the first person charged under the national security law, Tong Ying-kit, will not have a trial by jury, but instead by three judges appointed by Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

On July 1 last year, Tong allegedly rode a motorcycle into police officers during a protest.

Justice secretary Cheng claimed a jury trial may pose "a real risk" to jurors and their families, and that it could impair the "due administration of justice".

Cheng says Tong's case heard by judges not jury

Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a legal scholar at the University of Hong Kong questioned Cheng's reasons, as there was no evidence of any potential threat to jurors.

"Why is it that they can ensure the judges' safety but not the jurors'?" he said.

Cheung said the jury system was introduced as a safeguard to check against bad law, and Cheng's decision to "circumvent and damage the system" had resulted in the natural consequence of giving the impression the government did not trust juries.

Yet another sign of the justice system in Hong Kong being mainlandized. There is no legal way around it...

Justice Done

Lin Jun was a university student in Montreal when he was murdered in 2012

Lin Diran received a bitter sweet Christmas present yesterday.

His son Lin Jun's killer was convicted of first degree murder in Montreal and will be behind bars for 25 years without parole.

The horrific crime took place in 2012 when Luka Magnotta lured 33-year-old Lin to his apartment, murdered him, did indecent acts with the body, dismembered the body and disposed of the body parts by mailing some of them to two Vancouver addresses as well as members of parliament including Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Luka Magnotta (centre) was sentenced to 25 years in prison

Magnotta, 32, tried to plead he had schizophrenia that caused him to kill, claiming his father had the illness and so did he, but after eight days of deliberation, the jury did not believe the porn star's supposed mental illness was the reason why he callously murdered Lin.

It was an excruciating wait for Lin Diran, but in the end the jury decided the facts of the case all pointed to Magnotta's obsessive desire for attention, videotaping the murder and putting it online, and that it was premeditated, and that he was not schizophrenic at all.

A key piece of evidence was Magnotta's email to a British journalist six months prior to the murder, saying he planned to kill a human and make a movie out of it.

After the verdict was read out, the prosecutor read out Lin Diran's statement.

"The night Lin Jun died, parts of many other people died in one way or another. His mother, his sister and me, his friends... in one night, we lost a lifetime of hope," the statement read.

Lin Jun's parents: his father Lin Diran attended the trial

"I had come to see your trial system to see justice done, and I leave satisfied that you have not let my son down."

Lin Diran had come to Canada to attend the trial which must have been an eye-opening experience for him. He also probably learned more about his son's life in Montreal, how he enjoyed living abroad, and became more comfortable as a gay man, something he may have hidden from his family.

However, Lin Jun's life as an undergraduate student at Concordia University was cut short by an egotistical man who thought nothing of others except that they were for him to determine their fates. After the murder Magnottta fled Montreal to Europe and watched on social media as the authorities tried to catch up with him. Eventually he was recognized by someone in a cafe and was arrested.

It is a relief that this sensational case is over, though Lin Jun will never come back to his family. We hope that this verdict will bring some comfort to them, knowing their son's killer is being punished severely for his heinous crime for a long time.

Performing a Civic Duty

Residents need to do their duty to help mete out justice in Hong Kong

A colleague of mine was called for jury duty and she was terrified of what would happen. She didn't want to be called, but our human resources department said she had to show up.

She told me some 60 people were present and sent to a court room. Then their names were placed in a box and then drawn one by one. The first three people picked were men who tried to avoid their civic duty.

One claimed he had to undergo surgery; another said he didn't understand much English, as the trial would be conducted in English even though it would be translated from Cantonese. The judge asked him several questions in English, but he had a dumbfounded look on his face and let go. The third claimed he had to go on a trip and the judge asked if it was for work or pleasure. He said pleasure and the judge added it the trial would be over before his holiday started.

However the defendant's lawyer said he didn't want that person to be a jury member and so he was asked to leave.

Then my colleague's name was read out and she was shocked -- of all people, me? She tried to give an excuse, but the judge, probably tired of hearing three already, ordered her to go to the jury box.

At first she was terrified they would have to preside over a murder case, but it ended up being a man who was appealing his sentence for drug trafficking.

The judge advised the jury they had to decide if the man knew he was trafficking drugs or not. He vehemently claimed that he didn't know what he was transporting was drugs.

During the three-day trial, my colleague said there was no information about the defendant's background. The police testified and one or two other people before the defendant went on the stand.

However, after the prosecutor asked him questions, the defendant started having a fit on the stand. His barrister just sat there completely unfazed as well as the judge, while the members of the jury were shocked by the man's outburst. He began giving bits of personal information when his lawyer stopped him, saying this would affect the case.

The jury was asked to leave the room and after they came back, there was no mention of the man's outburst on the record.

During the trial, my colleague tried very hard not to look at the defendant's family members. If jury members even so much as glanced at them, the family would stare at them for a while. It was unnerving to say the least.

Finally after all the testimony and evidence was heard and seen (a small bag of raw drug materials), the jury members retired to the room to figure out their verdict.

Of the seven jury members, six including my colleague decided he was guilty. The lone woman who didn't agree couldn't decide that he was completely guilty.

Lucky for my colleague, the judge accepted their verdict. If the jury members were divided to say three and four, they would be sent back until they could decide a five to two outcome.

Only then did the judge explain to the jury that the man only had an elementary school education, that he started committing crimes when he was 13 years old and as an adult had gone in and out of jail. It was only then the jury was told that this trial was his appeal to a higher court.

In the end my colleague actually enjoyed the experience and learned a lot. She was allowed to go home everyday and giving a stipend of a few hundred dollars each day. However the only tedious part was the translation that was done sentence by sentence which was tiring for someone who knew both languages.

Nevertheless she seemed pleased to do her civic duty and relieved it wasn't a murder case after all!