Retired police superintendent Frankly Chu, accused of "assaulting" Osman Cheng Chung-hang during "Occupy Mong Kok" in 2014, was sentenced for three-month imprisonment in Eastern Magistrates' Courts yesterday.Defence counsel indicated his client would appeal, and Chu was immediately released on bail pending his appeal.
The verdict on Chu immediately prompted strong reactions in society. A number of citizens put up a big poster with the Chinese character of Yuan (injustice); and three police organisations, the Superintendents' Association, Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association and Junior Police Officers' Association, issued a statement each to express their disappointment, extreme disappointment and sadness with the verdict……and their concern about how to use necessary force in future law enforcement.
Implementing the rule of law and the court making a ruling, in the fundamental sense, should at least play a role of commending righteousness and seeing justice to be done. But what happened yesterday was that the public felt the courting ruling was unjust and police organisation felt it unrighteous. So the verdict yesterday not only failed to achieve the desired effect the rule of law should achieve, but instead arousing doubt about the authority and justice of the rule of law. Is this a result that should have been expected from a good ruling?
Before the verdict was handed down, the defence counsel had submitted over 40 letters in Chu's mitigation, including those from two former police commissioners, as strong evidence that Chu was always attentive to his duties.Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai also said she understood he bore extremely heavy pressure in enforcing the law at that time, but this was "no reason" for his to assault.
As seen from the video footages presented in the court, Chu indeed hit the person concerned. However, are the process, background and nature of the incident just what is seen in this several-second scene of him "hitting the person concerned"? At that time, a large number of protesters gathered around Portland Street in Mong Kok, using crowd control barriers seized from police officers, pieces of plywood and rubbish bins to block roads and occupy the area. Before this, the law-breaking Occupy Central had already gone on for several days, almost paralysing the Hong Kong Island and Central. The police then decided to clear out the occupied area in Mong Kok, asking the occupiers to leave by persuasion and dispersal. A number of police officers came on order, including Frankly Chu, who was on leave prior to his retirement, returned to join the action.
By the time, the whole police force had already been worn out , being kept constantly on the run to deal with Occupy Central, Occupy Mong Kok and Occupy Causeway Bay, and becoming extremely tense and nervous. It was under such circumstances, that Chu's baton fell down on the back of a "passerby".
Surely the judge who sent Chu to jail did see this fact of "hitting the person concerned", but how come the whole processes of Occupy Mong Kok and Occupy Central, and the hardships and sufferings gone through by law enforcers working for a long period of time and the difficulties for them to make accurate judgements as such were not in her sight and consideration? "Hitting someone" is guilty, but is occupying a public place legal and innocent? A law enforcer dealing with law-breaking occupiers eventually ends up in prison for "assault accessioning actual bodily harm."The police baton has no eye to see, but is it also the case that the court turns a blind eye?
What is more unacceptable is that, while Frankly Chu who came to the spot to carry out his duty had to be jailed, has each and every of the protesters who had violently pushed, attacked and hurled bricks dug out from sidewalks at police officers during the Occupy Central, Occupy Mong Kok and the Monk Kok Riot afterwards been convicted of "assault" and jailed by the court? Not even to mention that Benny Tai Yiu-ting, the one who single-handedly plotted, started and advocated the law-breaking Occupy Central, not only continues to teach and celebrate the New Year but also move to accuse the Colocation Arrangement of being unconstitutional and illegal on a newspaper yesterday."He who steals a hook gets hanged as a crook; he who steals the kingdom makes himself a duke."Is there anything more absurd, more unjust and more unreasonable than this?
04 January 2018
