Advertisement

Hong Kong judge to decide if cases facing People Power activist warrant national security law appointee

  • District Judge Stanley Chan, himself designated to oversee security law hearings, will hear argument that Tam Tak-chi’s cases fall under the legislation
  • The localist group vice-chairman faces 14 charges, half of which are tied to the colonial-era offence of sedition

Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
0
People Power vice-chairman Tam Tak-chi leaves the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre en route to court on Wednesday. Photo: Sam Tsang
The first of Hong Kong’s district judges designated to handle national security law proceedings has been tasked with determining if he or a similarly designated counterpart should hear the cases facing opposition activist Tam Tak-chi, who has not been charged under the Beijing-imposed legislation.

Chief District Judge Justin Ko King-sau on Wednesday assigned Stanley Chan Kwong-chi to hear the prosecution’s application to have Tam’s three cases tried by a judge specially tasked with overseeing hearings related to the security law.

The 48-year-old vice-chairman of the localist group People Power faces 14 charges at the District Court. Half are tied to the colonial-era offence of sedition, while the others relate to public order or social-distancing rules introduced because of the coronavirus pandemic.

His defence lawyers have argued the charges were not offences that endangered national security, and have challenged the applicability of the new law, noting that prosecutors have only recently raised the issue after a number of non-designated judges had already handled earlier stages of the three cases.

Activist Tam Tak-chi of People Power is facing 14 charges, half of which related to the colonial-era offence of sedition. Photo: Edmond So
Activist Tam Tak-chi of People Power is facing 14 charges, half of which related to the colonial-era offence of sedition. Photo: Edmond So

They also questioned why a judge with a national security law designation was needed to hear the prosecution’s challenge when a non-designated counterpart would have the same jurisdiction under the District Court Ordinance.

Advertisement