Hong Kong hits back as UK judge says rule of law ‘profoundly compromised’ | Courts News

Hong Kong has hit back at a British judge who announced his resignation from the territory’s top court last week and expressed concern that the rule of law was in danger following the landmark conviction of 47 pro-democracy politicians and activists.

Jonathan Sumption, one of two British judges who resigned from the Court of Final Appeal last week, wrote in the Financial Times on Monday that last month’s decision, which he noted could still be reversed by an appeal court, was “symptomatic of a growing malaise in the Hong Kong judiciary” where judges had to “operate in an impossible political environment created by China.”

The 47 were found guilty of subversion for organising an unofficial primary to choose their candidates in the largest ever trial under the National Security Law, which Beijing imposed on the territory in 2020.

Among his concerns, Sumption listed the security law and the revived colonial-era sedition law, which he said were “illiberal legislation” that “severely” limited judges’ freedom of action, “interpretations” by a standing committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing such as in the case of jailed tycoon Jimmy Lai, and the “paranoia” of the authorities.

“The least sign of dissent is treated as a call for revolution,” Sumption wrote. “Hefty jail sentences are dished out to people publishing ‘disloyal’ cartoon books for children, or singing pro-democracy songs, or organising silent vigils for the victims of Tiananmen Square. Hong Kong, once a vibrant and politically diverse community is slowly becoming a totalitarian state. The rule of law is profoundly compromised in any area about which the government feels strongly.”

In a lengthy statement on Tuesday, the Hong Kong government rejected the British judge’s comments, saying there was “absolutely no truth” to suggestions that Hong Kong’s judiciary was under pressure from Beijing, or that there had been any decline in the rule of law in Hong Kong, which was returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

“The government has never, and also will not allow anyone to, interfere with the prosecutions of the Department of Justice and trials by the court,” Chief Executive John Lee said in the statement, noting that prosecutorial power and adjudication power were independent, and citing the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini constitution.

“These two powers are fully and affirmatively protected by the Basic Law. The prosecutorial decisions of the Department of Justice has [sic] not been subject to any interference. Likewise, the court has always exercised its independent judicial power without any interference. This is how it was in the past, how it is at present, and how it will be in future. The rule of law in Hong Kong is strong and will not change.”

In his weekly news conference on Tuesday, Lee pointed his finger at the United Kingdom, the former colonial ruler of Hong Kong.

“Some UK officials and politicians try to weaponise the UK’s judicial influence to target China and HKSAR [Hong Kong]” Lee told reporters. “A judge is entitled to his personal political preferences, but that is not a judge’s area of professional expertise.”

Political upheaval

Sumption, who in 2021 resisted pressure on foreign judges to resign their positions, stepped down last week with another British judge Lawrence Collins.

Collins told the Associated Press news agency that while he retained confidence in the independence of the courts, he had decided to leave “because of the political situation in Hong Kong”.

In 2019, the territory was rocked by mass protests which began over concerns about plans to extradite suspects for trial in Chinese courts and evolved into calls for democracy, which later turned violent. Beijing imposed the National Security Law on July 1 the following year and Hong Kong passed its own security law earlier this year.

Since the protests, rules governing Hong Kong elections have also been tightened with all candidates required to undergo strict vetting to ensure only “patriots” hold public office.

Many pro-democracy politicians and activists, including some who once sat in the territory’s legislature, have been arrested or gone into exile with the police offering financial rewards for information leading to their detention. Civil society groups have also wound down and independent media closed.

Dozens of people are now facing trial under the Chinese law and the first arrests were made under the Hong Kong law last month.

The governments in Beijing and Hong Kong say the laws have restored stability following the 2019 protests.

Amid the debate over overseas judges, Hong Kong announced late on Monday that former Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who is 80, would step down in July when her contract expires.

McLachlin, who has previously come under pressure for her decision to remain on the bench, was appointed in 2018.

“I continue to have confidence in the members of the Court, their independence, and their determination to uphold the rule of law,” she said in a brief statement.

Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, unlike mainland China where the courts are controlled by the Communist Party.

Non-permanent overseas judges have consistently served on the bench of its top court since the handover. There were 15 such judges in 2019, and with McLachlin’s departure, about seven will remain.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Three Valencia fans handed prison sentences over Vinicius Jr racist abuse | Football News

Spanish court convicts fans for hate crimes against the Real Madrid football player in the first conviction over racist insults.

Three Valencia football fans have been sentenced to eight months in prison for hate crimes against Real Madrid player Vinicius Jr, the first conviction for racist insults in a football stadium in Spain, a court announced.

“The ruling handed down today, which is final, establishes as proven that the three defendants insulted Vinicius with shouts, gestures and chants referring to the colour of his skin,” the court said in a statement on Monday.

“These shouts and gestures of a racist nature, consisting among other things in the repetition of the sounds and imitating the movements of monkeys, caused the footballer feelings of frustration, shame and humiliation, with the consequent undermining of his intrinsic dignity.”

In Spain, prison sentences of less than two years for non-violent crimes rarely require a defendant without previous convictions to serve jail time, so the three are likely to remain free unless they commit further offences.

The three supporters, who pled guilty to the charges, were also banned from entering football stadiums for two years and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

“This ruling is great news for the fight against racism in Spain as it repairs the damage suffered by Vinicius Jr and sends a clear message to those people who go to a football stadium to insult that LaLiga will identify them, report them and there will be criminal consequences for them,” LaLiga president Javier Tebas said.

