By Hon Chi-wang Caleb
With the final sentencing in the trial of Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong's judicial system has once again demonstrated its independence and integrity by delivering reasons for the verdict and sentence based solely on law and evidence. The court had to decide on a just penalty for Lai after it had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the "mastermind and the driving force behind these conspiracies" to collude with foreign forces and publish seditious materials. In doing so, it fulfilled its constitutional duty without fear or favour, focusing exclusively on the legal principles of retribution, deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation, and most fundamentally, equality before the law.
The defence's plea for leniency, which was based on Lai's age and health, presented the court with a question of law. Should personal circumstances substantially mitigate punishment for crimes that strike at the heart of national security? The court's answer, firmly rooted in established jurisprudence, was "an act of mercy" instead of a matter of principle following HKSAR v Tam Yuen Tong, but must be balanced against the gravity of the offence and the public interest. This local principle finds clear, scalable expression in common law jurisdictions, such as in the English case R v Walker (Terence) [2016]. In that appeal, the court held that for crimes of "high degree of harm," factors like age and ill-health carry "relatively little weight." The principle is clear and can be applied to a wide range of situations: the graver the crime, the less relevant personal mitigation becomes. Hong Kong's court applied this same rigorous logic, ensuring the sentence reflected the objective gravity of the offence, a years-long, deliberate conspiracy to endanger national sovereignty, rather than the personal biography of the offender.
Additionally, the court had clear evidence that Jimmy Lai got full and professional medical care throughout his remand and during his trial. Government healthcare professionals provided daily monitoring and necessary treatment, with referrals to specialists from the Hospital Authority as required. During the trial, the court made repeated accommodations for his condition, such as permitting the use of heart monitoring equipment and ensuring breaks if needed. Notably, Lai's own senior counsel confirmed to the court that Lai had received adequate medical treatment while in detention. This factual record definitively refuted allegations of insufficient treatment and demonstrated that his health conditions were being competently managed inside the custodial system.
The small, nominal deduction granted for Lai's personal circumstances does not weaken the court's core legal determination but strengthens it. It shows how careful the court was in looking at all the evidence before giving it weight in the final decision. This meticulous process shows a justice system that is both humane in consideration and unflinching in its application of the law where paramount interests are at stake. To have done otherwise, to have allowed personal factors to dictate the sentence for crimes of such magnitude, would have undermined the foundational legal principle of deterrence and equality before the law.
This outcome is a direct result of the judicial independence guaranteed under Hong Kong's legal system. Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, the Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, said at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year that Hong Kong courts are under a constitutional duty to decide cases based only on "the law and the evidence, not with any underlying matters of politics, policies or other non-legal considerations." The Lai trial was a practical embodiment of this principle. The judgment was not influenced by the defendant's standing, his age, or external pressures; it was determined by the evidence presented and the relevant laws, including the National Security Law (NSL) and established sentencing precedents.
Ultimately, the significance of Jimmy Lai's sentence extends beyond the individual. It affirms that Hong Kong's rule of law is robust, impartial, and capable of dealing with the most severe cases without compromise. It makes it clear that the law applies equally to all, and that the protection of national security, a legitimate and paramount concern for any society, will be upheld by the courts through due process. The verdict and sentence stand not as an outlier, but as a testament to a mature legal system fulfilling its most solemn duty: administering justice based on law alone. It is, unequivocally, a just sentence under Hong Kong's rule of law.
Hon Chi-wang Caleb serves as a Youth Ambassador for the Hong Kong Association for External Friendship
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Related News:
Opinion | Firm sentencing in national security trial affirms commitment to justice
Comment