August 15 was the day when Western Magistracy of Hong Kong adjudged the case of 16 Falun Gong members` public obstruction, obstructing police and assaulting police officers. It was the first time for Falun Gong related cases to be adjudged in Hong Kong. Since this case might become the ratio decidendi for similar cases under the common law system in Hong Kong, it drew much attention and the comparatively small Western Magistracy was stuffed with reporters from various media. Although it was only secondary to crowding state at the time when the pop singer Nicholas Tse was adjudged here, it was not quite disordered since there was no crazy fan this time.
Not allowed in the venue for crowding
It was advertised on Hong Kong Department of Justice that the session would start at 9:30. While Western Magistracy was only five minutes' walk from my office, I started for the court at 9 o'clock but only found the public gallery has been fully occupied when I got there. I was stopped at the gate along with many other people. When we were wondering there, a female Hong Kong reporter who seemed to be very familiar with one of the policemen came and was let in. I followed her and "intimidated" the policeman, "if you let her in, you must let me in as well since I`ve come earlier than her." The policeman gave in and declared, "There are still three seats on the walkway and three more people may get in." I finally got in the court in that way.
The court was indeed fully occupied. I have been quite impressed by the small size of Hong Kong Supreme Court, district level court is in fact much smaller. The tribunal stood high above, the attorneys and clerks sat around a quadrate desk close to the tribunal and behind them was the dock with 16 defendants sitting on. Separate the dock by the walkway was the public gallery. On the public gallery, there were just three rows of laddered chairs for some 10 people on each row. In front of the public gallery were the reporters' seats. The dock, reporters' seats and public gallery were just wooden benches with people sitting close to each other. Most people who sat on the public gallery were reporters as well, some one third of which were foreign reporters. Since it was not allowed to take photo or record in the court, everyone there took just a pen and a notebook.
The magistrate took a mercy
At 10 o'clock, the Magistrate didn't come yet. A strange phenomenon in Hong Kong is that although punctuality has been a golden rule, the rule is invalid for the magistrate as it is quite common for them to be late for the court for one hour. Ten minutes later, the Magistrate came and showed his mercy: people on the public gallery please sit close so that more people could come in to the court. More seats were vacated and I also took a seat on the public gallery. Twenty people were allowed in who just stood near the wall. The Magistrate expressed his regret by saying that the court was too small to have any more people and that although still more seats could be vacated on the dock, no one would like to sit there - such British humor accompanied the whole trial.
The trial started and the judge briefly reviewed the case: On March 14, the 16 defendants including four Swiss Falun Gong practitioners obstructed the public by having a protest outside the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region at 160 Connaught Road, Central, Hong Kong (hereafter refers to as No. 160). They turned their back upon the police who tried to persuade them to level. At last when the police forced them to level, they defendants acted against the police with violence and committed seven offences such as public obstruction, obstructing police, and assaulting police officers. After 26 days' inquisition on the case, the final sentence was to be declared today. The Magistrate indicated that a brief introduction to the legal basis for the sentence as well reasons for the testimony not admissible besides declaring the final sentence.
Different from the magistrates we saw in the films, the magistrates in Hong Kong seldom spoke in loud voice, which was almost inaudible to people on the public gallery. The Magistrate as well as both offence and defense counsels spoke English with three live interpreters- one from English to Cantonese, one from Cantonese to Mandarin Chinese and one from English to French (one Swiss defendant didn't speak English).
Testimony of the defendants was inadmissible
Diction of the Magistrate was quite sharp and strong. He pointed that while six out of the 16 defendants had provided testimony as witnesses, most of their testimony was inadmissible. For example, No. one witness (Swiss) claimed that although the police had warned them form many times during the protest to ask them to leave, he could not understand the legal terms of the police as well as their intention, thinking the police were coming to protect rights of the demonstrators. The Magistrate said such testimony was inadmissible in that No. one witness looked to be a man with high IQ who could not be too naive to make such errors. Against the further insistence of No. one witness that their action didn't cause obstruction to the public, the Magistrate argued: since you were in meditation with your eyes closed, how could you know whether you obstructed others or not?
