Subversion Suspects Denied Answer On Jury Trial Query

"); jQuery("#212 h3").html("

Related News Programmes

"); });

2021-05-31 HKT 18:56

Share this story

facebook

  • Chief Magistrate Victor So said he had no authority to instruct prosecutors to answer questions from defence lawyers on whether 47 pro-democracy figures charged with subversion would receive a jury trial. File photo: RTHK

    Chief Magistrate Victor So said he had no authority to instruct prosecutors to answer questions from defence lawyers on whether 47 pro-democracy figures charged with subversion would receive a jury trial. File photo: RTHK

Forty-seven people accused of national security crimes related to last year’s pan-democratic primaries appeared in court on Monday, with the counsel for several defendants questioning whether they would receive a jury trial. However, they did not receive any answer.

The lawyer – representing Leung Kwok-hung, Jimmy Sham and Lester Shum – also asked Chief Magistrate Victor So during a hearing at West Kowloon Magistracy whether the trial would be open to the public, and if prosecutors intend to paint the defendants as masterminds or active participants of the alleged conspiracy to commit subversion.

He said the answers would determine whether they plead guilty or not.

Under Article 22 of the national security law, people deemed to be 'principal offenders' or those who commit an offence of a grave nature face between 10 years to life in prison; those found to have ‘actively participated’ in a subversion plot can get jail terms ranging from three to 10 years; while ‘other participants’ get a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

In response, the magistrate said he had no authority to instruct the prosecution to seek clarification on these matters from the Secretary for Justice.

These questions come days after a High Court judge decided in a separate national security case that the trial for defendant Tong Ying-kit would be held without a jury.

The judge had ruled that jury trials are not a constitutional right.

Meanwhile, So also rejected a separate request from other defence lawyers for more time to provide legal advice to their clients.

They had cited difficulties in meeting some defendants who have been kept in custody since their arrest in late February.

Again, So said he had no authority to make instructions to the prosecution.

All 47 defendants are due to appear before the court again on July 8 before their case is transferred to the High Court.

Eleven of them were granted bail, while the rest were remanded in custody. Bail applications for ten defendants will be heard over the next two days.

RECENT NEWS

HSBC Fined HK$4.2M Over Disclosure Breaches In Research Reports

The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has reprimanded and imposed a fine of HK$4.2 million on HSBC for breaching ... Read more

Philippines: The Hidden Fintech Gem You Cant Afford To Miss | Lito Villanueva

The Philippines is the fastest-growing digital economy and home to one of Southeast Asia’s most valuable fintech unic... Read more

SBI And Chainlink Partner On Blockchain And Digital Asset Use

SBI Group, one of Japan’s largest financial conglomerates with assets exceeding the equivalent of US$200 billion, has... Read more

China Considers Yuan-Backed Stablecoins To Advance Global Currency Push

China is considering permitting the use of yuan-backed stablecoins for the first time in a move that could support wide... Read more

Financial Sanctions: LSEG Risk Intelligence Answers Your Key Questions

Financial sanctions are essential government tools for achieving foreign policy objectives – and compliance is mandat... Read more

Korea Development Bank Leads $45M Bridge Round For Upstage

South Korea’s Upstage has secured a US$45 million Series B bridge round supported by Korea Development Bank (KDB), Am... Read more