HONG KONG – Hong Kong’s top court denied bail on Tuesday to media tycoon and Beijing critic Jimmy Lai, charged under the city’s national security law.
His return to custody was related partly due to Article 42 of the security law, which states that “no bail shall be granted to a criminal suspect or defendant unless the judge has sufficient grounds for believing that the criminal suspect or defendant will not continue to commit acts endangering national security”.
On Tuesday, the CFA’s five judges said in a written judgment the lower court applied an “erroneous line of reasoning” and “misconstrued” Article 42. The decision was found to be unanimous.
The judges said Lai’s team could make a “fresh application” for bail, as Tuesday’s decision was of “a limited nature,” which focused on how the lower court came to its decision, rather than whether Lai should be bailed out or not.
Lai, was seen wearing a dark grey suit and sporting his trademark buzz cut, impassively as the judges gave their decision.
Outside the court, a small number of pro-China protesters shouted “Jail Jimmy Lai for life … safeguard Hong Kong’s peace” through a loud-hailer. Inside, Lai’s supporters shouted “Hang in there,” and “Add oil,” a phrase used frequently in Hong Kong.
Beijing imposed the sweeping national security law on the former British colony last June after months of pro-democracy protests.
According to critics, it is aimed at crushing dissent and it comes in the way of freedoms in the semi-autonomous, Chinese-ruled city. Its supporters say it revives stability following months of unrest.
As per the new law, it is the responsibility of the defendant to prove they would not pose any threat to national security if released on bail. This comes contrary to Hong Kong’s common law-based legal system, the onus has traditionally been on the prosecution to prove its case.
Avery Ng, a pro-democracy activist in the courtroom who himself faces charges of illegal assembly in connection to mass anti-government and anti-China protests in 2019, “We’ve lost the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.”