Security Trial Without Jury 'not Rational'

A legal scholar on Wednesday criticised a decision by the Department of Justice not to use a jury for the first trial under the SAR's national security law, saying the reason given for the move is “strange and ridiculous”, but an executive councillor said the government has no choice because the case is a highly sensitive one.

The AFP news agency earlier reported that the Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng cited "the personal safety of jurors and their family members" for the decision in the trial of Tong Ying-kit, who was arrested for allegedly driving his motorbike into a crowd of police officers while flying a protest flag on July 1 last year.

Principal law lecturer at the University of Hong Kong, Eric Cheung, told an RTHK programme that although the decision against using a jury was expected, the reason given by the authorities goes against what Beijing and SAR officials have been saying about the city’s situation.

“It's irrational. They have been saying Hong Kong has restored peace since the introduction of the national security law. So why can’t the government ensure the safety of jurors and their family members?” he asked.

But Executive Councillor Ronny Tong supported the decision not to use a jury, saying a trial by three judges could already adequately protect the defendant's rights.

He told RTHK that the Department of Justice was left with no alternative in such a politically-charged case.

“We have to face the reality that even judges are doxxed and their family members bullied. Before we criminalise doxxing, we have to carefully consider if we can offer adequate protection to jury members,” he said.

“It’s very rare that a trial will be heard by three senior judges. They will hand down written reasons for their ruling. So I think a trial by three judges is very safe.”