Jurors to consider 2019 Hong Kong protests as context

A Hong Kong judge has asked jurors to consider the context of the 2019 protests when deliberating the verdict in a trial involving an alleged bomb attack on police during that year's unrest.

Seven people are on trial in the Supreme Court under the UN Regulations (Counter-Terrorism Measures) for allegedly conspiring with others to plant two bombs along the route of a rally in Wan Chai on December 8, 2019, with the intent to kill police officers.

Cheung Chun-fu, Cheung Ming-yu, Yim Man-him, Christian Lee, Lai Chun-pong and Justin Hui have pleaded not guilty to the joint charge of conspiracy to commit “specified object bombing.”

Lau Pui-ying pleaded not guilty to one count of “conspiracy to provide or collect property for the purpose of committing terrorist acts.”

“Don't guess”

Judge Judianna Barnes gave further instructions to the nine-member jury on Monday as the trial entered its 80th day. She said she expected to complete her instructions on Tuesday, after which the jury would retire to reach its verdict in camera.

Barnes urged jurors to consider events during the 2019 protests and unrest as important context for the case.

“There is evidence related to 2019, such as the statements of Wong Chun-keung and Eddie Pang,” Barnes said in Cantonese, referring to two defendants who became prosecution witnesses in the case.

In June 2019, protests broke out against an extradition law that has since been repealed. They escalated into sometimes violent protests against police conduct, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing's abuses. The demonstrators demanded an independent investigation into police conduct, amnesty for those arrested and an end to the labeling of protests as “riots”.

Wong, the leader of the radical protest group Dragon Slayers, and Pang, a member of another unnamed radical group, pleaded guilty to the bombing and testified at the trial of the seven defendants.

“You can’t ignore the real background [of the 2019 protests]”It's a completely different thing for someone to say they plan to use guns or bombs against the police today than it was in 2019,” Barnes said.

She said the prosecution relied on the testimony of Wong and Pang, as well as a large amount of circumstantial evidence, to support its case that the seven knowingly participated in the alleged conspiracy.

However, she also said that the statements of the two prosecution witnesses had been questioned by the defense, who said they had “strong motives” to twist or fabricate their evidence.

“Don't guess. You have to make a decision based on facts, including the admitted facts and whether you accept certain statements as truthful,” Barnes said.

Discrepancies

Barnes gave the example that if jurors believed Wong's testimony that members of the Dragon Slayers had agreed to “lure” police to the area with the planned bombs, they could use that to determine which members were involved in the conspiracy.

The jury would only have to convict the defendants if their involvement in the alleged conspiracy was the only reasonable conclusion, the judge added.

Barnes also gave instructions regarding any disagreements between the prosecution and defense regarding each of the defendant's cases.

Prosecutors claim that the conspiracy between the Dragon Slayers and the unnamed radical group was hatched in late September of that year, but details of the plot – such as the locations of the bombs – did not come to light until a few days before December 8.

Defense attorneys for Cheung Chun-fu, Cheung Ming-yu, Yim and Lee had said their clients were members of the Dragon Slayers but were kept in the dark by Wong about the alleged bombing.

Lai's lawyers argued that their client was not involved in the alleged plot, contrary to prosecutors' claims. Hui's lawyers, on the other hand, had said that Hui fled before the plan could be carried out.

In addition, prosecutors accuse Lau of operating a Telegram channel to raise money for the Dragon Slayers' expenses on incendiary devices, which prosecutors say amounts to financing terrorist acts.

Lau's lawyers had stated that there was no evidence in the proceedings about the number of incendiary devices used and the damage they caused. They added that throwing incendiary devices is not a terrorist act according to the regulations.

In this trial, Hong Kong prosecutors turned to the anti-terrorism law for the first time. The first six defendants face life imprisonment if convicted, while Lau faces a maximum of 14 years in prison.

With the exception of Lau, who was released on bail, all defendants have been in custody for more than three years.

The trial will continue on Tuesday.

Support HKFP | Policies and Ethics | Errors/Typos? | Contact | Newsletter | Transparency and Annual Report | Apps

Help protect press freedom and keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team