The then-district councillor was among 135 people arrested outside he Chinachem Golden Plaza when they were on their way to PolyU on November 18, 2019, to support the protesters who had occupied the campus.
A representative of the Department of Justice (DoJ) told the court on Wednesday that District Judge Ernest Lin had wrongly applied precedent cases when considering Lo’s “participatory intent” during the trial. The Democratic Party politician should have been found guilty based on the “strong and compelling” environmental evidence, the government lawyer argued.
According to the government counsel, Lo had appeared before the police cordon twice that day. Protesters surrounding him had already held up umbrellas, while some were shouting. The police had also fired pepper balls.
Democratic Party chairman Lo Kin-hei. File photo: Kelly Ho/HKFP.
Although Lo was not wearing black, as many protesters did, and had no protest gear on him at the time, his decision to remain at the scene for 40 minutes showed that he had intended to encourage the protesters, the DoJ representative said.
“Different participants can have different roles. Not all participants have to be black-clad,” the counsel said in Cantonese.
Following his acquittal by the District Court in November 2022, the DoJ launched a bid to appeal on December 5, 2022. Two days later, on December 7, Lo was re-arrested and brought to the High Court.
Lo told the District Court in 2022 that he had only planned to observe what was happening at the scene. He also said he had been “unaware” that the police had categorised protesters’ occupation of the PolyU campus as a riot and “did not know” that police had urged people to avoid heading to the blockaded area.
In clearing Lo, Lin ruled that it was “morally suspicious” for an individual to stay at the scene for personal benefits, such as accumulating political capital, monitoring alleged police abuse of power or to satisfy one’s curiosity. But it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the individual had in fact taken part in an unlawful assembly without other environmental evidence.
Protester and police clash outside PolyU. Photo: Holmes Chan/HKFP.
The government lawyer argued on Wednesday that whether Lo wanted to accumulate political capital, or portray an image that he was on the protesters’ side, was an “extraneous” intent that was irrelevant to the court’s consideration.
On Lo’s behalf, barrister Erik Shum opposed the appeal, saying the trial judge had not erred when he took into account Lo’s “extraneous” intent. Although the democrat had “brought suspicion onto himself,” his attire and lack of interaction with the protesters showed that participation in the unlawful assembly was “not the only inference to be drawn from this case.”
The trial judge had explained that there was no evidence to prove Lo’s intent and motive, and thus it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Lo had taken part in the unlawful assembly.
After hearing submissions from both sides, justice Derek Pang said the panel would need time to reach a decision and a judgement would be handed down later.
The main entrance to PolyU, which was the site of fierce clashes in November 2019. Photo: Holmes Chan/HKFP.
PolyU turned into one of the most brutal battlefields between police and pro-democracy demonstrators in November that year, leaving more than 300 people hospitalised and over 1,300 arrested.
The red-brick campus was surrounded on all sides by riot police for almost two weeks, as some protesters were holed up inside the red-brick campus, while others “surrendered” themselves to the authorities. Some took desperate measures to flee the university by climbing down ropes or escaping through underground sewers.