No. two witness claimed that since he didn't see people get in and out of the gate of No. 160 from XXXX to XXXX, therefore he didn't know that such action would obstruct others. He also said that he had got a negative answer when he consulted the lawyers whether such demonstration should be defined as public obstruction. Well, since you didn't know that people would get in and out of the gate, why did you seek lawyers' opinion in such a warrant way? Which could only prove that he was fully aware that his behavior would obstruct the public. - the testimony contradicted with each other and was inadmissible.
No. four witness said he was abused by the police and suffered internal injury. The doctor prescribed him anodyne only and didn't ask him to have further consultation - inadmissible for over statement.
The Magistrate said that apart from the comparatively impersonal testimony of the No. six witness, others were just like words of the kids in the kindergarten who just said they were very nervous and didn't pay attention no matter what you enquired them. The Magistrate concluded that the truth gradually emerged on the court no matter how smart the defendants were, that he didn't consider there was any relation between the politicized testimony of the defendants and the actual case and that he would make the same sentence whether the accused were Falun Gong members or people who practice Taiji as long as they committed such offence.
The police was really "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance"
The magistrate fully affirmed testimony of the persecution. He said that testimony of most witness from the persecution were still integrative even after detailed enquiring of the defense attorneys and that he could not find any reason to deny its admissibility.
The tape that was shot by the police on the whole arresting course was important evidence. The Magistrate said that he had spent several hours watch the tape and had careful inspection at the site along with offence and defense attorneys. According to him, the tape revealed that the police exerted their power forbearingly and properly. He said that he had never seen them been so forbearing and caring to the subjects of their action. The Magistrate said he believed everybody would recognize his opinion.
According to the Magistrate, it could be learnt from the tape that the defendants showed no cooperation in the enquiring room of the police and just took the enquiring room as a playing field in the kindergarten. No. four defendant was accused of assaulting the police for having bitten the police. The Magistrate said the tape clearly indicated that the policeman who was bitten screamed for pain. He said such pain could only be felt instead of expressed. He thought such scream was for real pain. On the allegation that No. four defendant was an aged lady, the Magistrate said that he could not agree and even the lady herself would not agree either since her violent action against the police showed her strength. The police applied to the least force for defense.
The Magistrate finally declared: there16 defendants were found guilty. Since their demonstration posed real obstruction to passersby and the police warned them for many times by persuading them to move aside to avoid obstruction to the passersby, the defendants ignored the warn from the police. Their behavior challenged Hong Kong legal system and the police had to take action to carry some 16 people away.
Action of the police was absolutely legal. About this, the Magistrate made a last humor: it was so ironical that although no evidence showed that the policemen were Falun Gong practitioners, their performance that day as well as on the court showed that they have maintained truthfulness, compassion and forbearance.
The sentence was not affected by politics
In the trial, the Magistrate stressed time and time again that the sentence was surely not involved in any political factors. Provisions of protecting freedom of speech and assembling in the Basic Law as well Human rights Act were also observed during the trial. The fact was that while nobody could infringe rights of others in exerting such freedom, the behavior of the defendant created real inconvenient to others.
The 16 defendants showed no violent reaction when heard that they were found guilty. Their attorney stood up to plead prior to the final sentence was made, indicating that it would take about 1 hour. It was around 12 o'clock and the Magistrate declared no break. Since the plea was nothing but the hackneyed and stereotyped expressions of Falun Gong, most reporters including me left. A reporter from Takung Pao near me said he would wait for the final sentence, so I asked him to call me when he got the result.
When I got out of the court, I found many "armed" press-photographers waiting outside the court under the burning sun so as to have timely report on any new action of the defendants.
At 1:30 pm, Takung Pao reporter Jack called me saying that 7 out of the 16 charges were convicted and fine for each charge ranged from HK$300 to HK$1,000. According to the Magistrate, the accused should pay the fine at court. The court finally agreed that it should be paid by August 19 under the request of the defense attorneys. But the accused claimed, "We will appeal and won't pay the money. They could no get even a penny!"
I learnt from the newspaper on the next day that the "lovely" Magistrate is Symon Wong.
(People's Daily, August 17, 2002)
