That was accepted by the judge, who described Hung as “an involuntary sacrifice and a bloodstained victim hanging by his last breath” amid the social unrest.

Mass protests erupted over a now-withdrawn extradition bill, which would have allowed the transfer of fugitives to jurisdictions with which Hong Kong lacks an agreement, such as mainland China, Taiwan and Macau. The protests later evolved into a wider anti-government movement.

Kwok also said black-clad protesters had ganged up like a “terrorist army” and changed Hong Kong with extremist acts reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution in mainland China.

Two leading lawyers questioned whether the judge’s comments had gone too far.

“Any judicial comment should not be perceived as partial. It was an unwise remark that should never have been made,” criminal law heavyweight Lawrence Lok Ying-kam said.

Former Bar Association chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee said the judge’s remarks may not have followed the long-standing principle of political neutrality, assuming media reports had not taken his words out of context.

“A man seriously wounded and attacked another citizen, which was almost life-threatening,” Eu said. “But then [the judge] said the attacker had a motive that was praiseworthy or laudable – you’re not being politically neutral, but taking into account his political stance.

“If the reports are accurate, it will definitely affect respect for the judiciary and judicial independence, that’s contrary to what the chief justice said.”

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li has repeatedly stressed that judges only consider cases according to the evidence and the law, and politics and popular sentiment play no role in proceedings.

Kwok himself once said politics played no role in sentencing.

Two years ago he sentenced 10 people charged with rioting in Mong Kok in 2016. “The courts will not get involved in political debate, nor to judge on right or wrong in political ideals, as that is not the role of the courts,” he said at the time.

Criminal lawyer Stephen Hung Wan-shun said while the remarks might appear unnecessary, it was hard to argue there was any bias in the sentencing.

“The remarks may be going too far or even far from necessary, but one can’t stop the judge from saying anything,” Hung said.

Former director of public prosecutions Grenville Cross agreed that there was nothing to stop a judge from commenting on a general situation.

“A judge is always entitled to assess a situation in overall terms to provide context for any particular sentencing decision. Although the judge expressed some sympathy for the defendant … he does not appear to have given him any particular discount on that account,” Cross said.

Cross, an expert in sentencing, said the three year, nine month jail term handed down was about right, considering six years as a starting point and the defendant admitting to the crime.

Pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung said he would consider filing a complaint with the judiciary, since he felt Kwok was making a “political commentary”. Similar criticisms circulated on online forums and urged internet users to lodge complaints against Kwok.

“It’s not about the ruling, but what he said in the judgment has really gone too far,” Wong said.

Legal scholar Simon Young of the University of Hong Kong said the judiciary’s Guide to Judicial Conduct was unclear on whether judges could express their views before the court if they were unnecessary for the case but, in general, the principle of independence and impartiality would strongly advise against it.

“[Unnecessary comments] could generate an issue of apparent bias for the judge in a future case,” he said.

Young added that given the current political climate, judges might need to be a little “more monastic” when it came to politically charged cases.

The judiciary declined to comment on individual cases, saying the matter may be subject to appeal.