Tang says Arrested Protesters Will be Charged... Eventually

Over 10,000 people were arrested in connection with protests

Hong Kong Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung says the authorities will continue to prosecute the 2019 protesters with no time limit, even "after 20 years". 

He said if a deadline was set it would go against the spirit of the rule of law and could risk "legalising illegal acts".

Some are calling for the authorities to wrap up cases five years after the 2019 protests, but Tang disagrees.

Tang says prosecutions will continue

"Unless there is a time limit for prosecution, we will lodge a case when we have sufficient evidence and upon agreement from the Department of Justice. This reflects the spirit of the rule of law," he said in an interview.

"I understand that some people have raised the idea that we should drop the cases based on a certain time frame, but this would in fact legalise illegal acts. I think this isn't in line with the spirit of the rule of law. Illegal things are simply illegal."

The police arrested 10,279 people aged 11 to 87 in connection with the 2019 protests, and of that total, 2,974 have either gone through or are undergoing judicial procedures as of September.

Of those, 2,403 have faced punishment after pleading guilty or were convicted. Therefore, there are more than 7,000 arrestees who have yet to be charged, five years later.

"If we had evidence and know who you are, but chose not to arrest you until when we wish to do so, then that's not right. But we need time to gather evidence -- this is reasonable," Tang said.

Tang says police are still investigating 5 years on

He explained the police were painstakingly going through video footage to identify each person and gather evidence in order to press charges, and a lot of people participated in the protests.

"This isn't a matter concerning how many years have been spent on this. For those who have offended the law and left Hong Kong, we will arrest them just the same if they come back after 20 years," Tang warned.

However, Professor Simon Young Ngai-man of the University of Hong Kong's law school said finality was a very important aspect of the city's legal system, which former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang noted in a previous court case.

He acknowledged that while it was true there was no limitation period for indictable offences, it was also unlikely that the thousands of arrested-but-not-charged cases were still being actively investigated.

Young suggested the authorities should at least inform those whose cases were not under active investigation.

"I see no consistency with the rule of law to say to those persons that 'no active investigation is not being undertaken in relation to your case'. This would provide them with some degree of assurance that they can put the past behind them," he said. "For those whose cases are still active, nothing needs to be said to them."

But it seems the government is intent on keeping those arrested on edge, even if it takes 20 years or more to finally charge them...

Grandpa Chan Faces Hefty $510K Legal Bill

Chan hugs a protester, worried about his safety in 2019

The Hong Kong Department of Justice has no qualms about weaponising the law in prosecuting as many people as possible related to the 2019 protests, and even before that in the Umbrella Movement in 2014.

One senior tried to use the law to hold the Hong Kong Police Force to account by legally challenging it over displaying identification during the 2019 protests.

Chan Ki-kau is known as Grandpa Chan, and he and his group, "Protect Our Kids" made up of other middle-aged and elderly people, tried to stand between the protesters and the police for several months in 2019. 

"Raptors" did not wear identifiable ID numbers

He would wear a cylindrical hat around his head that he fashioned himself out of paper, googles, and a plastic raincoat as he and others tried to convince the police not to physically harm the young people on the streets.

Sometimes members of the group would get tear-gassed and pepper sprayed, and young protesters would help them, including Chan get medical attention. "Protect Our Kids" and Chan also got a lot of attention, showing that even seniors were out on the streets.

One observation during the protests was that the police Special Tactical Contingent (STC) also known as "raptors" did not wear their individual identification badges -- only vague code numbers. That made it impossible for residents to file complaints about specific officers -- and Chan felt this was illegal.

In June 2019 he filed the initial challenge and alleged that it was "unlawful and/or unconstitutional" for the police STC not to display their unique identification numbers during operations on June 12, 2019.

Chan's legal challenge was dismissed

However, in November 2020, Judge Anderson Chow dismissed Chan's application, citing evidence that STC had never been required to display individual identification.

Chan was later ordered to pay the Department of Justice's court fees by January 17 this year.