The events happened at Valencia’s Mestalla Stadium in May last year, when racist slurs were hurled at Vinicius, who is Black, during a league match.

They led to an outpouring of support for the Brazilian forward and galvanised a series of local and international campaigns, including the creation of a FIFA anti-racism committee made up of players.

“During the hearing, the defendants read a letter of apology to Vinicius Jr, LaLiga and Real Madrid,” LaLiga said in a statement on Monday.

Real Madrid’s Vinicius Junior, right, in action with Cadiz’s Ivan Alejo [Juan Medina/Reuters]

Real Madrid said the defendants had shown repentance and, in their letter, had “asked fans that all traces of racism and intolerance should be banished from sporting competitions”.

“Real Madrid, which together with Vinicius Jr has acted as private prosecutor in these proceedings, will continue to work to protect the values of our club and to eradicate any racist behaviour in the world of football and sport,” the club added in a statement.

The 23-year-old Vinicius helped Real Madrid to win the LaLiga title and the Champions League this past season. He was named the Champions League’s player of the season and is one of the favourites to win the Ballon d’Or for the world’s best player in October.

Sixteen incidents of racist abuse against Vinicius have been reported to Spanish prosecutors by LaLiga in the last two seasons.

In March, Vinicius broke down in tears at a press conference and said he was struggling to stay motivated and enjoy playing football due to the recurring abuse, urging Spanish authorities to take action.

“People should know that this type of act is punishable, punishable as a hate crime, because the conviction is for crimes against moral integrity but with the aggravating circumstance of hatred,” state prosecutor Susana Gisbert told reporters.

In April, Spanish TV station Movistar Plus+ fired analyst German Burgos after Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain refused to give interviews to the network following a comment he made about Barcelona’s Lamine Yamal that was interpreted as racist.

In the same month, Atletico Madrid and Getafe were ordered to partially close their stands following racist and xenophobic abuse in a LaLiga game, while a third-division match between Rayo Majadahonda and Sestao River was suspended after Rayo’s Senegalese goalkeeper Cheikh Kane Sarr confronted a rival fan who he said was racially abusing him.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Widow of Beau Biden testifies about seeing revolver in Hunter Biden’s truck | Courts News

Federal prosecutors say US President Biden’s son was in the throes of a heavy crack addiction when he bought the gun.

Hunter Biden’s widowed sister-in-law has testified that she found his gun and threw it away out of fear of his spiralling drug addiction, potentially bolstering prosecutors’ case that President Joe Biden’s son broke a law barring illegal drug users from owning firearms.

Hallie Biden told jurors about the moment she found the revolver in his truck, describing how she put it into a leather pouch, stuffed it into a shopping bag and tossed it in a rubbish bin outside a market near her home.

“I panicked, and I wanted to get rid of them,” she testified about finding the gun and ammunition in the vehicle’s console in October 2018. “I didn’t want him to hurt himself, and I didn’t want my kids to find it and hurt themselves.”

The purchase of the Colt revolver by Hunter Biden – and Hallie Biden’s frenzied disposal of it – are central to the case against him. Federal prosecutors say the president’s son was in the throes of a heavy crack addiction when he bought the gun.

He has been charged with three felonies: lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally keeping the gun for 11 days.

Hunter Biden, who has pleaded not guilty, has said the Justice Department is bending to political pressure from Republicans and that he is being unfairly targeted.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden said in an interview with ABC that he would accept the jury’s verdict and ruled out a pardon for his son. Hunter Biden is the first child of a United States president to face a criminal trial.

The Delaware jury has heard testimony this week from witnesses including his ex-wife and a former girlfriend about the 54-year-old’s past prolific drug use, which he has publicly acknowledged.

Prosecutors did not wrap up their case on Thursday and said they planned to call two more witnesses on Friday. Hunter Biden’s lawyer said he could finish his case by the end of Monday.

Hunter Biden, son of US President Joe Biden, and his wife Melissa Cohen Biden, leave the federal court during his trial on criminal gun charges in Wilmington [Hannah Beier/Reuters]

Hunter Biden gun charges

Hallie Biden, who had a brief romantic relationship with Hunter after Beau Biden died in 2015, testified that from the time Hunter returned to Delaware from a 2018 trip to California until she threw his gun away, she did not see him using drugs. That time period included the day he bought the weapon.

Much of her testimony focused on October 23, 2018 – 11 days after he bought the gun and when she disposed of it. Hunter was staying with her and seemed exhausted. Asked by the prosecutor if it appeared that Hunter was using drugs around then, she said, “He could have been.”

As Hunter slept in her home, Hallie Biden went to check his car. She said she was hoping to help him get or stay sober, free of alcohol and cocaine. She said she found the remnants of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia. She also found the gun Hunter had purchased in a box with a broken lock that kept it from fully closing. There was ammunition, too.

Hunter Biden watched expressionless as Hallie spoke. She told jurors that she found crack at her home and saw him using it. She said she was with him occasionally when he met dealers.

Jurors have also heard from the gun store clerk, who testified about how he explained a few options to Hunter Biden before he settled on the gun.

The clerk then watched as the customer filled out the firearms transaction record, a required document for the purchase of a gun, and saw him check off “no” to the question of whether he was “an unlawful user of or addicted to” marijuana, stimulants, narcotics or any other controlled substance.

