Sometimes I feel that in modern society, people who are highly educated should be less likely to break the law. But realistically, this assumption does not hold.
Deng Yin-ng, the wife of former United Trade Union Federation director-general Lee Cheuk-yan, was arrested on suspicion of violating the Hong Kong National Security Law. Her sister, Deng Yan-li, went there twice to take away her sister’s mobile phone and mobile phone before the police searched her home in Mei Foo Sun Estate in March this year. Laptop computer, was eventually charged by the authorities with one count of “attempting to pervert the course of justice.” As a result, Deng Yanli admitted the charge and was sentenced to 6 months in prison today (December 21).
63-year-old Deng Yanli has a high degree of education. She lost her parents when she was young. She grew up in a church environment and studied diligently to obtain a master’s degree. She can be said to be a highly educated person.
From the outcome of this case, there are four points worth noting.
First, it is obviously illegal. Because Deng Yanli knew that her sister was arrested, and also knew that her sister’s mobile phone and laptop computer might be evidence in the case, she deliberately took those exhibits with the intention of interfering with the police investigation and reducing her sister’s chance of being convicted, thereby obstructing justice.
In addition to ignoring the law, her behavior was also stupid in the way she committed the crime. You should know that after the police searched the house and found no items such as mobile phones or computers, they would naturally search the elevator or CCTV cameras near the building to find out whether anyone had entered the house to take away evidence. Therefore, this kind of criminal behavior has a high chance of being detected. big. I believe it was also because the evidence was so conclusive that Deng Yanli chose to plead guilty instead of entering a plea. It can be said that this crime is quite stupid.
Second, it is not helpful to my sister. The information disclosed during the trial pointed out that there was no evidence in the case that after Deng Yanli took away the mobile phone and laptop, she had opened it to interfere with or destroy evidence, and subsequent police investigations did not find any criminal information in them. Therefore, the defendant His behavior had no substantial impact on the investigation of his sister Deng Yan’e’s crime. This is a factor in measuring the seriousness of the case, but not whether it is a crime. Looking back, it shows that Deng Yanli committed the crime impulsively. Even from the perspective of the criminal herself, taking away the computer did not help her sister.
Third, legal illiteracy is the most terrifying. In a society governed by the rule of law, laws are open and transparent, and the public has the responsibility to understand the law, know the law, and abide by the law. A person with a master’s degree should know that stealing evidence is an act of obstructing justice. Did she have a clear understanding of the law and openly take risks to commit a crime? Or do you simply not understand the law and don’t know this is a crime? This cannot be confirmed at this time. But from the stupidity of her criminal behavior, it can only be assumed that the defendant is legally illiterate, does not have a full understanding of the law, or has no intention of respecting it.
Fourth, “violating the law to achieve justice” is deeply harmful. In the past, when Hong Kong was highly politicized, former associate professor of the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong, Benny Tai, advocated the idea of ”violating the law to achieve justice” and encouraged people to break the law to achieve justice in their hearts. The biggest flaw in this idea of ”violating the law to achieve justice” is that the standards of justice vary from person to person. The justice of Israel and the justice of Hamas are completely opposite. If everyone believes that justice can be achieved by breaking the law, then carrying out terrorist attacks or launching wars to massacre civilians can be just things.
Now that the storm has passed, Hong Kong needs to carry out a literacy campaign to eliminate “legal illiteracy” and call on the public to abide by the law. The Department of Justice established the Rule of Law Education Steering Committee in February this year, with a plan to promote the concept of the rule of law and teach issues related to Hong Kong’s rule of law and legal system under the principle of “one country, two systems” in a simple and easy-to-understand manner.
This work is extremely important, and it should start with the youngest children, starting from not crossing the road when they see a red light, and teaching them the necessity of obeying the law. If the whole society can truly respect the rule of law, the chance of unrest will be greatly reduced, because everyone understands that breaking the law will ultimately have to pay a price.
Lu Yongxiong
The first legal technical dispute in Jimmy Lai’s case has come to an end.
