Following recent events within Hong Kong’s legislative environment, the Hong Kong District Court imprisoned 12 activists on Saturday, sentencing them to a range of 54 to 82 months for their previous riot convictions. Overseeing these cases, Judge Li separated the convicted activists into three categories, with the starting sentence for the most serious offenders beginning at seven years.
Textualising his reasoning, Li highlighted the gravity of the case, pointing to the unique constitutional status and symbolic significance of the Legislative Council Complex. The activists’ actions were viewed as a direct insult and provocation towards the government, igniting a series of subsequent protests. The following classifications were used to categorize the activists: leaders and active participants, supplies deliverers and partial conductors, and supporters and encouragers of other activists. Respectively, the sentencing commencements were 84 months, 81 months, and 78 months.
Out of the twelve offenders, six were considered serious offenders and received sentences fluctuating between 54 and 82 months. One defendant, referred to as Lam, was granted a two-month reduction due to a previous detention by Mainland Chinese authorities. This resulted in an 82-month prison sentence, the most severe of the bunch. Another defendant, Owen Chow, encountered a one-fourth reduction for a tardy guilty plea, concluding in a 61-month prison sentence.
There were four defendants categorized as minor offenders resulting in prison sentences from 55 to 74 months. These defendants encouraged the activists by being present within the Legislative Council Complex. A counsel for defendant Gregory Wong, a Hong Kong actor, claimed Wong’s stay in the complex was brief. However, Judge Li negated this claim, arguing that even a temporary presence from individuals such as Wong could stimulate activists’ moral.
This criminal activity falls under the offense of rioting as dictated by the Public Order Ordinance. The United Nations Human Rights Committee in its third periodic report on Hong Kong, implied that some terms of the ordinance, including “unlawful assembly,” may inherently facilitate an excessive restriction to the rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Reflecting the gravitas of the situation, the Hong Kong Police Force stated the sentence underscored the seriousness of the case.