The proceedings are unfolding after the collapse of a plea deal that would have resolved the gun charge and a separate tax case, and spared the Biden family the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election.

The president’s sister, Valerie, was in court on Thursday. First Lady Jill Biden spent the first part of the week there before leaving for France. Allies worry about the toll the proceedings will take on the president, who is deeply concerned about the health and continued sobriety of his only living son.

If convicted, Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison, although first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum, and it is unclear whether the judge would sentence him to time in jail.

He also faces a separate trial in September on charges of failing to pay $1.4m in taxes.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Why are South Korean babies and children suing their government? | Climate Crisis News

As a 20-week-old embryo, Choi Hee-woo became one of the world’s youngest-ever plaintiffs by joining a landmark climate lawsuit against South Korea.

In late May, South Korea’s Constitutional Court held a final hearing of the first case in East Asia to challenge national climate policies.

Now 18 months old, Hee-woo and more than 60 other children await a verdict that is expected later this year.

So what did their case challenge, and where does South Korea stand with its climate action?

What is the children’s climate case in South Korea?

South Korea’s Constitutional Court heard landmark cases alleging that the government is failing to protect people in the country from the harms of climate change.

Four similar climate cases filed between 2020 and 2023 were combined in February for procedural reasons. The first hearing of the joint case was held in April, while the second and last one was on May 21.

The petition involving Hee-woo was called “Woodpecker vs South Korea”, after his nickname in the womb. It was filed by about 200 people, including 62 children who are all under the age of five.

Another lawsuit in 2020 was filed by 19 youth activists.

Plaintiffs say that without stronger climate action, the government is failing to meet a constitutional obligation to protect people’s right to life and a healthy environment.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, South Korea has also made a legally binding international commitment to prevent average global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) this century.

Although the date of the verdict is unclear, a decision is expected later this year, according to Amnesty International.

What climate agreements has South Korea made?

Under South Korea’s Decree of the Carbon Neutrality Act, by 2030 the country must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent compared with levels in 2018, which amounts to a drop of 290 million tonnes.

This Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, is unique to each country and represents their commitment towards reducing global emissions according to the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Plaintiffs of the climate case argue that the current goal underestimates the amount of emissions South Korea needs to reduce to reign in global temperature increase.

Additionally, to meet their goal by 2030, the country would have to reduce emissions by 5.4 percent every year from 2023, a target they have so far failed to meet.

Prior to the cases being merged, three of them challenged the target level of emission reduction set in the NDC, while the fourth one argued that the implementation plan for it is inadequate.

South Korea also aims to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

How does this impact climate action in South Korea?

The case’s conclusion is coming ahead of a deadline for countries to submit revised goals for reducing emissions.

Reviewed every five years under the Paris Agreement, the next set of targets will be presented by early 2025 and cover the following 10 years.

If the court rules in the favour of the plaintiffs, South Korea may have to be more ambitious in its next round of climate plans, experts told the journal Nature.

Where does South Korea’s climate action stand?

Currently, South Korea’s contribution to reducing emissions, or NDC, is categorised as “insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project that monitors how governments perform on their climate commitments.

In 2022, South Korea got only 5.4 percent of its energy from wind and solar, which is less than half the global average of 12 percent and far behind neighbouring Japan and China, according to energy think tank Ember.

Additionally, South Korea is the G20’s second-highest carbon emitter per person.

What other major climate cases have young people filed?

Several youth-led climate cases have been filed and have succeeded over the years.

In 2020, nine people between the ages of 15 and 32 challenged Germany’s Federal Climate Protection Act in the Federal Constitutional Court, claiming the law’s emission reduction targets were still insufficient and violated their human rights.

The following year, the court ruled in their favour, concluding that the country’s climate change mitigation plans were inadequate, pointing out that it could lead to “intergenerational injustice”.

In essence, the court concluded that Germans today are consuming too much of the carbon budget while contributing little to reduction efforts, leaving too much of a burden on future generations. The German government responded by advancing its timeline to reach carbon neutrality from 2050 to 2045.

In the United States in 2020, a group of 16 people aged five to 22 years old, sued the state of Montana, arguing it was not protecting their right to a clean environment. In 2023, the court ruled in their favour saying that Montana has to take climate change into account when approving fossil fuel projects.

Six youths between the ages of 11 and 24 also filed a lawsuit against 32 European countries in 2023, arguing that climate change threatens their rights to life, privacy and mental health. However, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed their case due to its broad geographic scope.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Trump, first ex-president ever convicted of a crime, slams New York trial | Donald Trump News

Donald Trump has ratcheted up his unfounded claims that his New York hush-money trial was a political hit job, a day after becoming the first former president in United States history to be convicted of criminal charges.

Speaking at Trump Tower in New York City on Friday morning, Trump delivered a meandering speech in which he portrayed the trial as a “scam” and “rigged”, while telling his supporters they could also be targeted.

“This is case where if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” he told reporters. “These are bad people. These are in many cases, I believe, sick people.”

Trump has repeatedly attacked prosecutors and the judge involved in the case, and has said – without evidence – that the administration of US President Joe Biden was connected to the prosecution.

“This is all done by Biden and his people,” Trump said without providing any evidence. He said he plans to appeal the verdict.

