On June 24, 2024, the final appeal trial for the August 18, 2019, Victoria Park assembly case took place in Hong Kong. Nine pro-democracy figures, including Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, were initially convicted of “organizing an unauthorized assembly” and “knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly.” Following appeals, the charge of “organizing an unauthorized assembly” was withdrawn for seven of them, while the charge of “knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly” remained upheld. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the seven individuals filed a final appeal which was heard in the Court of Final Appeal on the 24th.
The appellants, including Jimmy Lai, former legislators Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, Leung Kwok-hung, Cyd Ho, Lee Cheuk-yan, and Martin Lee, were represented by senior counsels including Audrey Eu, Lawrence Lok, Kenneth Leung, and Paul Poon. The case was presented on behalf of the prosecution by senior counsel Audrey Yu. The Chief Justice Zhang Junneng, resident judges Lee Yi, Keith Ho, and Wilson Lam, along with a non-permanent judge from the UK, Brian Liao, presided over the case.
Among those in attendance were Jimmy Lai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Cyd Ho, and Leung Kwok-hung. Meanwhile, Martin Lee and Albert Ho, who were sentenced to probation, appeared in court early that day. The area outside the courthouse was heavily guarded with multiple police cars and armored vehicles.
The appellants argued that peaceful gatherings are a constitutional right and the convictions were disproportionate. Audrey Eu, representing Jimmy Lai, argued that the initial decision to ban the assembly due to fears of radical elements hijacking the event did not materialize, and therefore, the defendants should not have been influenced by the police concerns of that day. She contended that the proportionality of the conviction should have been considered at the time of sentencing.
Audrey Eu emphasized that while not challenging the relevant provisions of the Public Order Ordinance or the police ban, the conviction itself constitutes a restriction, and the court has a responsibility to ensure the proportionality of the conviction.
Paul Poon, representing Cyd Ho, pointed out that the charges in this case directly relate to the defendants’ constitutional right to peaceful assembly, and from arrest to conviction, the proportionality should have been scrutinized. In response, Zhang Junneng questioned whether, once the trial judge ruled that the prosecution had proven all elements of the charges, there was a need to reexamine the proportionality of the conviction, suggesting that it could become an endless cycle. Paul Poon argued that throughout the trial, appeal, and judicial review processes, the court can review the proportionality of the conviction based on the specifics of each case.
Furthermore, senior counsel Paul Poon highlighted that if the Department of Justice does not safeguard the right to review law enforcement processes, citizens would have to seek redress from the court. He cited the case from the Labor Day in 2020, where eight members of the Democratic Party and the Labor Party were convicted for participating in an unlawful assembly outside the government headquarters. Although their appeal was rejected and refused further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, he explained that even though the defendants lost the case, the process was reviewed, and a judgment was made. Hence, the court cannot exclude all future challenges to law enforcement practices based on past systemic challenges.