Does Chris Patten fail to see how English judges do their jobs？

When the riots in England pressed on, the British government responded with a heavy hand to suppress the unrest, and the courts acted swiftly, with rapid trials and speedy sentencing, putting  a large number of protesters and individuals inciting protests across Britain in prison.

The first individual convicted was 28-year-old Jordan Parlour, who had posted on Facebook, calling for an attack on a hotel housing refugees in Leeds, England. During the trial, Judge Guy Kearl KC acknowledged that Parlour had not participated in the violent incident, but he posed the question: "There can be no doubt you were inciting others to do so, otherwise why post the comments?" Consequently, on August 9th, Parlour was sentenced to 20 months in prison for inciting racial hatred, becoming the first person in Britain convicted for inciting riots online.

On the same day, another British man, 26-year-old Tyler Kay, who also encouraged others on social media to set fire to a hotel housing refugees, was similarly found guilty of inciting racial hatred and sentenced to 38 months in prison. Judge Adrienne Lucking KC described the posts as “utterly repulsive, racist and shocking."

There were also several other agitators like Parlour and Kay who were swiftly sentenced after pleading guilty while in the custody of the British police, resulting in immediate sentencing without contest. Many of those sentenced in the UK come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, lack legal knowledge, and are unaware of their right to request government-appointed counsel, leading to quick guilty pleas. The British courts' approach to dealing with protesters has been notably ruthless, with rapid trials and judgments that serve as an immediate deterrent to street protests.

Speaking of convictions and sentencing, in the case of the Victoria Park 818 flow-style rally in Hong Kong in 2019, seven leading opposition figures, including Jimmy Lai and Martin Lee, were involved. They were initially found quilty in two counts, organizing and participating in an unlawful assembly. However, upon appeal, the conviction for organizing an assembly was overturned, but the conviction for participating in the assembly was upheld. Jimmy Lai's sentence was reduced from 12 months to 9 months, and Martin Lee's suspended sentence meant he would not serve jail time, though they continued to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The case had spanned four years, and on Monday (August 12), the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original verdict.

In the judgment, the Court of Final Appeal squarly stated that the defendants' claims were contrary to all principles of jurisdiction in Hong Kong. The Court’s overseas non-permanent judge, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury from Britain, in his judgment, agreed with the views of Chief Justice Cheung Kui-nung and Permanent Judge Justice Roberto Aleandre Vieira Ribeiro, noting that both the laws of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong recognize freedom of assembly as a fundamental right of citizens, but these rights are subject to individual local legislation. He further remarked that Cheung had "completely and impressively considered the issues."

After the Court of Final Appeal rejected the appeal of the 818 assembly case, the last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, criticized the judgment as “unjust”, and expressed his displeasure at the involvement of Lord Neuberger who has consistently championed human rights. In his criticism about Lord Neuberger, Patten said that “Perhaps some of his views on the law changed between the first-class waiting room at Heathrow and the arrival terminal of Hong Kong International Airport.”

Jimmy Lai and Martin Lee are promanent leaders of the opposition, and their involvement in an unlawful assembly would absolutely draw a large number of followers. Now the Hong Kong courts only found the defendants guilty of participating in the assembly while dismissing the charge of organizing the assembly, making the conviction relatively lenient. When comparing this to the aforementioned cases in the United Kingdom, where anonymous individuals were sentenced to 20 or 38 months in prison merely for making a few inflammatory comments on social media without even physically attending the demonstration, it is evident that the severity of the British courts far surpasses that of Hong Kong. To borrow Patten’s ironic phrasing, British judges indeed “changed their views on the law between the first-class waiting room at Heathrow and the arrival termial of Hong Kong International Airport”, and have become more lenient.

Patten said the outcome of the 818 rally appeal case where Lord Neuberger involved was surprising. In fact, much more surprising is, while making loud noises condemning the relatively lenient convictions in Hong Kong courts, he is silent and indifferent about British courts’ speedy trials and harsh sentencing, The extent of this double standard has reached a point of blindness. Perhaps Patten's logic is that the court should refrain from sentencing prominent figures like Martin Lee and Jimmy Lai, as they should be above the law. After all, Martin Lee and Jimmy Lai are good friends of Chris Patten. As for the lesser-known figures like Kay and Parlour from Leeds, Lord Patten doesn’t even know who they are, so why would he bother?