Trump’s remarks – which oscillated between condemnation of the trial and his now familiar stump speeches – came less than 24 hours after New York City jurors found the former president guilty on all 34 felony counts he faced in his widely watched trial.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office argued that Trump falsified business documents to cover up reimbursements paid to his personal fixer and former lawyer Michael Cohen, for hush-money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Prosecutors said the payments to Daniels – in exchange for her silence over an alleged affair with Trump – were part of a wider scheme to withhold negative information that would have hurt Trump ahead of the 2016 presidential elections, which he won.

They argued that Trump sought “to defraud the voting public”, in violation of New York state law.

The upcoming US presidential election loomed large over the New York trial, and Trump’s conviction could shake up the campaign.

Trump, who is set to face off against Democratic President Joe Biden on November 5, has repeatedly said – without evidence – that the hush-money case was part of a coordinated effort to derail his re-election bid.

Reporting from outside Trump Tower on Friday, Al Jazeera’s John Hendren noted, however, that “Biden didn’t have anything to do with [the case]”.

“This was a New York jury … [Biden] is not in the chain of command of the district attorney of New York. There’s really no way Biden could have intervened in this particular case,” Hendren said.

“But Trump is going to make this a campaign issue. He says the ultimate verdict is going to come in November … and there’s no reason to believe the Republican Party will back off of him. So far the support among Republicans has been near-universal.”

Trump comments after he was found guilty by a New York jury on May 30 [Justin Lane/Pool via Reuters]

GOP leaders back Trump

Trump’s allies and top members of the Republican Party have united around the former president in the wake of his conviction, with his son, Donald Trump Jr, referring to his father as a “political prisoner” in a fundraising email.

On Friday, Trump’s 2024 campaign announced what it called its largest single-day, small donor funding haul ever, raking in $34.8m since the verdict was announced.

Many Republicans have echoed Trump in arguing – again without evidence – that his conviction was the result of a politicised judiciary.

Mike Johnson, the staunchly conservative Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, slammed the trial as a “purely political exercise, not a legal one”.

Even those who have more recently sought to distance themselves from Trump, including Texas Senator John Cornyn, called the verdict “a disgrace”.

“Now more than ever, we need to rally around @realdonaldtrump, take back the White House and Senate, and get this country back on track,” Cornyn wrote on X.

In a brief statement following the verdict, a spokesperson for the White House counsel said, “We respect the law” but added there would be no additional comment.

‘Pivotal point’

Addressing the verdict for the first time on Friday, Biden joined a chorus of Democrats who have said the jury’s decision was a shining example of equality under US law, regardless of how powerful a defendant is.

Biden said the guilty verdict reaffirmed the “sacred principle that no one is above the law”.

“It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict,” he added.

Despite his conviction, Trump is expected to be confirmed as the GOP’s 2024 presidential nominee at the party convention in July.

Under the US Constitution, anyone convicted of a felony can still run for and win the presidency as long as they are over 35 years of age, are a “natural-born” citizen of the US, and have been a resident of the country for at least 14 years.

The Republican National Convention will be held just days after Trump is set to be sentenced in the New York hush-money case on July 11, though the sentencing hearing could be delayed pending expected appeals from his defence team.

The ex-president also faces three other criminal indictments, two of which relate to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election that he lost to Biden, but none are expected to go to trial before November’s vote.

But it remains unclear what political fallout of the guilty verdict in New York will have for Trump.

Polls have shown most Republican voters will not be swayed by the prospect of electing a convicted felon to the country’s highest office.

However, some recent polls have indicated that a conviction could turn some undecided voters off Trump, or see a small percentage of his supporters decide they can no longer cast a ballot for him.

In an election expected to be decided by razor-thin margins, that could make a difference, experts have said.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday, Rina Shah, a political strategist and commentator, said the prevailing Republican view appears to be that the conviction “bolsters [Trump’s] claim that this was a politically motivated witch hunt that was predetermined by Democrats”.

But while the Republican leadership has largely coalesced around Trump, Shah said there are large swaths of the party with more faith in the justice system.

“I do think that right now, the Republican Party sits in a moment that will determine its fate for the next decade at least,” she said. “In the next few months, this is a pivotal point.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Jury to begin second day of deliberations in Trump hush money trial | Donald Trump News

Jurors are expected to re-examine testimony from two witnesses and rehear judge’s instructions on how to interpret law.

Jurors in New York are set to begin a second day of deliberations in Donald Trump’s hush money trial as the United States awaits a verdict against the former president and presumptive Republican 2024 nominee that could shake November’s election.

The 12-person jury is in the spotlight after nearly two dozen witnesses testified in a New York City courtroom over the course of a more than six-week trial.

The jurors – whose identities are being kept secret for their own protection amid nationwide political tensions – are working behind closed doors.

The only clues to the direction they are taking come through requests for clarifications. They were due to start off on Thursday by re-examining testimony from two witnesses and also hear again the judge’s instructions on how to interpret the law.

Trump is accused of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won.

Daniels has alleged she had a sexual encounter with Trump, which he denies. Prosecutors have said the payment was unlawful and aimed to shield the ex-president from negative media coverage that could have derailed his bid for the White House.

Trump has pleaded not guilty and said he is the victim of a politically motivated “witch-hunt”.

On Thursday, jurors appeared to be taking a close look at the testimony of Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, the prosecution’s star witness.

Cohen paid the $130,000 in hush money that ensured Daniels would not tell voters about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump.

Cohen testified that he and Trump discussed a plan to reimburse him through monthly payments disguised as legal fees – the alleged conduct that spurred the criminal charges.

