Not helpful
Legislative councillor Priscilla Leung Mei-fun recently submitted a mitigation letter to the courts on behalf of a triad member to try to get him a lighter sentence. In the letter, she praised him for being an active member of the community.
The magistrate for the case heard the plea for leniency and ridiculed the claim about the defendant's enthusiasm for community work, drily noting that he was active only in triad 'community work'. The triad member was jailed for 11 months.
How well did Leung know the defendant? Her assistant told the Chinese-language press that Leung had met him at least once, but the assistant was vague on how much she knew of his background.
As a legislator, Leung has a responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the rule of law. Her actions in this instance, however, cast doubt on whether she understands her role as a legislator and the responsibilities that come with the job.
There is nothing unusual about a legislator writing a mitigation letter for someone who finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
Lawmakers are often approached by the defendants and their family to help in these situations. I was once a legislator and was asked to write such letters on many occasions.
There are generally two ways to go about writing mitigation letters. One is to simply extend technical assistance to citizens who are unfamiliar with the law or are relatively uneducated. In this regard, the legislator only has to give advice about how to put thoughts and ideas into words. His or her role is similar to offering pro bono legal advice. In most such cases, the legislator doesn't send out the letter in his or her name.
Another approach is to provide a character reference for someone you know who is to be sentenced for a criminal offence. For this type of mitigation letter, the legislator must personally know this person. And it must be written after the person has been convicted because the purpose of the letter is to persuade the judge to consider the defendant's character and past contributions to society and to show that he or she has expressed remorse.
The bottom line is that, if you vouch for a person, you must personally know that person.
Although the circumstances are different, in a recent case, a member of the Jockey Club was caught lying about how well he knew a person he was recommending to the club to be a new member. Even though no money was involved, the member was arrested by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and charged with fraud.
In Leung's case, as a legislator and legal academic, her conduct affects the solemn image of the Legislative Council, and is unbecoming of a legislator.
Leung's political achievements are due at least in part to support from the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong.
Her recent victory in the district council elections illustrated that backing and, certainly, such continued support would help her re-election bid in the upcoming Legco election. However, given her conduct in this case, perhaps the liaison office ought to have a rethink.
