Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial for four individuals who were previously acquitted of rioting charges by a lower court. The appeal court criticized the original judge, Sham Siu-man, stating that he was plainly wrong in his ruling. The court accused Sham of making mistakes when considering the evidence and favoring the defense.
The case in question involved two rioting cases and a total of 13 defendants, nine of whom had already left Hong Kong after being acquitted. The Secretary for Justice had lodged an appeal against all the verdicts, but the appeal court dismissed the appeal against the nine overseas defendants due to difficulties in serving them with the necessary paperwork.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment, released on Friday, stated that Judge Sham’s ruling was plainly wrong and had caused grave injustice. It further highlighted that Sham had made various speculations in favor of the defense. As a result, the court ordered a retrial for the four defendants in question – social worker Jackie Chen, Lai Pui Ki, Chung Ka Nang, and Jason Gung – to be conducted by a different judge in the District Court.
Although four years have passed since the charges were initially brought against the defendants, the appeal court stated that a retrial would not cause unfairness. They acknowledged the potential anxiety caused by the delay but argued that it was necessary to rectify the previous errors.
Judge Sham, who retired early and emigrated to the UK with his family in 2021, was the first judge to leave Hong Kong following the implementation of the national security law in June 2020.
One of the cases presided over by Judge Sham involved eight defendants, including social worker Jackie Chen, who were charged with rioting during a protest in Wan Chai on August 31, 2019. Sham ruled all eight defendants not guilty, stating that wearing certain colored clothing was a matter of personal preference and should not be arbitrarily associated with rioting.
The appeal judge, Jeremy Poon, criticized Sham for not considering whether Chen, through her presence, had intentionally encouraged others to participate in the riot, potentially making her equally responsible for the offense.
Chen expressed readiness for a retrial, stating that she had already mentally prepared herself after the initial ruling. However, she expressed concern for the three young defendants, whose lives would be further delayed by the retrial.
Another case heard by Judge Sham involved five defendants accused of conspiracy to take part in a riot or an unlawful assembly from September 28 to October 1, 2019. The defendants were acquitted in 2021. The Court of Appeal criticized Judge Sham’s decision, stating that he had not paid sufficient regard to the prosecution’s case and that some of his findings were contrary to common sense.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling highlights the need for a fair and unbiased judicial process in Hong Kong. By ordering a retrial, the court aims to rectify the previous errors and ensure that justice is served. The case also raises concerns about the impact of the national security law on the city’s legal system and the emigration of judges. The retrial will provide an opportunity for a different judge to reconsider the evidence and reach a just verdict.
