An open letter signed by 12 foreign lawyers, which was published on Monday, made unfounded accusations against Hong Kong's judiciary over a recent case in which three young activists were jailed after being found guilty of unlawful assembly for leading a mob in storming the special administrative region government complex in 2014, jumpstarting the illegal "Occupy Central" movement. Although not the first show of political bias by Western supporters of "Occupy Central", the open letter has taken top spot in poor judgment on the signatories' part because they lent their expensive names to a classic example of misrepresentation, if not political scams.

In the open letter the "angry dozen" accused Hong Kong's judiciary of posing a serious threat to the rule of law by committing "double jeopardy", claiming it "risks becoming charade, at the beck and call of the Chinese Communist Party". Naturally the opposition parties and their supporters were elated over the "bomb-shell" gesture, not only because it carries practically everything they have been screaming about since Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang were given prison terms by the Court of Appeal after the Department of Justice appealed against much lighter sentences by a lower court, but also because the 12 signatories are all celebrated "human rights lawyers". The problem is fact, or the lack of it.

First of all, there was no "double jeopardy" to begin with, as the Court of Appeal merely reviewed the previous sentences rather than opening a retrial; and sentencing review is a long-standing common-law practice which originated from the United Kingdom. Secondly, the open letter provides no evidence whatsoever proving Beijing was behind the heavier sentences; the unfounded accusation is not only unfair to the sitting judges but also risks damaging the reputation of Hong Kong's judiciary. Then they also referenced the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Hong Kong's Public Order Ordinance, which the trio were found guilty of violating, as if the ICCPR already rendered the latter obsolete. Aside from the fact that it is not true, what does it mean to Hong Kong's judicial independence? This is one more reason why all those signatories should have their facts straight before accusing China, including Hong Kong, of anything.

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor on Tuesday commented on another incident that may or may not be related to this case. "Some commentators and politicians in Britain have been very unfair to Hong Kong ... They have attacked our legal system, and said that there is political interference in judges' decisions." She was referring to a British "human rights campaigner" called Benedict Rogers being denied entry into Hong Kong not long ago. The reality is neither the CE nor anyone else in Hong Kong is obliged to explain, because it is China's sovereign right to decide who can or cannot enter its territory, of which Hong Kong is an inalienable part.

(HK Edition 10/18/2017 page10)