Hong Kong legal scholar’s op-ed on axing early release for national security prisoners ‘misleading,’ gov’t says
Hong Kong Free Press
Hong Kong’s corrections department has condemned an op-ed written by a top legal scholar about a new rule denying early release to national security convicts, calling his comments “misleading.”
The Correctional Services Department (CSD) said in a statement on Wednesday that the op-ed by Johannes Chan included “unfounded and misleading remarks” about arrangements for national security offenders in prison custody.
The statement came after Chan, the former dean of the University of Hong Kong’s law faculty, wrote in Ming Pao about how recent security legislation, known locally as Article 23, had raised the threshold for the early release of national security convicts. Typically, prisoners can trim a third off their sentence for good behaviour.
Chan wrote in the op-ed, published on Wednesday, that criminal offences were not typically retroactive, to protect people from being punished when something that was not illegal at the time of action was criminalised at a later date.
He said that when corrections authorities were able to modify parole conditions based on factors that have already been considered by a judge when delivering a sentence, the reason for rejecting early release is punitive and breaches the principle of non-retroactivity.
In response, the CSD said his points were “factually inaccurate.” The courts are not to consider whether the defendant will be granted remission or early release when handing down a sentence, the department wrote.
“Through these false remarks, the article misled readers to believe that if a [prisoner] is not granted remission or early release in accordance with the law, it would be tantamount to receiving a heavier sentence and a breach of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights,” the department wrote.
‘Contrary’ to national security
Since Article 23 was enacted in March, prisoners jailed for national security offences will only be granted early release if authorities are satisfied it would “not be contrary to the interests of national security.”
Before the new legislation kicked in, prisoners with good conduct in jail could receive a one-third reduction of their sentence, apart from those serving a life sentence.
The CSD wrote: “The grant of early release has never been a guaranteed right of [prisoners] under the laws of Hong Kong; [prisoners] should in principle serve the full sentence imposed by the court before they can be released.”
The department added that it had the responsibility to “effectively prevent acts and activities endangering national security in accordance with the law.”
Pro-Beijing news outlet Dot Dot News also criticised Chan’s op-ed, writing in an editorial published on Thursday morning that the scholar was not raising legal issues but “political issues with a specific inclination.”
Hong Kong enacted Article 23 in March, fast-tracking the bill through the opposition-free Legislative Council. Authorities said the law, which criminalises offences including treason theft of state secrets, was needed to plug “loopholes” in the Beijing-imposed national security law.
The bill introduced a clause stating that a prisoner convicted of national security crimes could be denied early release if authorities deem their parole would go against national security interests. The new threshold would apply even if the prisoner was jailed before the homegrown security law was enacted.
Days after Article 23 came into effect, local media outlets reported that activist Ma Chun-man had been denied early release. Ma, the second person convicted under the Beijing-imposed national security law, was sentenced to five years in jail after winning an appeal that saw his original jail term – handed down in 2021 – reduced from five years and nine months.
He was convicted of inciting secession by chanting slogans and making speeches that called for Hong Kong independence.
The Beijing-imposed and homegrown security laws have been criticised by international rights organisations and foreign governments for restricting Hongkongers’ freedoms. The government, however, has maintained that they have restored safety and stability to the city.
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.