Lai’s bail appeal tests security law interpretation: observer
As the detained anti- government figure and secessionist Jimmy Lai appeared before the Court of Final Appeal on Monday for his bail hearing for violating the national security law for Hong Kong, legal experts considered the case as a test of how Hong Kong’s legal system interprets bail conditions under the national security law.
Lai arrived at the Court of Final Appeal in a prison van on Monday morning, according to local media reports in Hong Kong. The court has already revoked the bail order of Lai on December 31 after Lai had been granted bail on December 23 by the Hong Kong High Court.
The court adjourned on Monday, and Lai was placed in custody, according to local media reports.
Article 42 of the national security law for Hong Kong states that no bail shall be granted to a criminal suspect or defendant unless the judge has sufficient grounds for believing that the criminal suspect or defendant will not continue to commit acts endangering national security.
A representative of the Department of Justice of Hong Kong argued that when considering the case, the intent and aim of drafting the national security law for Hong Kong should be understood first. Article 42 states the precondition of no bail, local media reports said, citing the official.
“As the Court of Final Appeal represents Hong Kong’s judicial organ with the highest authority, which will touch on how the bail conditions of the national security law for Hong Kong is interpreted within the common law system of Hong Kong,” Tian
Feilong, an associate professor at Beihang University in Beijing told the Global Times on Monday.
“The article is to impose stringent bail requirements to prevent the suspect, Jimmy Lai in this case, from continuing to breach the national security law, especially in collaboration with foreign powers for the purpose of imposing sanctions on our governments,” Lawrence Ma, barrister and chairman at Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation, told the Global Times on Monday.
How the court will rule on the case will also be a major gauge of whether the judges interpret the article correctly. “It is important that they correctly understand the national security law in context,” otherwise an incorrect ruling may trigger a legal interpretation of the nation’s top legislature, Ma added.