A man in Hong Kong, Ma Chun-man, was denied early release from jail under the new security law. He argued that the decision was unfair because he was not properly informed by the city’s corrections authorities. Ma is currently serving a five-year sentence for inciting secession under a separate security law imposed by Beijing in 2020.
Ma filed a judicial review of Article 23, known as the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, after his early release was canceled on March 25 by the Commissioner of Correctional Services based on national security grounds. This legal challenge against the newly enacted law was heard in Hong Kong’s High Court.
According to Ma’s barrister, Steven Kwan, Ma was verbally informed by a prison officer about the cancellation of his early release on March 23. However, Ma did not receive any written explanation until after he made a written submission. There were conflicting accounts of the communication between Ma and Lo Ho-kuen, a superintendent at the prison where Ma was serving his sentence.
The court heard that Lo had explained to Ma the reasons behind denying his early release, which included his conduct in jail, progress in rehabilitation, and a psychological assessment. Ma claimed that he never met Lo on the day the decision was made, contradicting Lo’s account.
Judge Alex Lee questioned the differing statements and summoned Lo to the witness stand. During the hearing, the judge emphasized that the legal landscape had changed after the enactment of Article 23, making good behavior no longer the sole consideration for granting early release. If a commissioner is not satisfied that early release would not compromise national security, they have no power to refer inmates to a board for consideration.
Ma, also known as “Captain America 2.0” for carrying a shield during the 2019 protests, has been in custody since November 2020 for inciting secession. He is expected to be released next November after being sentenced to five years in jail for advocating Hong Kong’s independence.
The hearing on Ma’s case continued the following day, raising questions about the decision-making processes and considerations under the new security law. The legal battle highlights the challenges faced by individuals under the tightened national security regulations in Hong Kong.