The DoJ initially asked for HK$510,000 in legal fees, though Master Dick Ho at the High Court decided Chan should pay HK$2,000 less.

Does Chan even have that money to pay such hefty fees? Did the DoJ really spend over half a million dollars in preparing for this case?

Even if people tried to crowdfund to raise money to help Chan pay the fees, it might be considered an illegal act.

That was demonstrated in February last year when an expat wanted to help domestic helpers pay Covid-19 fines for gathering. The fines were HK$5,000, more than the monthly salary of these helpers, but the then secretary for labour and welfare Law Chi-kwong said helping to pay these fines could be considered as "abetting a crime".

Many seniors tried to mediate with the police

There is no word on how Chan will pay this massive legal bill, but the heavy-handedness of the punishment seems overboard to the extreme. The case wasn't even tried in court...

Legal Win for Jimmy Lai

Lai's legal team has a boost with well-known UK barrister

A big win for Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying -- to have his request granted of having a prominent British barrister represent him in his upcoming national security law collusion trial.

The Court of Appeal made the ruling on Wednesday, following a decision by High Court Chief Justice Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor last month to allow King's Counsel Tim Owen from London to join Lai's legal team for public interest.

Owen's participation was opposed by the Department of Justice and the Bar Association, but the latter did not lodge an appeal against the chief judge's ruling.

Owen has worked on many cases in Hong Kong

The department argued that overseas counsel could not explain to judges new perspectives on the national security law, that was imposed by Beijing in June 2020, as they lacked a full understanding of the city's unique socio-political and constitutional context.

In other words they claimed he was an outsider who did not have a full appreciation of what was going on in Hong Kong at the time.

But the appeal court dismissed the argument, saying: "The forthcoming criminal trial is a high profile case attracting substantial publicity locally and abroad. It involves the resolution of legal issues of great general public importance that would impact substantially on the development of [national security law] jurisprudence and sedition offences," Wednesday's judgment said, without identifying the author.

"Public perception of fairness in the trial is of vital importance to the administration of justice. The court must adopt a flexible and sensible approach to arrive at a decision that would best suit the public interest in this application."

High Court Chief Justice Jeremy Poon

The 74-year-old Lai will stand trial next month before a three-judge panel in the Court of First Instance on charges of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and conspiracy to publish seditious material.

Prosecutors are accusing Lai of conspiracy to attract foreign sanctions or blockades against city and mainland Chinese officials through pieces published by his now-closed Apple Daily newspaper, as well as through a lobbying group he is alleged to have directed and financed behind the scenes.

Owen is no stranger to Hong Kong, having worked on several high-profile cases, including Rurik Jutting, an ex-British banker who was convicted of murdering two women in 2016, and the highest ranking officer among seven policemen prosecuted for assault on a protester during the 2014 Umbrella Movement.

The department must be fuming, and by extension the government. Some pundits on Twitter think the authorities may change the rules to prevent Owen from representing Lai but the timing might be too late for that.

This development has shown it is possible to get decent if not really good representation in court.

By the same token it also helps if you yourself refuse to go down without a fight, as in the case of Chow Hang-tung, who is remanded in custody and is facing two national security law charges including subversion.

Chow fighting every legal avenue from jail

She was a part of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which organised the Tiananmen Square candlelight vigil every year in Victoria Park for 30 years. 

For that Chow says it is impossible for her to plead guilty she said in court. "Pursuing democracy is not a crime. I plead not guilty." 

A trained lawyer, Chow is defending herself and is methodically fighting whatever legal avenue she can think of, including making 15 bail applications for the two cases, but all have been denied.

But she did get a big win -- to allow the media to report on pre-trial hearings for national security law cases. Not only does that allow the media to report on how the national security law is applied, but also see the physical state of the accused in court.

Chow also uses the opportunity to shout out her slogans to the gallery, "Do not forget June 4. Resist till the end!" in a bid to publicise the goals of the movement.

Her biggest fear is not jail itself, but the world becoming indifferent to increasing abuse.

She seems prepared for the long fight along with Lai. They are not going gently into the good night.