Hong Kong backs top court decision to uphold 2019 demo convictions, says free assembly protected within limits
Hong Kong Free Press
The Hong Kong government has expressed its endorsement of a top court decision which rejected a bid by prominent democrats to overturn their convictions for knowingly taking part in an unauthorised assembly on August 18, 2019.
After the Court of Final Appeal handed down its judgement on Monday, a government spokesperson said later that evening that it welcomed the apex court decision and maintained that Hong Kong citizens have the right to “peaceful assembly and procession conducted in accordance with the law.”
“That said, these rights must be exercised in conformity with the relevant legislation to ensure the safeguarding of national security, public order, public safety and the protection of the rights and freedom of others,” the statement read.
The top court on Monday morning unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy figures Martin Lee, Margaret Ng, Jimmy Lai, Albert Ho, Lee Cheuk-yan, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Cyd Ho.
Ex-media mogul Lai was named in the government statement as one of the defendants in the case.
The court rejected the defence’s earlier submission that prosecution or conviction over an unauthorised assembly that did not lead to serious public disorder or violence would be a disproportionate restriction of the freedom of assembly.
Different frameworks
Two UK Supreme Court decisions were cited in the bid to argue that the lower courts had failed to verify whether the democrats’ conviction would be a proportionate restriction of their fundamental rights.
But Chief Justice Andrew Cheung and Permanent Judge Roberto Ribeiro held that the two Supreme Court decisions should not be followed in Hong Kong, citing differences in the respective legal frameworks.
Echoing the the judgement, the government statement read: “In view of the differences between the respective frameworks for human rights challenges in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, the court also held that the decisions of the two UK cases should not be followed in Hong Kong[.]”
Among the five-judge panel at the top court was former UK Supreme Court president David Neuberger, who said he agreed with the judgement penned by Cheung and Ribeiro.
Neuberger also said that the constitutional differences in the Hong Kong and UK legal systems did not mandate a different approach when considering whether a restriction on the right of assembly was proportionate.
But they do require a different approach “if the court concludes that the restriction is or may not be proportionate,” he said.
Neuberger told British media this June that he would stay on the top court “so long as I can do good by being there,” after three overseas judges announced their resignations.
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.