Tony Kwok notes the prison term for protest leaders is a benchmark case and should be a strong deterrent to those who goad youth into breaking law 'to achieve justice'

The Court of Appeal case concerning the imprisonment of Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Nathan Law Kwun-chung will go down in Hong Kong legal history as a milestone in our steadfast abidance by the rule of law.

This judgment is comparable to one handed down by the then chief justice that served as a sentencing guideline for public officials convicted of corruption in the 1970s. It stipulated an immediate custodial sentence of a minimum of 12 months unless there were strong mitigating circumstances. That sentencing guideline was sought by the then attorney general due to the disparity and leniency of sentences handed down by lower courts to some corrupt offenders in circumstances similar to the current case arising from numerous inexplicably lenient sentences imposed on offenders related to "Occupy Central". The purpose is to set the right standard in law. It has nothing to do with political persecution as alleged by some US lawmakers and foreign media.

In delivering his judgment, Court of Appeal Vice-President Wally Yeung Chun-kuen condemned those "educated people" who deliberately incite the younger generation to engage in illegal acts under the pretext of pursuing ideals, using the oxymoronic slogan of "achieving justice by breaking the law".

So who are these "educated people"? I believe they belong to three categories.

Firstly are those opposition party politicians. Even after the delivery of a very well-reasoned judgment, Civic Party Chairman Alan Leong Kah-kit, a senior counsel and a former chairman of the Bar Association, still denounced it as politically motivated persecution. He accused the Court of Appeal of treating the three young students like "drug kingpins, murderers or arsonists". His view was echoed by fellow party leader Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, also a barrister, who praised the students saying their prison sentence would "glorify their life". Then we have the disqualified lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung claiming the judgment was a conspiracy of the judiciary with the connivance of the executive branch to eliminate dissent! The opposition even went as far as blaspheming the presiding judge for having Chinese mainland connections based simply on an innocuous social function he attended many years ago! Such accusation is tantamount to contempt of court! Fortunately, it was quickly condemned by a joint statement of the Bar Association and the Law Society as utterly inappropriate.

The second category is those scholars, university lecturers and school teachers who ignored the severe consequences that the students must suffer as a result of their prison sentences. We heard Benny Tai Yiu-ting, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong, specializing in constitutional and administrative law, grossly distorting the case by describing the students' offenses as merely civil disobedience which he claimed is an acceptable defense in common law. What he neglected to clarify is that civil disobedience must be non-violent, which is hardly the case here. What is particularly heartbreaking came from the ill-informed justifications of the jailed students' parents. One smilingly told the media that he was proud of his son's imprisonment! Someone should ask for his comments about the injuries his son and other violent students caused to the 10 security guards. Or how does he feel about the young lady who was killed in Virginia when a public demonstration turned violent? Idealism is no license for criminal actions.

The third category is those magistrates in the lower courts who have been dishing out ludicrously lenient sentences which are no more than token punishments, such as the original sentences of community service meted out to the jailed students. The trial magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan was criticized by the Court of Appeal for breaching five fundamental legal principles in coming up with her community service orders. What is worse is her stubborn refusal to correct the sentences upon the prosecution's review application, based on similar arguments now accepted by the Court of Appeal. It is precisely such biased and overly lenient attitudes which misled our idealistic younger generation into thinking the use of violence in pursuit of a good cause is justifiable. This distorted thinking undoubtedly contributed to the Mong Kok riot. Luckily, this is unlikely to happen again as the Court of Appeal's judgment is binding on all the lower courts in future. Hence the public is now looking forward to custodial sentences for Tai and his fellow "Occupy" co-founders - Chan Kin-man and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming - if they are found guilty of offenses they are charged with in connection with the violence which erupted over their "Occupy" campaign. The protest brought parts of Hong Kong to a standstill, causing untold economic damage as well. Each of their charges carries a maximum penalty of seven years in jail.

To ensure this sorry history of seeing "educated people" misleading our young people is not repeated, I suggest one way is to incorporate this Court of Appeal judgment into the professional code of ethics for all educators and legal practitioners. No one should ever be allowed to go scot-free again after egging others to commit violence on the pretext of achieving justice.

(HK Edition 08/25/2017 page12)