Wing-hung Lo

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

On August 4, during the men's 4x100 meter medley relay at the Paris Olympics, the Chinese team performed astonishingly, defeating the United States and clinching the gold medal. This victory ended the United States' 64-year undefeated streak in this event, a record that had stood since its introduction in the 1960 Olympics (excluding The year when the US boycotted the Olympics).

The most remarkable performance came from Pan Zhanle, the "Flying Fish of China," who swam the final 100-meter freestyle. Despite trailing by 0.72 seconds, Pan surged ahead with incredible momentum, leading China to victory. Pan's time of 45.92 seconds in the final leg was a significant improvement over his world record of 46.40 seconds set just days earlier in the 100-meter freestyle event. Although relay results do not count toward individual records, Pan's performance demonstrated his potential to further break his own world record.

The United States has long been a dominant force in swimming, with Australia and other countries emerging as strong competitors in recent years. However, no country had ever managed to dethrone the United States in the 4x100 meter medley relay like China did. This unprecedented result explains why the United States has aggressively pushed for repeated drug tests on Chinese athletes and attempted to tarnish China's reputation.

Since April of this year, the United States Anti-Doping Agency and American media have been intensely focusing on allegations that 23 Chinese athletes in 2021 were allegedly involved in doping. Although it was later confirmed that food contamination was the cause, the United States questioned these findings and even invoked its domestic "Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act" to assert long-arm jurisdiction and investigate the matter. The International Olympic Committee's strong criticism eventually subdued these efforts, but American media continued to make noises.

The US's emphasis on Chinese athletes' alleged doping not only led to increased drug testing by the World Anti-Doping Agency, disrupting the athletes' rest but also imposed immense psychological pressure due to the relentless public scrutiny. As a result, China's breaststroke champion Qin Haiyang only managed to secure seventh place in his event, failing to win a medal and performing well below his relay race results. This indicates that the US's pressure tactics had some effect.

This issue is not at all a minor dispute. The United States' current actions against China are reminiscent of the Cold War tactics used against the Soviet Union, albeit more intense. The Soviet Union was not an economic powerhouse and could not compete with the United States economically, but the two engaged in fierce competition in space exploration and sports, symbols of national strength.

China's rapid rise in recent years has challenged the United States across various domains. The emergence of swimming prodigy Pan Zhanle, who has already broken world records, has not gone unnoticed by the US. The US's strategy to manufacture a doping scandal aims to disrupt Chinese athletes and prevent China from taking the 4x100 meter medley throne that the US had held for 64 years.

To this day, Americans still show disbelief over Pan Zhanle's world record-breaking performance in the 100-meter freestyle, insinuating that such achievements could not be possible without drug use. However, Pan's success is not solely due to his hard training and natural talent but also the scientific research backing the Chinese team. For instance, Pan overcame traditional swimming bottlenecks by improving his pulling and kicking techniques to enhance speed. He also optimized his breathing to ensure adequate oxygen supply during high-intensity competitions. These innovations in sports technology have allowed him to push the boundaries and achieve extraordinary speed.

The United States' inability to accept being surpassed by other countries has led it to use various extralegal methods to suppress competitors. For example, when France's Alstom posed significant competition to General Electric in the turbine business, the US used long-arm jurisdiction to accuse Alstom of bribery in other countries, arresting its senior executive and eventually forcing Alstom to sell its turbine business to GE.

Similarly, the US targeted China's Huawei when it surpassed American companies in 5G telecommunications and mobile phone development. The US arrested Huawei's CFO, Meng Wanzhou, on charges of violating US sanctions. Despite the immense pressure, Huawei managed to secure Meng's release, although its business operations continued to suffer under US sanctions.

These cases illustrate that the United States struggles to accept others' success and resorts to all possible means to protect its supremacy. However, these measures often fail to address the root causes of competition and instead involve underhanded tactics that ultimately prove futile.

Wing-hung Lo