Prisoner Denied Early Release under New Security Law: Legal Challenge Failed
In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through the legal community, Ma Chun-man, the first Hong Kong prisoner rendered ineligible for early release following the implementation of a domestic security law in March, suffered a major setback in his legal battle against the new regulation. Despite his efforts, Ma’s challenge against the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, commonly known as Article 23, was dismissed by High Court Judge Alex Lee.
Legal Battle Lost
Ma Chun-man, famously dubbed “Captain America 2.0” for his act of carrying the superhero’s shield during the 2019 protests in Hong Kong, has been at the center of a fierce legal battle since the enactment of the national security law imposed by Beijing. The High Court Judge’s ruling on Friday effectively means that Ma will continue to serve his five-year sentence for inciting secession until November 2025.
Rehabilitation and National Security Concerns
The crux of the legal dispute revolved around Ma’s alleged lack of rehabilitation and ongoing national security concerns. The Correctional Services Department cited insufficient evidence of Ma’s complete rehabilitation, deradicalization, genuine remorse, or renouncement of his secessionist and radical ideology as grounds for denying his early release. The decision to keep Ma behind bars was ultimately deemed discretionary by Judge Lee, who emphasized that a remission of sentence does not confer any legal rights or entitlements on a prisoner.
Controversy Surrounding the Security Law
The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which took effect on March 23, 2024, has faced intense scrutiny from various quarters for its broad and regressive nature. Critics, including rights NGOs, Western states, and the UN, have condemned the law as vague and violative of fundamental rights. However, authorities have defended the legislation as a necessary measure to combat perceived foreign interference and close legal loopholes exposed during the 2019 protests and unrest.
As the legal battle continues to unfold, Ma’s case serves as a poignant reminder of the far-reaching implications of the national security law on individual liberties and the broader legal landscape in Hong Kong. The outcome of his challenge sets a precedent for future cases under the contentious legislation and underscores the delicate balance between national security imperatives and the protection of civil rights in the city.
