Hong Kong’s judiciary under fire over alleged leniency in protest cases: will a sentencing council redress claims of bias and lead to tougher penalties?
- Prominent figures in the pro-establishment camp have pushed for the creation of the body to guide judges in handing down punishments
- But legal veterans warn a council would be unconstitutional and impinge upon the independence of judges
Key members of Hong Kong’s pro-establishment camp are standing firm on their call for a sentencing council to redress what they described as lenient and biased court judgments over anti-government protesters, despite a stern warning from the chief justice.
Its main proponent, Holden Chow Ho-ding, a lawmaker and lawyer by training, insisted a sentencing council modelled after a similar set-up in Britain would help make punishments more consistent, and restore people’s confidence in the judiciary.
Another strong supporter is Elizabeth Quat, Chow’s colleague in the Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong party.
But other lawyers slammed the proposal, warning such a body would deal a blow to the courts’ independence, and deprive judges of using their expertise and experience to decide on vastly different circumstances behind each criminal case.
While sentencing concerned retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation, judges were informed above all by public interest in all of their decisions, and should not be subjected to a fixed set of guidelines, said legal eagles interviewed by the Post. Even then, judges had guidelines laid out by the Court of Appeal for certain types of serious crimes.