Judges cannot impose sentences for serious national security crimes lighter than mandatory minimum, Hong Kong court hears
- Prosecutors argue judges cannot reduce sentences for the most egregious national security crimes below mandatory minimum laid out by Beijing
- But High Court rejects their assertion that Hong Kong should understand the security law using mainland Chinese legal doctrines
In opposing a university student’s appeal against his five-year jail term for inciting secession, prosecutors on Monday also urged the Court of Appeal to interpret the law imposed by Beijing using legal doctrines practised in mainland China, a suggestion rejected by the three presiding judges.
The court debate centred on the proper application of minimum sentences, which were introduced into Hong Kong’s common law regime by the national security legislation.
District Court judge Amanda Woodcock, who is among the few jurists approved by the city’s leader to oversee national security proceedings, initially imposed a prison term of 44 months after cutting a third off a starting point of 5½ years.
The reduction was in line with the Court of Appeal’s sentencing guidelines set in 2016, whereby an offender can receive one-third remission on the grounds of a timely guilty plea.
But Woodcock revised her sentence at the request of prosecutors after acknowledging she could only trim the defendant’s term by six months at the most as the case involved a serious incitement offence.
Article 21 of the national security law states that anyone who incites secession “shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than 10 years” if the offence is of a serious nature.