日韩精品久久一区二区三区_亚洲色图p_亚洲综合在线最大成人_国产中出在线观看_日韩免费_亚洲综合在线一区

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
HongKong Comment(1)

New sentences on trio legally well-grounded

HK Edition | Updated: 2017-09-01 06:35
Share
Share - WeChat

Lawrence Ma points out presence of violence at the protest - key issue in sentence revision - carries strong precedents

On Aug 17, Hong Kong's Court of Appeal sentenced student activists Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang to between six and eight months in prison for their leading roles in the storming by a few hundred student protesters of the government headquarters' square in 2014, which set off the 79-day illegal "Occupy Central" movement.

During the storming of the headquarters, protesters inflicted damage with metal barricades, broke police cordons and injured 10 security guards and disregarded police warnings twice before charging into the government premises.

The sentence was a revised one. The three were originally given much lighter punishments by an eastern court magistrate - some 80 hours community service orders or a suspended short jail term.

The lenient punishment stirred huge outcry in society. Many were confused by the mismatch between the damage brought to society and the punishment received. Thus after the Department of Justice filed an application for sentencing review, the Court of Appeal reversed the magistrate's sentences as the judges found a number of evident errors.

Firstly, the magistrate did not consider the deterrent effect of her sentences.

The correct legal principle, accepted and applied in the English Court of Appeal in R v Asim Alhaddad (2010) EWCA Crim 1760 was that sentence for unlawful assembly coupled with violence mandated a term of imprisonment. Those are serious crimes. A community service order was not appropriate for serious crimes and unlawful assembly with violence which caused actual injury.

For serious crimes, the deterrent effect had to be given significant weight and consideration; failing to do so rendered the sentence manifestly inadequate.

Secondly, the magistrate erred in judging that their actions did not involve any serious violence. She failed to take into account the fact that it was a large-scale unlawful assembly where there was a high risk of physical confrontation that could result in injury. And in fact, injury to others did occur.

Wong and his allies must have foreseen the possibility of physical confrontation among the protesters, police and security guards.

It is a long-established precedent that freedom of protest is honored as a general right but the protest must be free from any violence. From the well-recognized judgment of Sachs LJ in the English Court of Appeal R v Caird (1970) 54 Cr App R 499 that: "when there is wanton and vicious violence of gross degree the Court is not concerned with whether it originates from gang rivalry or from political motives.

"It is the degree of mob violence that matters and the extent to which the public peace is being broken" and that "the law has always leant heavily against those who, to attain such a (political) purpose, use the threat that lies in the power of numbers."

Since there are always legal channels to voice opinion in a rule-of-law and democratic society, resorting to violence is unacceptable and will have to incur legal consequences. Regardless of whether the protesters had good and righteous intentions, or where the "circumstances so compelled", or others might be more culpable, all in all these would not be grounds for mitigation according to legal principles and past case rulings.

Thirdly, the magistrate ignored the fact that the forcible entry was a blatant disregard of the law because Wong and his allies had distributed leaflets advising protesters on how to obtain help after being arrested.

Lastly, the magistrate mistakenly regarded that Wong and his allies showed repentance toward their wrongdoings.

The fact that they said they would "respect the court and were willing to shoulder responsibility of their actions" was in fact not a statement of remorse or contrition. The Court of Appeal regarded that showing respect to the court was a matter of course. The trio maintained that "civil disobedience" was still the right path to take without fear. This was evidence of no repentance.

The reversed sentence showed that Hong Kong's judicial system is capable of correcting its own mistakes via appeals and re-examination of facts. The system also offers an environment for the judges to be impartial and independent. If one has read the ruling, he or she will discover that decision is made in accordance with laws and in no point politically motivated. The judiciary knew that it shoulders the responsibility to uphold the rule of law and to draw a proper legal balance between public order and people's right to protest.

However, unfortunately, the judges faced insult from the trio's supporters as they think the ruling is "political persecution". Some even called them "unscrupulous judges" on social media platforms.

Reasoned, constructive criticisms are always welcome but unfounded, biased accusations are prohibited. Slandering and scandalizing judges or posting threats of whatever form is a contempt of court, an offense that may result in a maximum two years' imprisonment. Contempt of court is not limited to actions and statements made inside the precinct of the court but also outside.

(HK Edition 09/01/2017 page11)

Today's Top News

Editor's picks

Most Viewed

Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 青青久草在线 | 牛牛热在线视频 | 人人射人人草 | 亚洲午夜精品视频 | 午夜寂寞少妇aaa片毛片 | 国产亚洲精品国产一区 | 男女男精品视频免费观看 | 午夜视频在线免费播放 | 97av| 欧美综合久久 | 黄网站免费在线观看 | 亚洲午夜精品A片久久不卡蜜桃 | 色综合天| 成人激情视频网站 | 波多野结衣中文在线播放 | 天堂中文在线最新版地址 | 欧美黄色片在线观看 | 久久精品视频18 | 国产精品高清m3u8在线播放 | 国产成人无码AA片免费看 | www.99色| 国产99页| 成人国产在线观看 | 亚洲人成在线观看一区二区 | 黑人精品| 亚洲电影一区二区三区 | 久久er视频 | 黄在线免费看 | 日韩在线欧美 | 成人两性高清图片视频 | 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 | 成人精品久久久 | 91华人在线视频 | 久久人人爽人人爽人人片av不 | 久久亚洲精品中文字幕二区 | 99爱国产 | jzzjlzz亚洲乱熟在线播放 | 欧美亚洲在线观看 | 天天操网 | 欧美大尺码毛片 | 99人体做爰视频 |