Jurors have asked Judge Juan Merchan for a transcript of portions of Cohen’s testimony.

They also asked Merchan for testimony from David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, who had told jurors he worked with Trump to suppress stories that might have hurt the businessman-turned-politician’s campaign.

Trump’s defence team has argued that the former president did nothing illegal, and his lawyers sought to paint the prosecution’s witnesses – particularly Cohen – as liars whose testimony cannot be trusted.

All 12 jurors must agree on a verdict for the judge to accept it. If they are unable to do so, the trial will be a deadlock, and Merchan will declare a mistrial.

Once jurors inform the court they have reached a verdict, Merchan will summon the parties to the courtroom. He must still affirm the verdict and enter a final judgement. Either side may also ask him to effectively overrule the jury.

If Trump is found guilty, it will likely be weeks or months until he is eventually sentenced. While the charges carry a maximum of four years in prison, experts generally agree he is more likely to face a fine, probation or community service.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Hong Kong court finds 14 of 16 democracy activists guilty of subversion | Courts News

BREAKING,

This is a breaking news story. More details to follow.

A Hong Kong court has found 14 of 16 activists and politicians guilty of subversion in the Chinese territory’s largest-ever trial under the Beijing-imposed national security law.

The group was among 47 people, including some of Hong Kong’s most prominent supporters of democracy, charged over an unofficial 2020 primary to choose candidates for a Legislative Council election that was later postponed.

Many of them have been held in custody since they were arrested in a predawn swoop in January 2021.

Two people were acquitted.

The remaining defendants pleaded guilty.

More to come …

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

After joint 108 years on remand, Hong Kong 47 face security trial verdict | Courts News

A verdict is finally looming in Hong Kong’s longest running and largest national security trial of 47 pro-democracy legislators and political activists, with the defendants having together logged 39,000 days or some 108 years on remand even before the sentencing phase of the trial begins.

The group was first arrested by the territory’s national security police in a pre-dawn crackdown on January 6, 2021, for allegedly conspiring to commit “subversion” by organising an unofficial primary election to choose pro-democracy candidates in July 2020. The defendants include the alleged organisers as well as would-be candidates who hoped to win the primary and contest then semi-democratic legislative council elections, which were eventually cancelled, with prosecutors claiming it was an attempt to “overthrow” the government.

Two-thirds of the defendants have been in remand since a marathon bail hearing in March 2021.

On Thursday, a panel of three handpicked national security judges will start delivering their verdict for the 16 defendants who pleaded “not guilty”.

The decision follows a lengthy trial that ran from February to December 2023 and was delayed not only by outbreaks of COVID-19 but also by the sheer logistics of organising such an enormous undertaking.

Despite the long wait for the verdict, the conclusion seems to be foregone said Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law in the United States.

Lai said that as early as 2020, Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong had already expressed its displeasure with the primary vote and accused the participants of “subversion”, setting the tone for the government response to come. In one sweep, national security police were able to silence an entire generation of pro-democracy activists and legislators, he added.

“Most of these defendants are not merely individual participants, they are former lawmakers, former political party figures and key figures in the opposition force,” Lai told Al Jazeera. “They were the icons of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement in the past. During this trial, it seems very possible that they will get convicted under the manuscript of Beijing.”

More than 600,000 people turned out to Vote in July 2020 when the pro-democracy camp staged primaries to choose its strongest candidates for the Legislative Council election, which was later postponed [Jessie Pang/Reuters]

At issue is whether the 47 planned to use their positions in the legislative council – if they won the election – to veto Hong Kong’s annual budget, in a move that would have forced the city’s top leader to step down and dissolve the legislature.

At the time, there was some measure of competition for seats in the legislature with some members chosen through direct election (the rules were changed in 2021 to require the pre-vetting of all candidates to ensure only “patriots” could contest).

A record number of at least 600,000 Hong Kong people turned out for the unofficial primaries, with the large queues seen as a rebuke of the Hong Kong government.

A year earlier in 2019, the city had been swept by mass anti-government protests. The democratic camp had swept the board in that year’s district council elections and hoped to build on that support in the Legislative Council. With the protesters’ demands largely unmet, vetoing the budget seemed like one of the few tools left to the opposition, and according to defendant Gwenyth Ho, a former reporter, it was their constitutional right under Hong Kong’s Basic Law. 

For their involvement, defendants face a maximum of life imprisonment under the security law imposed by Beijing in 2020, although this charge is reserved for “primary offenders” or anyone prosecutors have identified as a leader.

Lower-level “offenders” face between three and 10 years for “active” participation, while “other participants” could be looking at as long as three years in jail.

Pleading guilty usually earns defendants a reduced sentence, but it is unclear whether the national security court will follow the convention.

Legislators, nurses, lawyers

Ranging from their late 20s to their late 60s, the 47 include some of Hong Kong’s highest profile opposition figures including Benny Tai, 59, a legal scholar and one of the alleged organisers; democracy activist Joshua Wong, 27; former journalist and legislator Claudia Mo, 67; and lifelong activist Leung Kwok-hung, 68, popularly known as “Long Hair”.

Other defendants have also dedicated their lives to public service but have maintained lower profiles. They include 47-year-old Gordon Ng, a dual Australian citizen who has been portrayed by prosecutors as the election organiser and has been repeatedly denied Australian consular assistance. He is among the 16 who pleaded not guilty.

