My Take | Juries have served Hong Kong well and should continue to do so
Not-guilty verdicts in the bomb plot trial prompted calls for the system to be reformed or even abolished. It should instead be strengthened
The “Dragon Slaying Brigade” trial, involving a plot to detonate bombs in the heart of Hong Kong, is one of the most shocking to come before the city’s courts. A plan was hatched to wreak havoc in December 2019, amid anti-government civil unrest. The violence envisaged went much further than anything the city experienced at that time.
Last week, mastermind Ng Chi-hung was jailed for almost 24 years after admitting conspiring to commit bombings and possession of arms and ammunition.
His accomplice, Wong Chun-keung, leader of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade”, was sentenced to 13½ years. Five others were also jailed.
The plan was to draw police onto the streets of Wan Chai, to be targeted by a sniper. Two bombs would be detonated, one containing 150 nails. Thankfully, the attack was thwarted.
The sentences bring the long trial to an end. But one feature has sparked debate. Seven defendants pleaded not guilty and were tried by a jury. Only one of them was convicted.
We should not presume that just because a case is serious, everyone prosecuted is guilty as charged
Police were reportedly “shocked” by the not-guilty verdicts which prompted calls for the jury system to be reformed or even abolished. There is no need for such a drastic step. The system has served Hong Kong well.
