Hong Kong’s media tycoon Jimmy Lai, 6 ex-lawmakers had no excuse for joining illegal 2019 march, top court rules

Court of Final Appeal says intention of Lai and six former opposition lawmakers to defy police ban on illegal procession on August 18, 2019 ‘overwhelmingly’ evident

It also rejects some appellants’ request to review its landmark decision in 2005 implicitly accepting the legality of unauthorised assembly offences

2-MIN READ2-MIN

Anti-extradition bill protesters gather at the Victoria Park. The top court has said Jimmy Lai had no excuse for taking part in a banned march. Photo: Dickson Lee

Published: 4:12pm, 5 Mar 2024Updated: 4:14pm, 5 Mar 2024

Media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and six former opposition lawmakers had no reasonable excuse for joining an illegal march disguised as an orderly dispersal during the 2019 anti-government protests, Hong Kong’s top court has ruled in dismissing their bid to file additional grounds to get their convictions overturned.

The Court of Final Appeal on Tuesday also rejected a request from some of the appellants, including veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming, for a review of its landmark decision in 2005 implicitly accepting the legality of unauthorised assembly offences.

Mr Justice Roberto Ribeiro, who was among a three-judge panel hearing the application, said there was no foundation to hold that the offences’ maximum sentence of five years in prison under the Public Order Ordinance had a chilling effect on the exercise of the rights to free expression and peaceful assembly.

The court has said the intention of Jimmy Lai and the other six former lawmakers to defy a police ban was evident. Photo: Handout

Ribeiro highlighted the 2005 ruling, where the top court upheld a notification scheme requiring protesters to obtain police approval to stage demonstrations and said offences related to an unauthorised assembly were “part and parcel of the scheme, providing the means for its enforcement”.

The court also agreed the seven’s intention to defy a police ban on the illegal procession on August 18, 2019, was “overwhelmingly” evident, adding the trial judge had “carefully and convincingly” rejected their defence that it was merely an orderly dispersal of an earlier lawful gathering.

Tuesday’s ruling will not affect the seven’s chances for arguing a point of law the top court earlier found to be of “great and general importance” at the full hearing in June.

The pending debate before a full panel of five judges is expected to shed light on a 2021 landmark decision by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court, which ruled by a majority that a statutory defence of lawful excuse could be established if authorities had violated a protester’s basic rights.