The other three named organisers, legislators Au Nok-him, 33; Andrew Chiu, 38; and Ben Chung, 35, all pleaded guilty and testified as witnesses for the prosecution in a move seen as part of an effort to obtain a reduced sentence.  Mike Lam, 35, a businessman and member of the 47, also testified for the prosecution.

Other defendants include Winnie Yu, 37, a Hong Kong nurse, who pleaded not guilty and has been detained since 2021. Before then, she helped organise hospital staff protests in early 2020 to demand the city close its border with China following the outbreak of COVID-19.

Owen Chow, 26, an activist and former nursing student, and the former reporter Gwyneth Ho, 33, both pleaded not guilty and were some of the few defendants of the 47 who testified at the trial in their own defence.

During her trial last July, Ho reportedly told prosecutors the 47 expected that pro-democracy candidates might be disqualified from running for office after the election primary – but it was still worth the effort because Hong Kong people could “build something new,” according to Hong Kong Free Press.

“I believe that most Hongkongers knew deep down in their hearts that fighting for democracy under the Chinese Communist regime has always been a fantasy,” Ho reportedly told the court in Cantonese.

She also said the disqualifications could create a “legitimacy crisis” for Beijing overseas because it would appear to be going against the desires of the Hong Kong people.

Hong Kong barrister and former district councillor Lawrence Lau Wai-chung, 56, pleaded not guilty and defended himself on the stand. Before his arrest, he helped to defend young protesters arrested during the city’s 2019 pro-democracy protests. He was also one of the few defendants granted bail.

Clarisse Yeung, 37, a former district councillor with a background in visual arts, pleaded not guilty and was among those who declined to testify. She was also taken to hospital with exhaustion during the three-day March 2021 bail hearing and, like Lau, was granted bail.

Lawyer and pro-democracy activist Lawrence Lau, (centre), was one of the few to get bail. He pleaded not guilty and defended himself during the trial [Jerome Favre/EPA]

Even after the verdict is read, the trial of the 47 will not be over. The trial will then proceed to its sentencing and mitigation phase when judges will consider the circumstances of each defendant.

Lai told Al Jazeera it could take up to six months to reach its full conclusion, and any defendants out on bail may have it revoked.

Once they are sentenced, defendants will not be able to earn time off for “good behaviour” thanks to recent changes in Hong Kong law. Earlier this year, the city adopted a domestic version of the national security bill, known colloquially as Article 23, which now gives greater oversight to the correctional department in national security cases. It will apply retroactively to cases before the law was passed, according to leader John Lee.

The 2020 national security law criminalised offences deemed secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. Article 23 expands on those charges and adds new ones like theft of state secrets, sedition, insurrection, and treason. Hong Kong made its first arrests under that law earlier this week.

The Georgetown Center for Asia Law, which is keeping track of the cases in Hong Kong courts, has said 286 individuals were arrested by national security police between July 2020 and December 31, 2023. Of them, 156 have been charged under the national security law or a recently revived law against sedition that dates back to the British colonial era.

The mass trial has already damaged Hong Kong’s reputation as the “freest” city in Asia, but its effects will go far deeper in the long term, warned Kevin Yam, a former Hong Kong lawyer and democracy activist who now lives in Australia.  The city has seen an exodus of foreign companies and financial institutions since the pandemic – when authorities imposed debilitating health regulations – and the imposition of the security law.

While some have started coming back, the trial should give them pause about the quality of governance, according to Yam, who is also wanted by Hong Kong police for national security “crimes”, offering a one million Hong Kong dollar ($128,888) “reward” for anyone who provides information leading to his arrest.

“International businesses ought to be very worried about the fact that the opposition has been wiped out of the Hong Kong political scene with cases like this, the quality of governance and accountability has just gone through the floor,” he told Al Jazeera.

Recent blunders include an attempt at changing the city’s rubbish collection schedule, to an ill-fated attempt to lure football star Lionel Messi to play in Hong Kong on untenable terms. Earlier this year, city officials also welcomed an investor who claimed to be related to Dubai’s ruling family without properly vetting his credentials.

The 2019 protesters accused the police of brutality and demanded an inquiry [Tyrone Siu/Reuters]

As Hong Kong police dedicate resources to prosecuting political offences, ordinary crime is also increasing. The number of reported crimes in Hong Kong has risen steadily each year since 2018 after falling for five consecutive years. Between 2022 and 2023, crime surged by 29 percent, according to police data, with a sharp rise in online scams and fraud.

Yam said that before the national security law, the opposition would have been able to hold the government to account for this crime surge.

“If you look back at 2019 and who caused a lot of the heightened anger among the populace, you think of people like [Chief Executive] John Lee and [Secretary for Security] Chris Tang. They’ve actually been promoted,” he said. “So in fact, in an environment where opposition is being obliterated, incompetence is actually being promoted by the central government.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Former Thailand PM Thaksin Shinawatra to go on trial for royal insult | Politics News

The case relates to an interview the billionaire politician gave to South Korean media while in self-imposed exile in 2015.

Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who returned home last year after 15 years in exile, will go on trial next month on charges of insulting the monarchy.

Prayuth Pecharakun, a spokesman for Thailand’s attorney general, said 74-year-old Thaksin would be summoned to appear in court on June 18 to answer charges under Thailand’s lese-majeste law, one of the strictest in the world. He also faces charges of violating the Computer Crime Act.

