–
The’presumtion of bail’ principle of allowing bail, which has symbolized Hong Kong’s independent judicial system, has been broken.
There are even observations that there will be more trials in progress as they are transferred to mainland China sooner or later.
It is evaluated that the Hong Kong National Security Law (Hong Kong Security Law), which has been in effect for more than seven months, has also affected the judiciary.
On the 9th, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, Hong Kong’s Supreme Court, denied bail against Jimmy Lai, 73, the owner of the Bin Fruit Daily, a leading anti-Chinese media in Hong Kong, arrested for violating the Hong Kong Security Law.
Earlier, in December of last year, Lai was arrested for violating the Hong Kong Security Law in collusion with foreign forces, but was released on bail at an appeal trial on the 23rd of that month.
It was the first of those accused of violating the Hong Kong Security Law to be released on bail.
The Appeals Tribunal approved Lai’s bail under strict conditions, such as a bail of HK$10 million (approximately 1.42 billion won) and a house arrest so that no one except the police station or court could leave his residence.
However, Lai was jailed again on New Year’s Eve when prosecutors asked the court to cancel his bail decision. Afterwards, the court of inquisition held a hearing on his bail on the 1st.
On the day, the prosecution insisted that “according to the Hong Kong Security Law, a judge should not grant bail unless there is sufficient grounds for the defendant not to continue acting that would threaten national security.”
It also pointed out that the judge’s bail condition should not be taken into account in granting bail.
Rai was also accused of fraud, but the prosecution did not question the bail permit.
On the same day, the court of inquisition said that the court of appeals misinterpreted the law and granted Lai bail, and finally refused his bail.
Five judges decided unanimously, and foreign judges did not participate.
AFP news agency said, “The characteristic of Hong Kong’s independent judicial system has been to apply the principle of’presumption of bail’ for non-violent crimes, but the Hong Kong Security Act has removed this principle.”
He added, “Amid the Chinese government trying to annihilate dissidents in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Security Law broke down the’legal firewall’ between China and Hong Kong.”
The AFP said, “This result shows the direction of the Hong Kong judiciary.”
This is the first time that the Court of Attention has dealt with a case related to the Hong Kong Security Law.
Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post (SCMP) pointed out that “It is rare for a foreign judge to be left out of a final court hearing.”
Earlier, when Lai was granted bail, the People’s Daily and other Chinese state media criticized it and insisted that Lai’s case be transferred to mainland China for handling.
SCMP said some pointed out that the prosecution had objected to Lai’s bail permit conditions even though they were very strict.
He added that the prosecution also raised doubts about the prosecution’s claim that the defendant’s bail should be denied regardless of the bail conditions that the defendant claimed to comply with.
In addition, the judges said they pointed out why they should evaluate the defendant’s’risk of acting that would threaten national security’, not a crime in the bail review.
Rye’s lawyer, Mark Simon, told Bloomberg News that “consistently putting Lay in jail is to deliver a violent message to the rest of Hong Kong.”
Bloomberg said, “This case is a victory for the Chinese authorities,” saying, “This case has given the court a certain guide in interpreting the case related to the Hong Kong Security Law, which can be sentenced to life in prison in the future.”
“According to lawyers, some provisions of the Hong Kong Security Law weakened the judicial system of the British colonial era, such as allowing the government to choose a judge, transfer the case to mainland China, and allow bail.”
[연합뉴스]
Copyrights ⓒ Yonhap News. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited
–
