Hong Kong gov’t has no plans to discuss reform of jury system, justice minister Paul Lam says
Hong Kong Free Press
The Hong Kong government has no plans to discuss reforming its jury system, which is written into the city’s mini-constitution, the city’s justice minister Paul Lam has said after some pro-establishment political figures called for it to be reconsidered.
Talking to TVB on Sunday, Lam said that while the public can propose ways to revise the jury system, careful consideration was needed. He added that according to Article 86 of the Basic Law, the principle of trial by jury previously practised in Hong Kong shall be maintained.
Ronny Tong, a barrister and government advisor, wrote in an op-ed in September that trial by jury needed reforming to include an appeal system, saying that a trial surrounding a foiled 2019 bomb plot had revealed problems with the jury system.
In late August, a nine-member jury convicted one person and cleared six over their involvement in the plot in Hong Kong’s first trial under a UN anti-terrorism law, sparking controversy among some from the pro-establishment camp.
Chu Kar-kin, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, wrote in an op-ed in early September that Hong Kong should consider withdrawing its use of juries as jurors could be subjective and emotional, and did not have any legal training.
Trial by jury has been used by Hong Kong’s common law legal system for 177 years, mostly for criminal cases heard at the High Court. Any Hong Kong resident aged 21 to 64, who is of sound mind, good character and has sufficient understanding legal proceedings can be a juror.
While the defence can appeal against the jury’s verdict of conviction, the prosecution has no right to appeal against the jury’s verdict of acquittal.
Lam said on Sunday that one of the characteristics of trial by jury is that the jury has to reach a unanimous decision but does not provide detailed reasons for arriving at that decision, making it impossible to file an appeal.
However, Lam added, the prosecution can file an appeal if the judge misleads the jury to reach a decision.
Non-jury trial for national security cases
The Beijing-imposed national security law, which came into effect on June 30, 2020, gave the justice minister the power to allow national security cases to be tried without a jury on the grounds of protecting state secrets, and the personal safety of jurors and their family members.
To date, no national security case has been tried by a jury, with landmark trials including the case involving 47 democrats and the trial of the pro-democracy tycoon Jimmy Lai have been presided over by a panel of judges handpicked to handle national security cases.
The government advisor Tong has repeatedly said that it is appropriate for national security cases to be heard by judges.
“Three judges are better than a jury, because the judges are equipped with legal training… Even if they have their own political stance, they will not allow their political stance to interfere in their judgement,” Tong said in Cantonese in an interview with Cable TV last September.
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
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-title {
font-size: 1.2em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .entry-meta {
display: flex;
flex-wrap: wrap;
align-items: center;
margin-top: 0.5em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-meta {
font-size: 0.8em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .avatar {
height: 25px;
width: 25px;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail{
margin: 0;
margin-bottom: 0.25em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail img {
height: auto;
width: 100%;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail figcaption {
margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles p {
margin: 0.5em 0;
}
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.