UN anti-terrorism trial: Hong Kong judge urges jury to consider 2019 protests as context when reaching verdict
Hong Kong Free Press
A Hong Kong judge has urged jurors to consider the context of the 2019 protests when deliberating the verdict of a trial involving an alleged bomb plot to target police during the unrest that year.
Seven people are standing trial in the High Court under the UN (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance. They allegedly conspired with others to plant two bombs along the route of a rally in Wan Chai on December 8, 2019, with the intention of killing police officers.
Cheung Chun-fu, Cheung Ming-yu, Yim Man-him, Christian Lee, Lai Chun-pong, and Justin Hui have pleaded not guilty to a joint count of conspiring “to commit bombing of prescribed objects.”
Lau Pui-ying pleaded not guilty to one count of “conspiracy to provide or collect property to commit terrorist acts.”
‘Do not guess’
Judge Judianna Barnes on Monday continued to give directions to the nine-member jury as the trial entered its 80th day. She said she expected to complete her instruction on Tuesday, after which the jury will retire to decide on their verdict in private.
Barnes told the jurors that they should take what happened during the 2019 protests and unrest as important context underlying the case.
“There has been evidence relating to 2019, such as the testimony given by Wong Chun-keung and Eddie Pang,” Barnes said in Cantonese, referring to two defendants-turned-prosecution witnesses in the case.
Protests erupted in June 2019 over a since-axed extradition bill. They escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing’s encroachment. Demonstrators demanded an independent probe into police conduct, amnesty for those arrested and a halt to the characterisation of protests as “riots.”
Wong, the leader of radical protest group “Dragon Slayers,” and Pang, a member of another unnamed radical group, pleaded guilty to the bombing charge and testified against the seven defendants during the trial.
“You cannot ignore the factual background [of the 2019 protests]. It is entirely different if someone said they planned to use guns or bombs against the police today than in 2019,” Barnes said.
She said the prosecution had relied on the testimonies of Wong and Pang, as well as a large amount of circumstantial evidence, to build its case that the seven had knowingly participated in the alleged conspiracy.
But she also said the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses had been challenged by the defence, which said the pair had “strong motives” to tailor or fabricate their evidence.
“Do not guess. You must make a decision based on facts, including the admitted facts and whether you accept certain testimony as truthful,” Barnes said.
Discrepancies
As an example, Barnes said if jurors’ believed Wong’s testimony, during which he said that members of the Dragon Slayers had agreed to “luring the police” into the vicinity on the planned explosives, they could then infer which members had been part of the conspiracy.
The jurors must only convict the defendants if their participation in the alleged plot was the only reasonable conclusion, the judge added.
Barnes also gave instructions regarding discrepancies between the prosecution and the defence regarding each defendant’s case.
Prosecutors have alleged that the conspiracy was formed in late-September that year between Dragon Slayers and the unnamed radical group, although the details of the plot – such as the locations of the bombs – only emerged days before December 8.
The defence lawyers for Cheung Chun-fu, Cheung Ming-yu, Yim, and Lee, had said that their clients had been members of the Dragon Slayers but were kept in the dark by Wong about the alleged bomb plot.
Lawyers for Lai argued that their client was not part of the alleged plot as the prosecution suggested, while lawyers for Hui had said that Hui had left before the plan could be carried out.
Separately, prosecutors accuse Lau of operating a Telegram channel to fundraise for Dragon Slayers’ expenses on petrol bombs, which prosecutors said had amounted to funding terrorist acts.
Lawyers for Lau had said there had been no evidence in the trial that demonstrated the number of petrol bombs involved as well as the damage they caused, adding that hurling petrol bombs could not be considered terrorist acts under the ordinance.
The trial marked the first time prosecutors in Hong Kong invoked the anti-terrorism act. The first six defendants face life behind bars if convicted, while Lau faces a maximum 14 years in jail.
Other than Lau, who has been granted bail, all the defendants have been detained for more than three years.
The trial continues on Tuesday.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.