My Take | Occupy sentences strike right legal balance
- The conviction and sentencing of the nine leaders of the protest movement were bound to upset one side or the other
- But the judge has undeniably made a good-faith effort to deliver professional judgments based on common law principles
When a society has become as polarised as Hong Kong, people from opposing camps will inevitably lash out at those who act contrary to their inclinations and prejudices. Such corrosive sentiments have been especially tough on the city’s judges, who have to strive to be independent, fair and impartial in the face of unfair and ill-informed criticisms, often from people who ought to know better.
The conviction and sentencing of the nine leaders of the Occupy protest movement were bound to upset one side or the other. Too severe, the opposition pan-democrats and their overseas cheerleaders would denounce the sentences as political repression. Too lenient, conservative forces would cry foul.
As it turned out, the sentences yesterday ranged from community service and suspended sentences to 16 months in jail, which were the heaviest and fell on Occupy initiators Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Chan Kin-man.
Otherwise, the judge was lenient. He suspended the 16-month sentence of the 75-year-old Reverend Chu Yiu-ming for two years. The two youngest offenders were also given, respectively, a suspended sentence and community service. Long-time Democrat Lee Wing-tat was handed a suspended sentence, while lawmaker Tanya Chan, who is currently undergoing medical treatment, has her sentencing deferred until early June.
Neither side would be satisfied. Pro-government conservatives would not have liked the judge’s comments that there was no point to impose deterrent sentences as the protests were likely to be one-off, nor were they meant to discourage or suppress the offenders’ political beliefs, which he said were irrelevant to his judgment.
