Jimmy Lai Photo:VCG

 

The Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) on Monday unanimously dismissed the appeals to overturn the convictions of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and six other anti-China disruptors for taking part in an unauthorized assembly in August 2019.

Along with Lai, the other six appellants were Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, Albert Ho Chun-yan, Martin Lee Chu-ming, Leung Kwok-hung, Lee Cheuk-yan and Cyd Ho Sau-lan.

In 2021, the seven anti-China disruptors were found guilty of organizing and participating in an unauthorized assembly in 2019. Observers noted that the verdict demonstrated the HKSAR judiciary's independence and ability to make decisions based on laws.

The trial began in February 2021 and the case was heard in the West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts. During the trial, all seven defendants, including Lai, denied the charges.

While a court in HKSAR later acquitted them of organizing the assembly, it upheld their participation convictions, according to media reports.

The seven defendants argued that the court should "apply the principle of operational proportionality" assessment to determine whether a conviction would be a proportionate restriction of their fundamental rights, Kennedy Wong Ying-ho, solicitor of the High Court of Hong Kong, told the Global Times on Monday.

The judges in the court on Monday rejected the defendants' argument that each of a defendant's arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentence must be separately justified as proportionate, said Wong. 

"The defendants' convictions and consequent sentences do not stand alone. They are the result of the judge applying the law to the evidence and being satisfied of their guilt," said the ruling, according to RTHK.

"The courts of the HKSAR shall adjudicate cases in accordance with the laws applicable in the Region as prescribed in Article 18 of this Law and may refer to precedents of other common law jurisdictions," the Basic Law of the HKSAR states.

The judges stated that the two British legal precedents referenced by the appellants should not be followed in HKSAR due to the distinct constitutional differences between the two jurisdictions, Wong said.