Opposition figures did not organise rally, judges told
Seven prominent opposition figures, including tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, penalised for their roles in an unapproved 2019 rally did not organise the event and were mere participants, their lawyers told an appellate court yesterday in seeking to quash their convictions.
The counsel for the appellants, who also included veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming, told the Court of Appeal that the seven had merely walked at the front of the assembly-turned-procession on Hong Kong Island on August 18, 2019, while carrying a banner and leading a chant of slogans.
Lawyers argued the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove the accused had organised an unauthorised assembly, with some suggesting their “spontaneous” acts were only intended to facilitate crowd control.
A District Court judge last year convicted the seven appellants of organising and taking part in an unauthorised assembly by turning a lawful gathering of 300,000 people in Victoria Park into an illegal procession to Central during the 2019 anti-government protests.
Also found guilty were former opposition lawmakers Albert Ho Chun-yan, Lee Cheuk-yan, Cyd
Ho Sau-lan, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee.
Judge Amanda Woodcock handed suspended jail sentences to Martin Lee, Albert Ho and Ng, while sentencing the remaining four to jail for between eight and 18 months.
Central to yesterday’s court debate was whether the seven had planned for the public gathering to turn into a de facto march.
Senior Counsel Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, representing Lai, said he was not an organiser as he did not design the protest route.
Eu highlighted the significance of safely dispersing rally participants from the overcrowded Victoria Park, saying Woodcock had erroneously found the appellants to have acted in “direct defiance” of police.
Senior Counsel Philip Dykes, who appeared for Lee Cheuk-yan and Cyd Ho, emphasised the spontaneous nature of the march and said his clients merely “went along” with the procession and did nothing more than to “facilitate” its progress.
Other defence lawyers suggested their respective clients did not do anything that could lead the trial judge to the only irresistible inference that they were organisers of the banned event. The appeal court is expected to hear further defence submissions today.