In the first national security law case, defendant Tang Yingjie was convicted of “inciting others to split the country” and “terrorist activity” by three judges designated by the national security law on Tuesday (27th). The case was pleaded in the High Court at 10 o’clock this morning. According to the National Security Law, the crime of terrorist activity can be sentenced to life as a prisoner, while the crime of inciting others to split the country can be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years.
Security in the High Court was significantly strengthened this morning. In addition to a large number of uniformed police officers stationed outside the court, a number of plainclothes police officers wearing OCTB (Organized Crime and Triad Investigation Bureau) vests were also in the ground floor lobby of the High Court. The floor for handling cases was stationed, and the atmosphere was quite tense. On the day of the ruling on Tuesday, someone called the office of Judge Du Libing and made threatening remarks to the staff and threatened to plant a bomb.
The three designated judges Du Libing, Peng Baoqin, and Chen Jiaxin ruled earlier that “recovering Hong Kong, the revolution of the times” is a natural and reasonable result. Under the circumstances of this case, “capable of” constitutes inciting others to split the country; and the defendant also understands that “light The slogan “Time” implies the secession of the country, which means that Hong Kong will be separated from China. The verdict also repeatedly reiterated that the defendant did not stop at all police lines, and finally hit the police, deliberately challenging the police, and the police is a symbol of Hong Kong’s law and order.
【11:40】 The police anti-terrorist special service team is on guard outside the high court
After the court was dismissed, a large number of uniformed police officers were on guard outside the court, and Zhang Zhuoqin, the acting assistant criminal prosecutor of the Department of Justice, etc. boarded a private car and left. At the scene, at least three anti-terrorist special service officers were also seen, carrying large rucksacks believed to contain heavy weapons, on duty outside the main entrance of the High Court.
[11:17]The case adjourned to sentencing tomorrow afternoon
The defense’s pleading statement ended. The prosecution chief and acting assistant criminal prosecutor (special duty) Zhang Zhuoqin made a speech. Guo Zhaoming objected at this time, and the accuser had no right to respond during the intercession phase. The court agreed, but Zhang stated that he was not responding, but just wanted to remind the court of two things.
First, as pointed out by the defense, foreign cases have no reference value for this case. Zhang pointed out that the written materials submitted by the prosecution to the court contained academic comments and legal texts on Chinese law. The prosecution believes that the submitted overseas cases and mainland law books can be used for court reference when sentencing. It is understood that the relevant book is the “Comprehension and Application of Criminal Law Provisions and Judicial Practice” written in simplified Chinese characters. However, Judge Du Libing pointed out that these are only reference materials and are not binding on the court. Later, after the three judges gathered to discuss this issue for a while, they clearly stated that the court would use the usual interpretation method of Hong Kong law to understand the sentence in the National Security Law.
The second is a trading suspension order and a confiscation order. Zhang Zhuoqin reminded the court that the defendant had four traffic records and that the defense should be invited to speak on this aspect. The defense expressed no objection to the suspension order. However, it opposes the confiscation of vests, belts, knee pads, masks, helmets, phones, SIM cards, SD cards, motorcycles, etc., explaining that there may be an appeal due to this case. The prosecution responded that the above-mentioned items are closely related to the crime in this case, and belong to protective equipment, communication equipment, etc., and should be confiscated. Finally, the court also questioned both parties on the legal principles of the confiscation order.
After hearing the defense’s plea, the three designated judges postponed the case until 3 o’clock tomorrow afternoon. Tang Yingjie appeared calm, smiled and waved goodbye to relatives and friends before leaving the defendant board, and said, “I have heard about it.”
[11:00]Plea: Tang Yingjie deeply regrets and hopes that the court will treat the sentence with as much lenient as possible
The defense recounted Tang Yingjie’s background, referring to Tang Zhongwu who graduated and served as a waiter in a restaurant. He is single, his parents are divorced, and he lives in public housing with his father and sister. Tang is the breadwinner of the family. The defense specifically mentioned that Tang’s grandmother was suffering from cancer, and now Tang needs to go to jail, perhaps there is no chance to see her grandmother again.
The defense emphasized that Tang Yingjie is a decent young man, but he acted stupidly on the day of the crime, but he tried to slow down. Tang also took classes in prison during his detention, including management and English, and would like to work in a coffee shop in the future. He has sincerely regretted his actions.
At the demonstration site, Tang also often assisted in first aid for the injured, regardless of their political opinions. The lawyer added that Tang had taken a first aid course but did not complete it. The lawyer continued that Tang’s life has been greatly affected by this case. He understands the content of the judgment and the condemnation against him. He knows that he will be sentenced to imprisonment. The defense now only invites the court to deal with the sentence of the defendant (be as lenient as you can) as lenient as possible.
[10:40]The defense: The two crimes are due to the same incident and the sentence should be executed at the same time
Regarding the crime of terrorist activity, the defense stated that according to the verdict, the court did not consider the defendant to commit the crime deliberately. The defense also believed that the defendant’s behavior was reckless rather than deliberate, and therefore the circumstances of the case were relatively minor. According to the provisions of the National Security Law, the court may consider imposing a sentence of 3 to 10 years. The defense also pointed out that although the case involved two charges, they were derived from the same incident and believed that the sentences for the two crimes could be executed at the same time.
However, Judge Peng Baoqin pointed out that the verdict stated that after the defendant transferred to Jaffe Road, a brown private car had stopped in front of the police line. The defendant should stop but continued to drive and climb his head. Finally, he deliberately crossed the line on the fourth line of police line. He ran into the police officer, believing that what the defense said was inconsistent with the verdict. The defense responded that he was based on the defendant’s deliberate avoidance of police officers on the first three lines of defense, and the verdict pointed out that the defendant had passed police officers at very close distances, and pointed out that the defendant’s behavior was reckless rather than deliberate.
[10:20]Plea: This case only involves waving the flag “the plot is lighter”
Defence Senior Counsel Guo Zhaoming began to intercede, emphasizing that this case is the first “National Security Law” case in Hong Kong. It has received widespread attention, and people’s understanding of the “National Security Law” has deepened, and they have understood the serious consequences of violating the “National Security Law” . The prosecution submitted overseas cases to the court earlier, but Guo Chen stated that these cases involve other laws and charges and do not apply to this case. He invited the court to sentence the case based on the unique circumstances of the case.
Regarding the crime of “inciting others to split the country”, Article 21 of the National Security Law states that the crime is committed by “inciting”, “If the circumstances are serious, the penalty is not less than five years but not more than ten years; if the circumstances are less severe, the penalty is five. Fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention or surveillance under one year.”
Guo Zhaoming pointed out that “serious circumstances” should be understood as “one-on-one” targeted incitement. This case only involves waving a flag, which is a “general” incitement (waving a flag generally). It does not target the actions specified in Article 20. Therefore, this case is a “minor circumstance”. There is no evidence in this case that other people were affected (except for someone clapping their hands), and it is not as serious as other serious circumstances such as requesting foreign sanctions against the government.