Hong Kong courts duty-bound to follow the evidence in protest trials
- Not everyone will agree with the ruling of judges when it comes to cases stemming from last year’s social unrest, but we must not lose sight of common law principles
It is hardly surprising that a court’s decision to clear three people of rioting during the social unrest last year has been greeted with mixed reactions.
As with the Occupy protests in 2014 and other politically divisive cases, the rulings will not please everyone. What matters is that the cases are handled according to well-established legal principles and that justice is done through the judicial process without fear or favour.
In the latest case, the judge said there was no evidence that the defendants had assembled in common purpose with protesters in Sheung Wan, where the demonstration eventually turned into a riot on July 28.
The case put forward by the prosecution, he said, was based on circumstantial evidence, such as the defendants’ black clothing, protective gear, and attempts to flee from police. But two of them were separately found guilty of possessing radio communications – a pair of walkie-talkies – without a licence and fined HK$10,000 (US$1,300) each.
01:11
Man arrested at Hong Kong airport over stabbing of officer during national security law protests
There are those who have long formed their own judgment on the unrest and those arrested by the police for various reasons. The emphasis on well-established common law principles, including the presumption of innocence and evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, may therefore sound unacceptable to some.