Thaksin, a prominent telecommunications tycoon, was first elected prime minister in 2001, but removed five years later in a military coup amid mass protests from the urban middle class and disquiet over his policies among the pro-royalist, pro-military elite. His populist political movement continued to win elections even after Thaksin went into exile, but was brought down in coups or court rulings amid relentless political upheaval.

The latest allegations were made by the generals who seized power from Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, in 2014 and relate to an interview he gave to South Korean media the following year.

“The attorney general has decided to indict Thaksin for insulting the monarchy,” Prayuth told reporters.

Thaksin returned to Thailand last August after the Pheu Thai party headed by his daughter took power as part of a coalition formed after establishment-aligned senators blocked the election-winning Move Forward Party, which campaigned on reforms to the military and the monarchy, from forming a government.

Protesters, activists, politicians and political parties have all fallen foul of Thailand’s royal defamation laws, which protect King Maha Vajiralongkorn and his close family and have been used more widely since 2020 when young people began protests demanding unprecedented reform to the monarchy. Each charge carries a potential 15-year prison sentence.

Thaksin’s lawyer, Winyat Chatmontree, said the billionaire would fight the charges.

“He is ready to prove his innocence in the justice system,” Winyat told reporters.

Critics say the law has been abused to stifle legitimate political debate.

More than 270 people have been charged with lese-majeste since the protests began, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.

Thaksin’s return to Thailand, on the very day Pheu Thai’s Srettha Thavisin became prime minister in alliance with a group of pro-military parties, led many to conclude a deal had been done to cut his jail time on corruption-related charges.

The king later reduced Thaksin’s sentence from eight years to one, and he was freed on parole in February having spent most of his six months in detention in hospital.

Thaksin insists he has retired, but has made numerous public appearances since his release. He has repeatedly pledged his loyalty to the crown.

The Move Forward Party is also facing court action over its commitment to amend the lese-majeste law with the Constitutional Court due to decide whether to dissolve the party.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

The art project aiming to keep Australia’s Indigenous people out of jail | Indigenous Rights News

Melbourne, Australia – More Indigenous people are behind bars in Australia than ever before, making them the world’s most imprisoned people.

Despite making up 3.8 percent of the national population, Indigenous Australians make up 33 percent of the prison population and are 17 times more likely to be jailed than non-Indigenous people.

In Australia’s southeastern state of Victoria, a group of artists is working to break the cycle.

The Torch is a community-led organisation that works with Indigenous inmates to teach artistic skills and reconnect prisoners with their cultural heritage. Inmates also generate income selling their work in galleries and to private collectors nationwide, with the money being saved in a trust, ready for their release.

The results have been startling – inmates engaged with the programme have a return-to-prison (recidivism) rate of 17 percent for First Nations prisoners compared with the national average of more than 70 percent, according to The Torch.

“Before I went to prison, I was in domestic violence and I was on the verge of being homeless,” Stacey Edwards, a former inmate, told Al Jazeera. “My Torch fund helped me put a deposit on a house and now I’ve got a routine and a structure. I’m OK with who I am and my place in the world.”

What experts call the “hyper-incarceration” of Indigenous people in Australia is a legacy of colonisation and its racism, as well as successive governments’ focus on law and order. In particular, the trauma of the Stolen Generations – the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families – continues to reverberate.

In the state of Victoria, where the Torch programme operates, about half of all Indigenous people have been directly affected by the assimilation policies, which only ended in the 1970’s.

Protests have continued to raise awareness of the mass incarceration and deaths in custody of Indigenous Australians [Ali MC/AL Jazeera]

Edwards, of the Taungurung and Boonwurrung nations, is one of them, telling Al Jazeera that the legacy of trauma underscored her descent into drug use and eventually, jail.

Stacey, now 43, grew up in a poorer neighbourhood. She told Al Jazeera her grandfather had been forcibly taken away and placed in white-run institutions, a separation that scarred her mother’s life.

“My mum’s ability to parent was impacted, she had her own addiction problems too,” she said. As a child, Stacey also felt the intergenerational trauma.

“I didn’t have the emotional tools to self-regulate and get myself together,” she said. “I think that’s all pain, all the challenges and struggles and the hurt and pain being passed down over generations.”

Colonial legacy

Indigenous women – many of them mothers – are the fastest growing group of prisoners in Australia, largely due to domestic violence and experiences of homelessness.

But the economic benefit of the Torch – which ensures inmates have a source of funds on their release – helps break that cycle.

Indigenous Australians come from more than 500 nations in what is now known as Australia, which was colonised by the British in 1788.

Genocidal practices, historical discrimination and ongoing racism have fuelled inequality across all social indicators, including homelessness, unemployment and poverty, which are also factors that underscore imprisonment.

Kent Morris, of the Barkindji nation, was one of the founding organisers of the Torch in 2011. He told Al Jazeera that the economic model was crucial to the programme’s success and that one of the big questions, when it began, was how artists could earn income from their work while stuck inside prison.

“How can the skills and talents of a mob in prison who are creating art and exploring culture – how can that translate into some economic support, so they’re not facing the same circumstances that leads them back to prison? This is what the programme was built around,” he said.

In Australia, inmates can earn some income while participating in prison programmes and training, but since the Torch model allows them to sell their work in galleries outside of the prison walls, it is unique.

