HK 47 case still not over

Twelve of the pan-dems found guilty of subversion after taking part in the camp’s 2020 primary election are appealing their verdicts…

The [Appeal Court judges] will hear appeals against convictions and sentences faced by 12 defendants, including ex-lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and journalist-turned-activist Gwyneth Ho.

The dozen were found guilty after trial and, last November, were sentenced to prison terms ranging from six-and-a-half years up to seven years and nine months.

And the government is appealing in the case of Laurence Lau, one of just two of the 47 who were acquitted…

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau told judges Jeremy Poon, Anthea Pang, and Derek Pang that the trial court “erred” by failing to find that Lau agreed to a scheme, which aimed to veto the government’s budget once elected as lawmakers, ultimately forcing the resignation of the chief executive and a government shutdown.

The trial judges also made a mistake when they ruled that Lau did not have an intention to subvert the state power, the prosecutor said.

The second HKFP article has updates on the other appeals…

On Monday, lawyers for some of the appellants began to make a joint submission, arguing that the act of vetoing government bills, including the budget, was not an abuse of a lawmaker’s power.

The trial court had sided with the prosecution and ruled that voting against the government budget indiscriminately was in breach of the powers and functions of the Legislative Council.

Representing former legislators Helena Wong and Lam Cheuk-ting, barrister Erik Shum said lawmakers who take into account political agendas when they vote for a bill “could not possibly” be seen as abusing their power.

…Shum’s arguments were echoed by Trevor Beel, barrister for journalist-turned-activist Gwyneth Ho. Beel told the court that the word “indiscriminate” was never used by the defendants, but rather was a term adopted by the prosecutors in the case.

Those who took part in the primaries only stated openly that they would “proceed with a mandate,” which Beel said was “clearly given to the people.”

“If their mandate was not considered by the government, then they would proceed to vote against the budget. That’s not an abuse of their power. That’s an exercise of their power,” he said.

This is the heart of the matter: can a plan to use powers clearly provided in the Basic Law be ‘subversion’?

From a US-based YouTube Chinese food channel, a look through a 1930s English-language Hong Kong pocket guide to Cantonese cuisine. She shows many pages clearly – so you can read a lot of it. Includes a list of restaurants at the time. Some of the dishes are familiar, while some are dated and others pretty much defunct. See the description of ‘three varieties of snake with wild cat’ (our old friend the palm civet)