Author: Prof. Bacteriophage
Here’s a recent update on the hot first case prosecuted by the Hong Kong National Security Law, officially the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The defendant Mr. Tong, Ying Kit appeared in court on July 6, seriously injured in a wheelchair. The actual cause of the injury is not yet clear, but it must be related to the fact that the Hong Kong gangster-style police caused him to fall off the motorcycle by blocking, and their behavior during the subsequent arrest. Even if under such circumstances, the defendant’s application for bail was rejected by the Chief Magistrate, Victor So Wai-tak, of the Hong Kong Magistrates’ Courts, also known as the so-called ‘Appointed Judge of Chief Executive of Hong Kong’ especially for the new evil law. The rejection is arbitrary on the Article 42 of the Hong Kong National Security Law, which states that the defendant may endanger the country cannot release on bail, however, no reasonable or specific explanation for how.
Such an endanger is a pseudo-proposition. How could an injured person in a wheelchair do anything violent that would endanger national security during bail? The Magistrates’ Courts of Hong Kong supposed to adopts the principle of presumption of innocence, because the right to bail is recognized in the accordance with the Article 5(3) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. Apparently, Victor So Wai-tak on behalf of law enforcement agencies could refuse bail as the right is not absolute, but only when a reasonable or specific explanation was given. Whatever the later situation will be, because Victor So Wai-tak, as a magistrate, did the refuse without explaining, he is suspected of violating the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, currently enacting, and the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, recently passed by the U.S Congress. It is believed that Chief Magistrate Victor So Wai-tak and the personnel behind are very clear about the content of these two bills.
So far, another abnormal has appeared in the case. The prosecution once handed over the charge sheet to the court. It only mentioned the time and place and the regulations involved but did not clearly describe what the defendant did do. Quote as follow:
“Incitement to split the country: refers to the act of being accused of instigating others to organize, plan, implement or participate in the conduct of splitting the country and undermining national unity on the Hennessy Road and Lockhart Road between Luard Road and Fleming Road in Wan Chai on July 1 this year. Regardless of whether the use of force or the threat of force is used, the Hong Kong S.A.P will be separated from the P.R China, or the laws and regulations of the Hong Kong S.A.P will be illegally changed.
Terrorism: refers to the accused in the same place on the same day, forcing the Central People’s government or the Hong Kong S.A.R government or the public to achieve political claims, carrying out terrorist activities that cause or intend to cause serious social harm, that is, serious violence or other dangerous methods seriously endanger public safety.”
What a coincidence! Similar to the situations in refusing bail, there’s nothing else but an abstract description in the charge sheet, no specific situation on that day. Generally, the action alleged shall be specifically stated in the charge sheet which shall also contain such particulars as shall leave such person under no misapprehension as to the charge against him or her. But why did they do this? The reason is quite simple. The prosecution is afraid of being questioned too much later with make-up details, given the fact that Mr. Tong didn’t do anything endanger or illegal. Thus, they simply made it ambiguous, so as not to fall into a lie. It’s one of the most common characteristics of CCP that abstracting and blurring the facts where the situation is hard to lie, fake, or fabricate.
Naturally, the vague charge sheet inspired us to know what happened on the spot that day. Multiple recorded live videos on the Internet help us to reproduce the fact. On the day of the parade on July 1, Mr. Tong, Ying Kit, in his 20s, was riding a motorcycle with the banner of ‘Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times’ in Wan Chai. When he drove to the junction of O’Brien Road, he was suddenly blocked by the long-awaited police. Just a few seconds before falling, the defendant did drive normally and legally and blink the signal light when turning. After entering the ambush position set by the police, the defendant seemed to control the movement of its motorcycle to avoid the crowd, however, at the same time, police actively pulled it, causing it to fall over. Unfortunately, during the rollover, the vehicle was completely out of control and ran into some police officers. Immediately as he falling, several gangster-style police pressed the man very violently to the ground, including at least three of them waving batons to the defendant who had fallen to the ground without aggression and might be injured. Finally, he has been dragged to the corner. It is unclear yet whether there was a speeding indicated by some of CCP’s media, which deliberately crashed into the police. But, it should be noted that websites like the Sina have done something on the original material in their reports. Not only have the video seemed to be slightly accelerated in playback, fabricating a speeding riding, but also been cut off for the part of the gangster police who was allegedly beaten after Mr. Tong fell to the ground, to dilute their possible violence. Whether the defendant’s multiple fractures were caused by the gangster police beatings? Besides, this case has been adjourned until October 6, alongside the refusing bail. The prosecution prepares to detain the defendant for a long time. What is its purpose? Unrestricted Warfare? It looks like a copy version of CCP-style manipulating court, which calls itself the ‘Joint Judgment of Police, Prosecution and Judiciary’, where the three parts are not separate. They would against the defendants in all aspects, causing them at a disadvantage.
Additionally, reviewing the previous timeline of the case. Manipulators in the shadow should originally have expectations of a rapid prosecution to achieve a deterrent effect of its evil law. On July 3, while the defendant was still in the hospital, the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts opened for trial, but not many people came to court for hearing and support. The documents of the case were sent to the court promptly, and the deal process was fast. It is reported that all the procedures have been processed not until 4 PM, but it was only around 3 PM that the personnel-related learned the prosecution would bring a hearing. Again, it looks like a CCP-style, expecting to seize the favorable opportunity in time and take advantage of the defendant in a weak situation. Firstly, inform the personnel-related all of a sudden. Secondly, make rapid progress in knowing that the defendant could not appear in court. Moreover, in this way, the public is too late to respond, such as court hearings and support, which can relatively reduce the transparency of the entire case. Another characteristic CCP likes, doing things in secret.
Generally speaking, hearing is one of the most important procedures in a prosecution, especially when the accused is charged by the government which represents the society. The public has the right to know what crime the accused is involved in. For the defendant, hearing before the accused can assure and verify the charges he or she is facing. As a result, it ensures justice, transparency, and fairness.
In conclusion, everything we see has indicated the CCP-style manipulating court, from the very beginning of arresting to hearing now, in the first case prosecuted by the Hong Kong National Security Law. It’s an indisputable fact that Hong Kong’s justice has been evaporated. Anyone in Hong Kong is likely to be accused by the CCP and its puppet administrator in an injustice court, and confronted with their Unrestricted Warfare by all means, as long as any acting is not satisfied to them. I will continue to pay attention to this case and bring you the analysis. Hope Mr. Tong can win even in such a court. Hope God bless the people in Hong Kong. And hope that friends who have a business in Hong Kong will reassess the potential risks of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the CCP-style manipulating court.
West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts Case NO. WKCC 2217/2020