[47 cases. Four questions and four answers]Who is in the defendant? How fair is the trial of the Guoan case? Why did the bail hearing last 4 days? | Position report

Forty-seven pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong were formally charged with a conspiracy to subvert state power on the 28th of last month for organizing or participating in a non-governmental primary election. The Department of Justice of Hong Kong charged that 47 people conspired to oppose the government’s proposed budget or public expenditure by running for elections to the Legislative Council and gaining majority control, paralyzing the operation of the government and forcing the chief executive to resign.

The most sensational political trial since the transfer of sovereignty in Hong Kong was carried out by the Magistrates’ Court this week when the defendants applied for bail. However, it is believed that there is still a long time before the case is officially tried and judged.

After an unprecedented four-day bail hearing, Su Huide, a judge designated by the National Security Law, finally approved 15 of them on the evening of Thursday (March 4), and the other 32 were denied bail. However, the Department of Justice immediately applied for a review, and the defendant who was granted bail must continue to be remanded until the review is completed. The next day the Department of Justice changed his mind again and announced that the bail review of four of them would be revoked. Yang Xueying, Liu Weicong, Lu Zhiheng and Lin Jingnan were temporarily free.

If the bail of the remaining 11 people is rejected by the higher court, it means that a total of 43 pro-democrats will have lost months or even years of freedom before the case is officially tried and convicted.

1. Who is being judged?

On January 6 this year, the National Security Office of the Hong Kong Police arrested 55 people who organized or participated in the democratic primary elections, accusing them of committing the crime of “subverting state power” under the newly promulgated “Minato National Security Law.” As of February 28, the National Security Office formally charged 47 of them for “conspiring to subvert state power.” They were detained overnight and brought to court the next day. The remaining 8 people continue to be released on bail pending investigation, and it is unknown whether they will be charged later.

The 47 persons charged were 39 men and 8 women, ranging in age from 23 to 64 years old, including the organizers of the non-governmental primary elections, elected and unsuccessful candidates. Among them, 23 are current district councilors, and 10 were originally members of the 2016-2020 Legislative Council.

The 47 defendants are all well-known faces of the Hong Kong democrats, spanning the political spectrum of Hong Kong’s democrats, from the older moderates to the new generation leaders who are regarded as the “resistance” and “local”; Occupations include retired university professors, barristers, doctors, social workers, and district councilors.

There are currently 70 seats in the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Members come from different political parties, but they can be roughly divided into the pro-government establishment and the anti-establishment democrats. The Legislative Council seats are directly elected by districts and functional constituencies. The establishment has been dominant in non-direct functional constituency elections for many years, so as a whole, it has always held a majority of seats.

There is no prescribed primary election mechanism under Hong Kong law. To undertake the anti-amendment campaign that broke out in Hong Kong in 2019, the democrats launched the “35+ (35 seats or more)” non-governmental primary elections in July 2020, in order to coordinate in the same year 9 The general election of the Legislative Council held in May won the majority of seats. In the primary election, 251 polling stations were spontaneously set up by the private sector, and the two-day voting was conducted to select the people who represented the democratic party in the election. In the end, more than 610,000 Hong Kong people participated in the primary election.

However, during the formal election nomination period, many pro-democracy primaries were ruled by the Hong Kong government that they “do not sincerely support the Basic Law” and were ruled that the nomination was invalid and could not stand for election to the Legislative Council. The Hong Kong government later delayed the election of the Legislative Council by not less than one year on the grounds of the epidemic.

2. What are the crimes charged with 47 people?

According to the charge book, 47 people were charged with one crime of “conspiracy to subvert state power”, which violated the “Minato National Security Act” and the Hong Kong law “Criminal Offences Ordinance”.

The charge alleges that 47 people were suspected of conspiring together and conspiring with others in Hong Kong between July 1, 2020 and January 7, 2021 for the purpose of subverting state power, while organizing, planning, implementing, or participating in the implementation , To use the threat of force or other illegal means to promote, carry out, or participate in a plan designed to abuse his powers under the Basic Law after he was elected to the Legislative Council, regardless of the pros and cons, and refuse to pass the government’s proposed budget or public expenditure, Forcing the Chief Executive to dissolve the Legislative Council, thereby paralyzing the operation of the government and causing the Chief Executive to resign.

