The 24-year-old defendant Tang Yingjie in the first “Hong Kong National Security Act” case was convicted of inciting others to secession and terrorist activities after driving a motorcycle with the “Revolution of the Hong Kong Times” flag into a police officer on July 1 last year. Two crimes were convicted. The three judges designated by the National Security Law were sentenced to 9 years in prison, plus 10 years of suspension. American media VICE World News PressAccording to an anonymous interview, a Hong Kong judge mentioned that Tang Yingjie’s case was an “unfair” trial, and that Tang Yingjie was essentially violating traffic regulations and the sentence was too serious (severe).
The report quoted the judge as saying that this was an alarming outcome, “Privately, I felt this case was unfair, and the law should not be operated like this. (Privately, I felt this case was unfair) . This is not how the law should work” reported that he believed that the court made a ruling based on a “questionable” understanding of the criminal law concept, and that Tang’s sentence was too harsh, even though he Did not participate in the trial, but this judgment is based on his past experience in handling cases. VICE World News quoted the judge as saying: “(Tang) didn’t do anything, he didn’t kill and set fire…He is the most merciful terrorist in the world.”
VICE World News asked the Judiciary about the case, but it was replied that their members should not be interviewed by the media on political, social disputes and unfinished trials. The Judiciary also refused to comment on the specific views expressed by the public or any judge.
There is no jury in this case. According to VICE World News, the judiciary’s reply stated that the Basic Law never guarantees that there will be a jury in a trial, and fairness can be practiced in other ways. The way to ensure a fair trial is to make a verdict by three judges, not through a jury. But the report quoted the judge as saying that if the jury is to be protected, “there must be other ways besides abandoning the entire system.”
During the interrogation, the prosecution’s expert witnesses deduced words such as “recovery”. For example, the usage of the term “recovered” has not changed from the Three Kingdoms period to modern China. According to the anonymous judge in the report, the confession of the expert witness is useful for the court to understand matters outside the field of law, but it is a flawed tool for deducing a political slogan. This issue is just best left to the jury. The solution is guided by common sense, in case the judge is too obsessed with the legal provisions to understand, but when the jury is discarded, this becomes impossible. The anonymous judge also believed that the Tang Yingjie case was essentially a violation of traffic regulations, and that such a sentence was too severe. If Tang is charged with dangerous driving, it will lead to a maximum of three years in prison.
The report also quoted the anonymous judge as saying that he was not optimistic about the future of the Hong Kong courts and their ability to maintain independence in politically-related cases. “We may become more like Singapore. Commercial law is okay, but there are big problems in criminal law and human rights.” He likened national security law to “heart disease,” but added that this is not desperate. reason. “This is a dangerous sign. If it gets worse, it will lead to cardiac arrest. But is it fair to say that a person is worthless just because of the heart disease?” He thinks not.
VICE World News inquired about the comments from the Judiciary and received a reply stating that it would not comment on the judicial decisions of individual cases, including “remarks claimed to be made by judges.”