Why those who threaten Hong Kong’s judges deserve no mercy

Since the anti-government protests, courts have been firebombed and judges threatened
The rule of law is Hong Kong’s foundation stone, and anybody who endangers it must face the full force of the law

Grenville Cross

Published: 6:45am, 2 Jun 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

On May 28, District Court Judge Amanda Woodcock sentenced 10 defendants to terms of imprisonment ranging from 14 to 18 months. The defendants, who included Next Media founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, activist Figo Chan Ho-wun and former lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung, had earlier pleaded guilty to organising an unauthorised assembly on National Day in 2019, the maximum penalty for which is five years’ imprisonment.

The judge noted that the rally they organised saw petrol bombs being thrown along or near the procession route, and other acts of criminal damage, arson and violence. She told the defendants that “actions have consequences for everyone, irrespective of who they are”.

Soon after the sentences were imposed, Woodcock received three telephone calls, conveying intimidatory and insulting messages, directed at her and her family.

Of particular concern is the fact this incident is not a one-off. During the 2019-20 protests, the entrances to the Court of Final Appeal, the High Court and the Sha Tin Magistrates’ Court were firebombed.

In January 2020, moreover, insulting graffiti about Justice Anthea Pang Po-kam was daubed on the High Court’s walls, after she was maligned online. Unhappy with the sentences she had imposed on particular rioters, she was called “a judge with a red background”.

An image captured from Facebook shows a fire burning outside Sha Tin Magistrates’ Court on November 14, 2019. Photo: Facebook

On December 3, 2020, Chief Magistrate Victor So Wai-tak was threatened after he refused to grant bail to Jimmy Lai, because he was a flight risk and might reoffend. After the hearing, So’s secretary received a call from a man who shouted, “I will bomb you, your wife, and your son to death”. Clearly, the caller hoped to terrify So for his decision, and also to influence his judgment of future cases.

In Hong Kong, there is a fiercely independent judiciary, whose status is constitutionally protected, with the Basic Law stipulating that the courts “shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference”.

Judges themselves, mindful of their judicial oath, which requires them to “safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favour”, have always shown great courage in discharging their judicial duties, and achieving just outcomes.

It must, however, be greatly unnerving to receive threats of this sort, which must prey on their minds. If, therefore, the culprits can be identified, the Department of Justice must throw the book at them, with the most obvious offence being criminal intimidation.

Under the Crimes Ordinance, criminal intimidation, which is punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment, arises if somebody threatens a person with injury either to himself or another person, with intent to cause alarm.

If, as here, the victim is a judicial officer, or else someone involved in upholding criminal justice such as a prosecutor or a police officer, the offence is always treated very seriously by the courts.

It may, moreover, be possible to charge a suspect who has threatened a judge with attempting to pervert the course of public justice, which is punishable with imprisonment for any term, although this is only feasible if the case is still ongoing.

These, however, are not the only charges prosecutors will wish to consider, as subversion may also be a possibility. Under the national security law, this offence arises if somebody, by using the threat of force, organises, plans, commits or participates in serious acts which interfere with or undermine the performance of duties and functions of “a body of power”, which would include the judiciary.

If convicted of subversion, an offender who has threatened a judicial officer can, if his offence is classified as being of “a grave nature”, be sentenced to life imprisonment or a fixed-term of not less than 10 years.

But whatever the charge, those who threaten the judiciary have declared war on society, and they can expect no mercy. If they can be brought to justice, their sentences must be severe, emphasising not only punishment but also deterrence. The rule of law is Hong Kong’s foundation stone, and anybody who endangers it must face the full force of the law.

Grenville Cross SC is a criminal justice analyst