However, there have always been comments that the power of legislators to veto the budget is granted and permitted by the Basic Law, that is, Hong Kong’s constitutional document, and questioned how the primary election participants claimed to constitute illegal means.

3. Why is this a political trial? Why is the fairness of the trial of the Guoan case worrying?

The Minato National Security Law, which was used to prosecute 47 people this time, was directly passed by the Standing Committee of the Beijing People’s Congress in June 2020 and has not been reviewed by the Hong Kong legislature. After 47 people were prosecuted, following the EU’s serious concerns about the prosecution and the belief that the case reflects politics, the Hong Kong government no longer tolerates political pluralism. British Foreign Minister Lan Taowen also issued an article saying that he was deeply disturbed by the use of the National Security Act to eliminate dissent. .

US Secretary of State Blincoln posted on Twitter, stressing that political participation and freedom of speech should not constitute crimes and urging the authorities to immediately release pan-democrats.

The four crimes stipulated in the “Hong Kong National Security Law” all have a minimum sentence. This is completely different from the previous Hong Kong ordinance where the maximum penalty was only prescribed and the sentence was sent by a judge. For example, the “crime of subverting state power” involved in this case, Article 22 of the National Security Law stipulates that “the chief or the crime is serious” shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or more than ten years; those who “actively participate” shall be sentenced to three years The sentence is not more than ten years; other participants shall be sentenced to not more than three years in prison, “criminal detention or surveillance.”

The National Security Law also stipulates that judges who hear national security cases shall be designated by the Chief Executive from the list of magistrates and judges. This arrangement was criticized by the former Chief Justice Li Guoneng for “detrimental to the independence of the judiciary”.

The outside world is generally worried about whether the defendant in the Guoan case can be tried in a fair manner. Tang Yingjie, a 23-year-old man accused of “inciting others to split the country” and “terrorist activities” in the first other national security case, has earlier reported that the Department of Justice has directed that there will be no jury hearing in the case. The maximum sentence for the two crimes he faced was life imprisonment.

The jury system in Hong Kong has a long history, and the Basic Law also expressly stipulates that the jury system shall be retained after the transfer of sovereignty.

Article 55 of the National Security Law also stipulates that if a case involves complicated circumstances involving foreign forces’ intervention, or national security is facing major real threats, etc., after reporting to the central government for approval, the National Security Office of the central government directly exercises its jurisdiction.

In addition, whether the National Security Law defendant can enjoy the right to bail before being convicted is also one of the focuses of the outside world. Because Article 42 of the National Security Law stipulates that “unless the judge has sufficient reason to believe that he will not continue to commit acts endangering national security, he shall not be granted bail”. Earlier, another national security law defendant and the chairman of Next Media, Li Zhiying, appealed to the Court of Final Appeal on the issue of bail. The Court of Final Appeal issued a ruling last month establishing the general principle of “favorable bail assumption” under common law, which does not apply to national security law.

4. Why did the bail hearing last 4 days? What are the procedures after the case?

The National Security Office of the Hong Kong Police Force officially charged 47 people on February 28 (Sunday). The case was brought to the West Kowloon Magistracy on the following day (March 1). The National Security Law appointed Judge Su Huide to handle the bail application.

The judiciary originally planned to start processing the case at 11 o’clock in the morning on the same day. However, due to the large number of defendants, it took time for the lawyer to meet with the defendant before the trial. The court finally started handling the case at 3:30 pm on the same day.

The defense lawyers subsequently applied for bail statements for the defendants one by one. Due to the large number of defendants, the court’s main court was full of defendants and lawyers, and family members, reporters and observers could only watch the live trial in other courts or reporters’ rooms. The hearing even continued until Thursday (March 4), when all the defendants and their attorneys’ submissions were completed, breaking the record of the longest bail application hearing in Hong Kong.

