Opinion | Why criticism of non-jury subversion trial of 47 Hong Kong opposition activists is unjustified
- Hong Kong’s legislation is hardly unique. Jurisdictions including the UK, New Zealand and Greece allow non-jury trials where necessary
- Even the European Court of Human Rights holds that there is no right to a jury trial, though it is focused on the fairness of trials
As contemplated by the national security law (Article 46), he decided, after a risk assessment, that a jury trial would be inexpedient with regard to the “involvement of foreign factors”, concern over the “personal safety of jurors and their family members”, and the risk of perverting the course of justice if the trial was conducted with a jury.
Once Lam concluded that those factors were or might be present, his duty was clear, and the integrity of the trial required prioritisation. Although it would have been irresponsible to disregard those dangers, his decision could be challenged by judicial review if shown to have been taken in bad faith.
This, however, did not pacify the critics. Whereas, for example, the UK-based Hong Kong Watch said the defendants were being “denied even the basic right of a trial by jury”, the US-based Human Rights Watch said the decision would “deprive defendants of their fair trial rights”.
They are, however, presumably unaware that the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal previously decided that there is no such thing as a right to a jury trial in Hong Kong, and that the Court of Appeal has explained that a jury trial is not the only means of achieving justice in the Court of First Instance.
After all, most defendants are tried without a jury in the District Court and the Magistrates’ Courts, and this has never aroused concerns over the fairness of their trials.
