bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

There is one brief paragraph in the British government's latest report on Hong Kong which is easy to overlook. But it raises a valid question.

Nestling in among the weighty observations on constitutional reform, anti-racism laws and counter-terrorism, are two sentences which gently express interest in the progress of a court case.

The hearing in question took place so long ago most of us will have forgotten all about it. But at the time, it was the talk of the town.

This was the first criminal case brought in Hong Kong against members of the Falun Gong.

Sixteen of them were in the dock, having been arrested during a protest outside the Beijing Liaison Office in Western. Four are residents of Switzerland, one is from New Zealand and the other 11 from Hong Kong.

After a high-profile trial, they were convicted of public order offences. All were found guilty of causing an obstruction in a public place. Nine were also convicted of obstructing the police and three of assaulting police officers. Fines of up to $3,800 were imposed.

But it is what has happened since which attracted the attention of the British government in its report last week.

The Falun Gong members appealed against their convictions. The case was heard over three days in early September last year. The judges adjourned to consider their ruling. And 10 months later, we are still waiting for it.

So the question raised in the British report is this: Why are we waiting?

The authors of the report note that the judgment has still not been delivered. They add: 'We understand that 10 months is an unusually long time to wait for an appeal judgment in Hong Kong.' They are right.

This case was heard at a magistrate's court. The charges are relatively minor ones. Normally, an appeal of this kind would be dealt with on the spot, without any need for an adjournment.

But the nature of the case in question does justify the judges taking more time to consider it. The fact that it went straight to the Court of Appeal suggests the issues involved are important, difficult, or both.

There are also a large number of appellants involved, and considering the case of each takes time. The legal issues - while not particularly complex - are certainly important. They involve the scope of our right to protest, which is guaranteed by the Basic Law.

However, 10 months is a very long time indeed. It is difficult to understand why the judgment has not yet been delivered.

I asked the judiciary for an answer. The spokesman's response was predictable. It is up to the judges, she said, to decide when they deliver their judgment. This is correct.

It would be inappropriate, the spokesman added, to explain why it was taking so long at this stage. Perhaps.

She said the reasons would be apparent when the judgment was finally delivered. This is reassuring.

Meanwhile, the appellants continue to wait. Thankfully, they have not been languishing in jail all this time. If they were in custody, the delay in ruling on the appeal would, without question, be unacceptable.

Nevertheless, these 16 people have had criminal convictions on their records for the past 10 months.

They are entitled to know whether the convictions are valid. And if the ruling goes against them, they may wish to take their case to the Court of Final Appeal.

In the absence of any explanation from the judiciary, we can only speculate as to why it is taking so long. The judges involved have been hearing other cases - and ruling on them - during this period. So there does not seem to be a problem so far as their ability to work on the judgment is concerned.

There is a possibility that they are delaying delivery of the ruling in order that it might coincide with that of another case involving the right to protest. This one concerns a challenge to controversial parts of the Public Order Ordinance. But it began long after the Falun Gong appeal was concluded and the issue is a different one.

We will have to wait until the judgment is delivered before the mystery is cleared up. And, as yet, there is no sign of the ruling. There may be a good reason for the delay. But the sooner we know what it is, the better. The problem is that until the reason is made known, there will be a perception that the delay may have something to do with the sensitive nature of the case. This, presumably, is what troubles the British government - although it was too diplomatic to say so.

The Falun Gong was banned in the mainland in 1999. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa described it as 'an evil cult'. And concerns were raised that it would be targeted when new national security laws were introduced. There were claims - strenuously denied by the government - that this was a politically motivated prosecution.

The trial, in the summer of 2002, attracted a great deal of attention both here and overseas.

And the day before the verdict was delivered, the United States State Department called on Hong Kong to 'strive to maintain its civil liberties and free society, human rights and the rule of law'.

This, not surprisingly, prompted suggestions that the US was trying to influence the court's decision. Since then, the political environment has changed. The feared crackdown on the Falun Gong has not materialised. No anti-cult laws have been introduced and the Article 23 legislation has been deferred. The climate is less politically charged.

The  delay in delivering the judgment may, therefore, have had some - perhaps unintended - benefit.

But, as the British government's report reveals, the case has certainly not been forgotten.

It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied. The judges, more than anyone, will be well aware of this. The Falun Gong members should not have to wait much longer before being told whether their convictions will stand.

Cliff Buddle is a senior writer for the South China Morning Post.



Is justice delayed justice denied to Falun Gong 16?