Virginia Lee, Solicitor
The recent acquittal of eight individuals accused of conspiring to commit bombings during Hong Kong’s 2019 “black-clad” riots has reignited debate over the use of juries in national security and anti-terrorism prosecutions. While the jury mechanism has long been associated with community participation and protection against excessive state power, its effectiveness becomes questionable when the cases involve sovereignty, terrorism, and international security responsibilities. The verdict highlights the limits of entrusting decisions of profound national significance to lay citizens lacking the knowledge and access required for informed judgment.
Historically, juries functioned effectively in disputes where private harm was at issue, evidence was straightforward, and logic accessible to non-specialists was sufficient to reach clarity. National security cases, however, present an entirely different reality. They often involve highly classified intelligence, advanced investigative methods, and predictive assessments, all of which demand technical knowledge. Jurors, without professional training or security clearance, evaluate evidence from a position of partial awareness, which undermines the consistency and precision needed in circumstances where public safety is directly at stake. Judges, equipped with institutional authority and expertise, are better positioned to handle such material responsibly under appropriate protocols.
Impartiality, often assumed to flow naturally from random jury selection, becomes far less reliable in cases connected to protests, riots, or terrorism. Jurors emerge from the same society that witnesses these events and may develop sympathies or resentments rooted in collective experiences. As a result, verdicts can tilt unpredictably—whether through unwarranted leniency towards defendants perceived as political actors or through overly punitive reactions shaped by civic unrest. Evidence that is technically complex and bound to security concerns thus risks being diminished or dismissed, revealing the limitations of jurors when confronted with matters that extend beyond everyday reasoning.
Further difficulty lies in the secrecy inherent in national security prosecutions. Intelligence frequently originates from confidential sources or cooperative international channels, and disclosure in open court could endanger lives or compromise essential operations. Without the clearance or institutional framework necessary to assess such information, jurors decide under conditions of obscurity. Judges, by contrast, are mandated and empowered to examine classified intelligence within secure processes, balancing fairness with the imperative of protecting sensitive state interests.
These domestic constraints are compounded by Hong Kong’s obligations under international law. In line with global counter-terrorism measures adopted since the September 2001 attacks, states are expected to pursue adequate safeguards against terrorism. Jury verdicts shaped by indecision, political sentiment, or limited understanding may obstruct compliance with these duties, weakening Hong Kong’s credibility as a responsible partner in global security. A professional judiciary, conversant with legal commitments under international conventions, can better harmonise domestic adjudication with broader obligations while upholding the rights of defendants.
Equally important is the preventive nature of anti-terrorism legislation. Instead of confining itself to punishment after harm has been inflicted, the law emphasises forward-looking measures capable of interrupting threats before they materialise. Engaging with predictive assessments, radicalisation patterns, and long-term risk management requires specialised expertise far beyond the scope of lay citizens. Professional judges bring the analytical tools and training necessary to apply this preventive philosophy credibly and consistently.
Another vulnerability of jury trials lies in their openness to rhetorical manipulation. Defence counsel may construct arguments directed less at legal merit than at stirring emotional responses, particularly in a politically polarised climate. When verdicts are influenced by sympathy, fear, or ideological leanings rather than by law, the public’s faith in the judiciary as a guardian of state security is diminished. Judges, bound by professional traditions of neutrality and reasoned analysis, are significantly less exposed to these pressures and therefore more capable of delivering judgments anchored in principled application of law.
The experience of recent acquittals illustrates that while the jury system retains importance in ordinary criminal proceedings, it falters when applied to cases of national security and terrorism. Preserving outdated practices for their historical symbolism risks misalignment with the urgent demands of modern governance. Replacing jurors with trained judges strengthens, rather than weakens, the commitment to justice by fostering decisions based on expertise, accountability, and careful assessment of international and domestic security responsibilities. In such cases, justice is not compromised by evolving beyond the jury system; it is reinforced, demonstrating fidelity both to the rule of law and to the protection of community safety.
Virginia Lee
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
