Real Hong Kong News
22 October 2021
Five students, who were convicted in September of participating in a riot on 11 November 2019 at Chinese University Hong Kong campus near its No.2 Bridge, received their sentences on Tuesday (19 October) at the District Court. The clash between the protesters and the police was dubbed Siege of the CUHK, which was shortly followed by PolyU siege, and both are considered significant “battles” of the pan-Hong Kong Anti-China Extradition Bill protests.
The four male defendants Chun-yuk Lau (22), Chi-pan Ko (23), Lik-sik Chan (20) and Yi-chuen Hui (22) were sentenced to four years and nine months, and the only female defendant of the case Hoi-ching Foo (23) received four years and 11 months prison terms.
Foo dismissed her lawyer the morning of her sentencing hearing, and read her own mitigation submission, which had been circulated widely:
Your Honour,
First, I would like to say that I have no intention to use this submission to ask for your sympathy.
During detention, when probation officer asked me for my progress reports, I informed the officer that I do not regret my actions, and have not got anything to say in my mitigation. This is because I do not agree with the law and do not think I have done anything wrong. Put it simply, I do not consider the sentence reasonable.
To some, protesters simply “broke the law and must take responsibility”. Others may think that the court’s verdict has proven that protesters’ actions were wrong and futile. However, I believe that people being in a position of authority does not automatically mean that they are right.
First of all, the laws in Hong Kong are not endorsed by the people of Hong Kong and there is no room in the society to discuss whether or not the laws are reasonable. Secondly, the definition of riot under the Public Order Ordinance is ambiguous allowing the authorities to interpret and enforce this law very flexibly. The number of rioting charges skyrocketed since 2019, the Court therefore reinterprets the definition of riot, categorising many more actions as “not permitted by law”. This (reinterpretation) leads to many more convictions and allows the regime to easily suppress dissidents.
Laws under a totalitarian regime are merely bloodless violent means the authorities are free to use to control people’s actions. The Court of Law under such regime, therefore, is not a sacred place where justice is observed. The Court’s only purpose is to superficially look at social order, but not look at the root cause of the social division.
When punishments on political cases get heavier by the day, some defendants choose to plead guilty or seek mitigation in exchange for a lighter sentence. However, it does not necessarily mean that they agree that the existing laws are moral. Your Honour may say that if I disagree with the verdict I am free to appeal. However, I no longer believe in the legal system in Hong Kong. It appears to me that even the highest court in Hong Kong will not truly listen to the dissidents.
I only wish to take this opportunity to express my discontent. If Your Honour decides to hand down a heavier sentence after hearing this submission in an attempt to make me reflect or feel regret, Your Honour may do as you please.
Hoi-ching Foo
All five defendants were convicted of one count of rioting and one count of using face covering during an illegal assembly. Foo and Hui were also convicted of possession of offensive weapons or tools for unlawful purposes: Foo was accused of possessing a screwdriver and a hammer-head, while Hui was accused of possessing a spanner.
The Real Hong Kong News 