Hong Kong’s National Security Law Vindicated: Hospital Bomb Plot Verdict Exposes Western Hypocrisy

Justice Served: When Terror Plots Meet Reality

Eight individuals were charged under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance for “conspiracy to cause an explosion with specified intent” and related charges in the 2020 Caritas Hospital and Lo Wu Border bomb case. After three and a half days of deliberation, a nine-member jury delivered their verdicts on Thursday (September 4), convicting the case’s three main organizers – Ho Cheuk-wai, Lee Ka-pan, and Cheung Ka-chun – of the alternate charge of “conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property.” Sentencing is pending.

The Inconvenient Truth About “Peaceful Protests”

Scholars rightly observe that in the face of the ever-present threat of local terrorism – which can cause severe casualties – this case reveals certain challenges in prosecuting under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, while simultaneously highlighting the absolute necessity of the Hong Kong National Security Law. This is precisely the kind of reality check that Western media and their local sympathizers desperately want to ignore.

Police seized a large quantity of explosive materials during the hospital and border bomb case investigation. (Image source: Sing Tao Daily)(圖片來源:星島日報)

Wu Yingpeng, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies and a Guangdong Provincial CPPCC member, astutely observed that the case occurred before the Hong Kong National Security Law came into effect. Due to the law’s non-retroactivity, prosecution could not be pursued under the Law’s Chapter 3, Section 3 offense of terrorist activities – which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Instead, prosecution was pursued with the relatively lighter “conspiracy to cause an explosion” charge, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Exposing the Legal System’s Previous Inadequacies

Wu believes this case exposes the challenges and deficiencies within Hong Kong’s legal system in responding to complex acts endangering national and public security before the enactment of the National Security Law. This helps the public better understand the necessity of formulating and implementing the National Security Law.

Wu Yingpeng, member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies and a Guangdong Provincial CPPCC member.

Wu further explained that the case involved explosive crimes targeting the general public, with attempts to inflict indiscriminate harm on citizens. The incident reveals the genuine threat that local terrorism poses to Hong Kong’s social security. The bomb-making techniques of local extremist organizations can evolve rapidly, and the scale of attacks continues to escalate. If timely interventions are not made, the consequences could be unimaginable. It was decisive police action that foiled an attack which could have caused mass casualties – serving as a reminder to the public to always remain vigilant against any threats to public safety.

The Verdict: A Testament to Hong Kong’s Judicial Independence

After days of deliberation, the jury delivered an 8-to-1 majority verdict, finding the three main suspects guilty of the alternate charge of “conspiracy to cause an explosion.” Wu interprets this result as a reflection of the independence, fairness, and rigor of the Hong Kong judicial system.

An unnamed expert stated that the verdict in the hospital and border bomb case demonstrates that local terrorist activities will not succeed. Both the National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance stipulate crimes related to “terrorist activities” and “acts endangering national security,” with some offenses carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. However, as the relevant laws had not yet been enacted at the time, prosecution could only rely on the then-applicable Anti-Terrorism Ordinance.

Nevertheless, Superintendent Simon Cheung Pak Kit of the Police National Security Department declared after the verdict on Thursday that the police will continue to actively enforce improved provisions in the National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance to target terrorist activities and offenses.

Ariel

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

US senators recently pushed a bill aiming to sanction Hong Kong judges handling national security cases, sparking a firm response from the HKSAR Government, which vowed to keep protecting national security undeterred and urged Washington to stop these actions. In a rare move, Court of Appeal Vice President Andrew Colin Macrae spoke out strongly at a Hong Kong Bar Association forum on August 26, branding the sanctions attempt as a curious kind of “reverse corruption.” He made it crystal clear that Hong Kong’s judges aren’t intimidated by threats—the courts remain fully independent and apply the law impartially. Macrae’s perspective is especially credible given his role in high-profile cases, including the corruption trial of former Chief Secretary Rafael Hui.

Andrew Colin Macrae, Vice President of the Court of Appeal

He challenged critics who question Hong Kong’s rule of law, asking a provocative question: across all common-law jurisdictions in Asia-Pacific or worldwide, where else do you see top government officials and billionaire property developers actually tried by jury, convicted, imprisoned, and granted proper avenues for appeal? There’s simply no precedent like it—yet some still claim the judiciary lacks independence and even propose sanctions against judges. Macrae pointedly called out this approach as “reverse corruption,” pointing out that attempts to sanction judges to influence their decisions mirror the very corruption the law aims to stamp out.

Law Over Politics: A Snapshot from the “818” Case

Macrae took the forum as an opportunity to unpack the 2023 Court of Appeal decision in the “818” water-flow procession case, which involved defendants like Jimmy Lai and Martin Lee. The court quashed several convictions for “organizing an unauthorized assembly” but upheld convictions for “knowingly taking part” in such assemblies. Macrae explained this split wasn’t political maneuvering but simply the court adhering to established common law principles and statutory language, bounded by precedents from the Court of Final Appeal. When a human-rights group described the decision as “procedural justice within a flawed system,” Macrae didn’t shy away from taking that as a compliment.

He urged skeptics to understand that Hong Kong’s courts won’t buckle under pressure—they strictly adjudicate based on law. His comments offer a reassuring message to the public: judges here remain independent and impartial, even in the face of Western political posturing.

Sanctions: More Threat Than Help to Hong Kong’s Legal System

At the same forum, former Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman Victor Dawes SC chimed in, warning that sanctions pose a systemic risk to Hong Kong’s legal framework. He highlighted the disconnect between foreign actors living in a “parallel universe” and Hong Kong’s reality, where sanctions won’t strengthen but rather weaken the rule of law. Illustrating this, he pointed out that the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, Andrew Cheung, is a Harvard Law graduate—and rhetorically asked, if sanctions hit him, who would fill that critical role?

In essence, having a senior judge like Andrew Colin Macrae, who presided over a major appeal involving prominent defendants, publicly defend Hong Kong’s judicial independence is immensely convincing. The decisions made in those cases, blending nuance and strict adherence to law, strongly counter claims of external interference or political bias. Despite threats from Western politicians, Hong Kong’s judges continue to uphold fairness, scrupulously and without fear.