In 2023, more than 1 million Australian dollars ($665,785) was returned to 494 participants through the sale and licensing of their artwork, with the earnings either saved or used to assist inmates’ families, such as ensuring their children go to school.

Roey, a former prisoner and from the Warumungu and Yawuru Nations, told Al Jazeera that the Torch programme meant he could continue to support his children despite being jailed.

“To be able to support my kids whilst being in prison was probably one of my biggest achievements,” he said. “Supporting my kids and being able to practise my culture in that process and feeling good about myself.”

‘Perfect storm’

Along with the economic benefit, the Torch programme also reconnects artists with their Indigenous culture, language and heritage, a link that was often broken due to colonisation.

Sean Miller, of the Gamileroi nation, told Al Jazeera that the Torch helped him find a sense of identity.

“I really wanted to learn more about my culture,” he said. “It’s something that’s built into you; you strive to find out where you come from, what your people are about, what our culture, and our language is. Because of colonisation that was taken from us. To be able to have the opportunity to learn all that, I’m so proud of that.”

Miller has exhibited his works nationally and is one of seven former inmates now working on the Torch programme. In 2018, he returned to prison to deliver the programme to other inmates.

“It gave the brothers and sisters inside prison a little bit more comfort to know that I was an ex-prisoner,” he told Al Jazeera. “They can relate to me and they can also see that they too can be successful with their art as well.”

Sean Miller, of the Gamileroi nation, was once on the Torch programme and now goes back into jail to work with other inmates [Ali MC/Al Jazeera]
Ash Thomas said that without the Torch programme, he would be dead [Ali MC/Al Jazeera]

Despite the success of the Torch, the programme only operates in the state of Victoria and has not yet been rolled out elsewhere. It is not funded by the federal government in Canberra and relies largely on philanthropy and state government grants.

Experts say recent government decisions at the federal and state levels – such as the Queensland Labor government suspending human rights protections to lock up Indigenous children in adult jails – are exacerbating the incarceration crisis.

“The key causes of the mass and unprecedented imprisonment of First Nations people is state policy and practice,” Thalia Anthony, a criminologist with the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), told Al Jazeera. “The statistics do not show higher levels of crime. Expanded police powers and tougher bail, sentencing and parole laws that have contributed to the growth. When you combine these policy drivers with the systemic racism in the penal system, it is a perfect storm for the hyper-incarceration of First Peoples.”

In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody tabled a report in parliament that showed unequivocally that the high rate of Indigenous deaths in prison correlated with the high numbers of Indigenous prisoners.

The report made 339 recommendations with a key focus on reducing the incarceration of Indigenous peoples. However, many of the recommendations were never implemented and the number of Indigenous prisoners has risen exponentially in the years since. Recent data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that between 1994 and 2021, the number of Indigenous people in jail increased by 10,241, from 2,798 to 13,039 inmates.

Over that period, more than 550 Indigenous people have died in prison. In 2022-2023, 21 Indigenous inmates died in custody, the highest since records began.

Policy change needed

Josh Kerr – a former Torch participant – was one of them. He died in Victoria’s Port Phillip Prison.

A coronial inquest heard that the 32-year-old, of the Yorta Yorta and Gunnaikurnai nations, reportedly called out “I’m dying” and remained unresponsive for 17 minutes before medical assistance was provided, despite being seen on CCTV by prison staff.

Kerr’s artwork produced as part of the Torch programme was shown at the entrance to the court.

“At the recent inquest into Joshua Kerr’s death in custody, we honoured Joshua by including his Torch portfolio into the coronial brief and displaying his artwork outside the courtroom,” Ali Besiroglu, the principal lawyer for the case, told Al Jazeera. “Joshua’s mother, Aunty Donnis Kerr, believed this was crucial to showcase his profound talent, deep cultural connection, and to humanise his memory beyond the forensic documents which commonly consume the coronial brief.”

In response to questions submitted by Al Jazeera, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney acknowledged the severity and pervasiveness of the problem.

“More than 30 years on from the Royal Commission, deaths in custody continue to have a devastating impact on First Nations families and communities,” Burney said in an email. “We know that the key to addressing this national shame is reducing the rate at which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people enter the criminal justice system.”

Donnis Kerr (right), the mother of Josh Kerr, a former Torch participant who died in custody, speaking at a protest in 2023 [Ali MC/Al Jazeera]

In this month’s budget, the Australian government announced justice reinvestment strategies, which aim to address the underlying cause of criminal behaviour before it occurs, along with prison-to-employment programmes.

“These projects are designed to address the factors that increase First Nations people’s risk of contact with the criminal justice system,” Burney said. “Importantly, these justice reinvestment projects are community-led in each individual community.”

While it is Australia’s state governments that largely control legislation over the justice and prison systems, UTS criminologist Anthony says policymakers across the country need to change the way they look at law and order issues, and see prison as the last resort.

“Any option other than prison would be better than prison,” she said. “Prison is traumatising. It cuts people off from family, homes, jobs and support. The Torch is a great example of building peoples’ skills in prison and providing support upon release.”

Kent Morris agrees and hopes that the Australian government will instead provide leadership and funding to roll out programmes like The Torch on a national scale.

“So much of our community are behind bars. And we know how much potential our community has,” he told Al Jazeera. “We need to free them from the criminal legal system.”

Editor’s note: Details regarding crimes and lengths of sentences have been omitted at the request of interviewees. Such details can affect parole, job prospects and relationships.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version