Li Zhuo appealed against the seven-year sentence: the Hong Kong Council of Churches legal dispute is at a new stage

The former President of the League, Lee Cheuk, has appealed the conviction and sentence in the case of “Incitement to Subversion of State Power”. The case was published on 9 October and, citing information from the website of the judiciary of Hong Kong, the date of the appeal hearing has not yet been scheduled. This is not a simple repetition of the September sentencing news, but rather a case that has entered the new procedural nodes of the appeal review.

Where did the seven-year sentence come from?

Li Zhuo has long been involved in public events to commemorate Hong Kong's sixty-fourth anniversary. In August this year, the High Court of Hong Kong convicted Li Cheuk, Zou Xianxiang and Ho Joon-in of charges against the ISU case. On 11 September, three persons were sentenced to seven years, seven years and three months and five years and two months, respectively, and the FUN was fined HK$ 1.5 million. Zou Xiang-Chu has appealed previously.

Justice must answer more than national security.

The public interest involved in the national security law does not automatically exempt the review of elements of criminal law. For acts of organization, speech, initiative, public commemoration, etc., the court needs to specify the specific relationship between the charges and the charges and explain how the evidence proves the personal responsibility of the accused. The more blurred the line between political expression and crime, the more difficult it is for the population to predict when it will be pursued for its peaceful statements.

The ISU case also has historical memory dimensions. Hong Kong has long held public events in the past; The organizers of these activities are now facing long prison terms. The legitimacy of the Hong Kong judiciary cannot be measured by the mere existence of an appeal procedure, but rather by whether the court has publicly examined the contested evidence, the applicable law and the proportion of the sentence imposed. A sentence can dissolve an organization, but not by a penalty, to make the historical facts that are remembered disappear.

Public interest of the appeal

The importance of the case for Hong Kong society lies in the ability of the courts to remove criminal justice from political slogans and to confirm the legal limits of peaceful assembly, historical remembrance and political claims. The appeals of the accused should be subject to individualized, substantive judicial review, rather than being replaced by political labels of the same organization and generalization.