Advertisement
Occupy Central
Hong KongLaw and Crime

Retired Hong Kong policeman in Occupy assault case acted in good faith and not liable under ordinance, defence says

Lawyer for Frankly Chu argues in pretrial that wordings of Public Order Ordinance protected former superintendent

Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
Former superintendent Frankly Chu King-wai at West Kowloon Court. Photo: Felix Wong
Jasmine Siu
Hong Kong courts have no jurisdiction to try a retired policeman accused of striking a bystander with a baton during the 2014 Occupy protests, according to defence lawyers citing an argument raised for the first time in 131 years.

The defence emerged at former superintendent Frankly Chu’s pretrial review on Friday. His case is set for November, three years after the incident during the pro-democracy sit-in.

Chu’s counsel Peter Pannu said provisions in the Public Order Ordinance stipulated that any person who uses force necessary for any purpose in accordance with the ordinance shall not be liable in criminal proceedings even if such use of force kills a person.

Advertisement

Pannu, a former police officer who went on to become a barrister, argued such wordings suggested the courts had no jurisdiction to try his client.

Advertisement

He cited another clause stating that no person acting in good faith under the ordinance’s provision shall be held liable for any acts in the exercise of his duty, or for public safety, or the defence of Hong Kong.

Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2x faster
1.25x
250 WPM
Slow
Average
Fast
1.25x