**Hong Kong Judge Urges Jury to Consider Context of 2019 Protests in UN Anti-Terrorism Trial Verdict**
In a high-profile trial in Hong Kong, a judge has urged the jury to carefully consider the context of the 2019 protests when deliberating the verdict. The trial involves an alleged bomb plot to target police officers during the unrest that engulfed the city in 2019.
**The Trial**
Seven individuals are currently standing trial in the High Court under the UN (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance. The defendants are accused of conspiring with others to plant two bombs along the route of a rally in Wan Chai on December 8, 2019, with the intention of killing police officers.
The defendants, including Cheung Chun-fu, Cheung Ming-yu, Yim Man-him, Christian Lee, Lai Chun-pong, and Justin Hui, have pleaded not guilty to a joint count of conspiring to commit the bombing of prescribed objects. Lau Pui-ying, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide or collect property to commit terrorist acts.
**Judge’s Instructions**
Judge Judianna Barnes has been providing directions to the nine-member jury as the trial entered its 80th day. She emphasized the importance of considering the events of the 2019 protests and unrest as crucial context underlying the case. Referring to the testimonies of key witnesses, Wong Chun-keung and Eddie Pang, Judge Barnes highlighted the significance of understanding the circumstances prevailing during the time of the alleged conspiracy.
The 2019 protests, which initially erupted over an extradition bill and evolved into widespread dissent against police actions and Beijing’s interference, set the backdrop for the alleged bomb plot. Demands for democracy, an independent probe into police conduct, and amnesty for arrested protesters characterized the protests.
**Testimonies and Evidence**
Wong, the leader of the radical protest group “Dragon Slayers,” and Pang, a member of another unnamed radical group, pleaded guilty to the bombing charge and testified against the seven defendants during the trial. The prosecution leaned heavily on their testimonies and circumstantial evidence to build its case against the accused.
However, defense lawyers challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, suggesting that their motives may have influenced their testimonies. Judge Barnes cautioned the jury against making assumptions and emphasized the importance of basing their decision on facts and credible evidence.
**Discrepancies and Defense**
The trial has brought to light discrepancies between the prosecution’s accusations and the defense’s arguments regarding each defendant’s involvement in the alleged plot. While prosecutors allege that the conspiracy was formed in late September between the Dragon Slayers and another radical group, the defense contends that some defendants were unaware of the bomb plot.
Defense lawyers for several defendants argued that their clients were kept in the dark about the alleged conspiracy by the group’s leader, Wong. Each defendant’s case has been presented differently, with varying degrees of involvement and knowledge of the plot.
**Challenges and Legal Arguments**
The prosecution has also accused Lau of operating a Telegram channel to fundraise for the Dragon Slayers’ expenses on petrol bombs, which they claim amounted to funding terrorist acts. However, Lau’s defense team disputed the evidence presented, questioning the nature of the alleged terrorist acts and the extent of Lau’s involvement.
The trial marks a significant legal milestone as it is the first time prosecutors in Hong Kong have invoked the anti-terrorism act. If convicted, the first six defendants face life behind bars, while Lau faces a maximum sentence of 14 years. The defendants have been detained for over three years, except for Lau, who has been granted bail.
**Conclusion**
As the trial continues, the jury’s decision will have far-reaching implications for the defendants and the broader legal landscape in Hong Kong. The judge’s instructions to consider the context of the 2019 protests underscore the complex interplay between political unrest and criminal allegations. The verdict will test the judicial system’s ability to navigate sensitive and contentious issues in a politically charged environment.