Jimmy Lai questioned that the prosecution had expired and believed that the prosecution should have started within 6 months of the alleged crime. He also pointed out that the actual prosecution had exceeded this time limit. However, the court ruled on December 22 that since the defendant’s charge was a conspiracy charge and a continuing crime, its time limit should not start counting until the final date of the conspiracy. The final date of the crime in this case is June 14, 2021, so the time limit should be until December 24 of the same year.
In fact, the prosecution had already started on December 14 of that year, so the statute of limitations had not expired. Therefore, it was judged that Li Zhiying’s application failed. This can be said to be the prosecution’s first small victory in Jimmy Lai’s case.
Jimmy Lai was arrested on August 10, 2020, and his trial officially started on the 18th of this month. Some people in the West once questioned the prosecution’s delay in the trial, including the last Hong Kong Governor Patten. In September this year, he said that the British government should take action to rescue Jimmy Lai and believed that the repeated delays in the trial of Jimmy Lai’s case were a shame.
These arguments may sound reasonable at first glance, but in fact they cannot withstand scrutiny. The first dispute in this case, that is, the issue of statute of limitations, is originally a technical issue that is difficult for the defense to argue. However, in the past two years, Jimmy Lai’s side has taken numerous legal actions on various technical issues. Challenging the prosecution objectively delayed the trial.
First, they question whether the police can access evidence. After the police arrested Jimmy Lai on August 10, 2020, the police seized a number of Jimmy Lai’s items according to a search warrant, including his two mobile phones. Jimmy Lai immediately launched legal action and requested the return of the seized items, including his phone, on the grounds that they contained legal professional privileged materials and news materials that the police could not access.
Relevant legal actions began immediately, and in February 2021, the High Court issued an order on Jimmy Lai’s application to seal the two phones seized when Jimmy Lai was arrested. In other words, the police cannot access the evidence inside to further investigate the case.
Later, the relevant lawsuits continued, and the court agreed that the search warrant obtained by the National Security Department of the Police in accordance with the rights of the Hong Kong National Security Law could cover news materials. In July 2022, Jimmy Lai filed another lawsuit and applied to the Court of Appeal for judicial review of the legality of the search warrant. By October of the same year, the Court of Appeal rejected Jimmy Lai’s judicial review and ordered the Department of National Security to execute the warrant and unblock relevant news materials and two mobile phones, a total of more than 8,000 pieces of information.
Imagine that 2 years and 2 months have passed since the police arrested Jimmy Lai and seized his mobile phone. The Court of Appeal rejected Jimmy Lai’s judicial review and unsealed the relevant materials. Only then can the police investigate the relevant information and further collect and file lawsuits. evidence of.
Second, request the application to permanently terminate the hearing. In May this year, when the case was originally scheduled to be heard in September, Jimmy Lai’s side applied to the High Court to permanently terminate the hearing on the grounds that a fair trial could not be obtained because the judge had already established a position and administrative interference in the judiciary was involved. wait. Later, the High Court rejected Li Zhiying’s application to permanently terminate the hearing in the same month.
In addition to the above two lawsuits, Jimmy Lai is also constantly litigating against his decision to hire British Queen’s Counsel Tim Owen to represent him in Hong Kong and the decision to freeze his property.
It is conceivable that it took two years for the police to unblock the mobile phone seized from Jimmy Lai and begin to investigate more than 8,000 pieces of information, and then search for relevant evidence and witnesses. The Department of Justice has to face various lawsuits from Jimmy Lai’s side.
It can be summarized this way: first, Jimmy Lai is questioning the various actions of the police or the prosecution from all possible angles. He will file a lawsuit if he can, hoping to prevent the investigation or terminate the hearing. The objective effect of this is to delay the formal hearing. Second, which party will benefit from postponing the hearing? It’s worth looking into. But it can at least give Patten and others an excuse to think that the Hong Kong SAR government is delaying the trial.
The ugly woman will eventually need to see her father-in-law, and ultimately the matter will be heard in court.
Lu Yongxiong
2023-12-21 11:37:59
#legally #illiterate #people #Hong #Kong
