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

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Jimmy Lai’s latest courtroom moment comes with a blunt reality check: the “solitary confinement” narrative doesn’t look the way overseas headlines sell it. At the West Kowloon Court on Monday (Jan 12), prosecutors say Lai requested the arrangement himself—worried he’d be harassed because his case was so widely reported—and the Correctional Services Department approved it after assessment. Two judges put it in plain language: “This wasn’t imposed on him by others—it was his own request,” and “If he wants, he can stop at any time.”

Prosecutors tell the court Lai’s solitary confinement is his own choice, not something forced on him. AP file photo.

That clashes head-on with what Lai’s children tell foreign media: they describe an elderly father kept alone for more than 1,000 days in a cell “without sunlight,” with summer temperatures hitting 40℃, dramatic weight loss, weakness, discolored nails “falling off,” and rotting teeth—basically a countdown to the end. They also accuse correctional staff of blocking communion for the Catholic Lai, or even cutting off curry sauce once they learned he liked it—small details used to paint a picture of psychological breaking tactics.

In court, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau tells a very different story: solitary confinement starts with Lai’s own application. Chau says that when Lai is remanded in late 2020, he believes his case is splashed everywhere and fears trouble from other inmates, so he applies to the Correctional Services Department. The department’s report, Chau says, finds him suitable—and it reviews the arrangment monthly, asking each time whether Lai wants to continue, with Lai confirming he does.

Chau also stresses that “solitary” doesn’t mean stripped of prisoner rights under the Prison Rules. He says Lai still has social contact—family communication, letters, publications—and can take part in religious activities such as receiving communion, and that Lai has never filed a complaint about these matters. Chau adds that Lai’s daily routine includes reading, outdoor exercise, “meaningful light duty work,” and daily health monitoring.

The courtroom reality check

The defense tries to shift the focus to age and health. Senior counsel Robert Pang tells the court Lai has high blood pressure, diabetes, and eye problems; none are immediately life-threatening, he says, but at 78, solitary confinement hits harder than it would for a younger inmate. Pang frames it starkly: “Every day he spent in prison will bring him that much closer to the end of his life,” and he cites a European Committee for the Prevention of Torture report warning solitary confinement harms prisoners and is treated as punishment in prison systems.

Judge Esther Toh isn't buying the "imposed punishment" framing, and she says so on the spot. She points out that this arrangement wasn't imposed on him by others—it was his own request, then offers a pointed analogy: it's like choosing between sharing a double room with your wife or taking a single room, picking one option, and then calling it "torture." Another judge, Alex Lee, makes the practical point: "It's not an additional punishment imposed on him. He can always end it if he chooses to."

Commentary circulating among observers says those two lines from the bench puncture the overseas media storyline in one go: the claim that Lai is forcibly kept in solitary. The same commentary says Lai’s family and foreign media keep running the “sob story,” while court appearances and medical reports tendered in evidence show his health is broadly fine—and that during remand he even gains weight at one point, with fluctuations that still leave him in an obese BMI range, not the “frail and wasting” picture described abroad.