From the first day of the hearing on March 1 to midnight, several defendants fainted or were unwell and were sent to the hospital due to lack of rest and a long absence of food. A representative lawyer pointed out that since their arrest on Sunday, the defendants had failed to bathe and change clothes for three days and three nights, and suffered physical and mental torture.

The Attorney General applied to the court to adjourn the case for three months before the trial, pending further evidence search by the police. However, a number of defense lawyers opposed the adjournment of the application, believing that the prosecution had imprisoned the defendant without sufficient evidence and abused its power and was unfair to the defendant.

Judge Su Huide finally approved the prosecution’s application for adjournment, and the case will be brought before the court on May 31 this year. If the defendant later denies the charge, the court will set a different date for the trial. It is believed that there is still a long time before the formal trial and ruling date of the case. This means that the detained person has to be remanded for months or even years before being formally convicted.

List of 47 defendants:

D1: Dai Yaoting (56 years old, retired)
D2: Ou Nuoxuan (33 years old, university guest lecturer)
D3: Zhao Jiaxian (35 years old, Eastern District Councillor)
D4: Chung Kam Lun (32 years old, Sai Kung District Councillor)
D5: Wu Zhengheng (42 years old, unemployed)
D6: Yuan Jiawei (27 years old, Southern District Councillor)
D7: Liang Huangwei (23 years old, Central and Western District Councillor)
D8: Cheng Dahong (32 years old, Eastern District Councillor)
D9: Xu Zijian (53 years old, Eastern District Councillor)
D10: Yang Xueying (34 years old, Wan Chai District Councillor)
D11: Peng Zhuoqi (26 years old, Southern District Councillor)
D12: Shum Zijie (33 years old, Sha Tin District Councillor)
D13: Mao Mengjing* (64 years old, unemployed)
D14: Ho Kai Ming (32 years old, Sham Shui Po District Councillor)
D15: Feng Dajun (25 years old, digital marketing)
D16: Liu Weicong (53 years old, lawyer)
D17: Huang Biyun* (61 years old, unemployed)
D18: Liu Zefeng (24 years old, assistant to the councillor)
D19: Huang Zhifeng (24 years old, unemployed)
D20: Tan Wenhao* (45 years old, businessman)
D21: Li Jiada (29 years old, Kwun Tong District Councillor)
D22: Tan Dezhi (49 years old)
D23: Hu Zhiwei* (58 years old, unemployed)
D24: Shi Delai (38 years old, Wong Tai Sin District Councillor)
D25: Zhu Kaidi (43 years old, unemployed)
D26: Zhang Kesen (27 years old, Tuen Mun District Councillor)
D27: Huang Ziyue (23 years old, student)
D28: Wu Kin Wai (25 years old, Yuen Long District Councillor)
D29: Yin Siu Kin* (51 years old, Kwai Tsing District Councillor)
D30: Guo Jiaqi* (59 years old, doctor)
D31: Wu Miner (50 years old, teacher)
D32: Tan Kaibang (40 years old, Tsuen Wan District Councillor)
D33: He Guilan (30 years old, unemployed)
D34: Liu Yingkuang (27 years old, office assistant)
D35: Yang Yueqiao* (39 years old, lawyer)
D36: Chen Zhiquan* (48 years old, unemployed)
D37: Zou Jiacheng (24 years old, student)
D38: Lin Zhuoting* (43 years old, North District Councillor)
D39: Fan Guowei* (54 years old, Saigon District Councillor)
D40: Lu Zhiheng (38 years old, social worker)
D41: Liang Guoxiong (64 years old, unemployed)
D42: Lin Jingnan (32 years old, businessman)
D43: Ko Yaolin (49 years old, Saigon District Councillor)
D44: Cen Aohui (27 years old, Member of Tsuen Wan District)
D45: Wang Baiyu (30 years old, Yuen Long District Councillor)
D46: Li Yuxin (27 years old, Eastern District Councillor)
D47: Yu Huiming (33 years old, civilian staff of the Hospital Authority)

* Before the resignation of the Democrats in November 2020, he was a member of the Legislative Council

–