National security law: Hong Kong defendant challenges jury exclusion for first trial under Beijing-imposed legislation
- Lawyers for Tong Ying-kit argue the prosecution has failed to make the case for a no-jury trial
- Tong is charged with terrorism and incitement to commit secession in relation to a July 1 protest
The first person to be tried under Hong Kong’s national security law has mounted a legal challenge against the exclusion of jurors from his case, calling the prosecution decision unfair, irrational and an infringement of defendant rights.
Lawyers for Tong Ying-kit – who is accused of riding a motorcycle into police last year – said prosecutors had failed to show the measure was necessary and that the proceedings could be prejudiced by jury tampering or intimidation.
Applying for judicial review on Wednesday, Tong’s defence team argued that no-jury trials should only be allowed once it was established to a high standard of proof they were required, or at least shown to have a “demonstrable rational basis”, adding neither benchmark had been reached in this case.
Tong, 24, is set to stand trial in June before three High Court judges – all appointed by Hong Kong’s leader to oversee national security law proceedings – on charges of terrorism and incitement to commit secession. He faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment if convicted.
Invoking a provision in the national security law, Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah previously instructed the judiciary to dispense with a jury trial.
Cheng said the arrangement under Article 46 of the Beijing-imposed legislation aimed to protect the personal safety of jurors and their relatives, as well as to safeguard the administration of justice, but she did not detail her reasoning.
Tong’s lawyers did not challenge the constitutionality of the provision, but argued the prosecution lacked any basis for believing the pending trial would be prejudiced by jury tampering or intimidation, pointing to the absence of any history of actual or attempted attacks on the integrity of the judicial process.
Cheng’s decision was also tarnished by procedural impropriety as she had failed to provide adequate reasons and give the defendant an opportunity to make representations, according to the court filing.
