Senior counsel argues 3 members of Hong Kong Tiananmen Square vigil group were denied fair trial, seeks to overturn convictions
- Philip Dykes says his side was ‘fatally handicapped’ while defending the accused because investigators had withheld evidence
- Ex-vice-chairwoman Chow Hang-tung and two former standing committee members were each sentenced to 4½ months behind bars earlier
The appeal filed in the High Court shed light on the extent of police power under the national security law’s implementation rules, as well as the status of the protocol under the Beijing-imposed legislation.
The implementation rules empower the police chief to demand a range of information from a foreign agent or one with links to Taiwan, but the trio argued they had no obligation to cooperate as the alliance was not a foreign agent.
In the original trial at West Kowloon Court, Principal Magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen concluded that reasonable belief was needed to demand compliance with the rule, meaning prosecutors did not have to prove the alliance was a foreign agent to justify calling for help.
Hong Kong court convicts 3 Tiananmen vigil group members over failing to aid police
But Dykes on Wednesday said the burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the now-folded alliance did operate for the benefit of foreign political entities.
The lawyer argued the trial magistrate’s decision to exempt the force from providing evaluable evidence related to the alliance’s alleged connections to foreign organisations had prevented the accused from substantiating their defence and left them guessing what the officers’ findings were.
“Defendants should have a fair trial, meaning in this context they are notified of the evidence against them and they can make full answers to those charges,” Dykes said.
“We say that in this case the trial was unfair because the material withheld from the defence was critical to the defence.”
3 Tiananmen vigil group members jailed for 4½ months in Hong Kong
Dykes also contended the implementation rules were only secondary to the national security law and did not give police sweeping powers to request personal data. He suggested the only lawful way for police to obtain information from the group was to seek a search warrant or production order from the court.
Prosecutor Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan dismissed the complaint as a “non-point”, noting that the three appellants had not expressed a similar contention during the trial.
Hong Kong court allows appeal against acquittal of Tiananmen vigil group member
Cheung said the implementation rules were an integral part of the security law, and police authority to demand cooperation was an important investigative tool to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation.
Requiring officers to confirm a suspected foreign agent’s affiliations with overseas organisations before allowing them to ask for information would defeat the purpose of the statutory regime, the prosecutor argued.
He added that whether the alliance was a foreign agent was not essential to the determination of the appeal, as the court could still rule against the accused if it found they had failed to heed a legitimate request by officers.
The hearing will continue before Madam Justice Anna Lai Yuen-kee.
