"Quickly" Tan Dezhi involved in sedition case, the District Court has the power to try the National Security Law over Hong Kong's law

Social News

Written by: Chen Jiayi

2021-04-09 14:08

Last update date: 2021-04-09 14:08

People's Forces Vice Chairman Tan Dezhi (Quickly) was charged with 14 charges including publishing seditious texts for displaying slogans such as "The five major demands are indispensable" last year. The case will be tried in the District Court next month. The defense earlier questioned The district court has no right to hear the case and applies for suspension of the hearing.

Judge Chen Guangchi ruled in the district court today (9th) that he has jurisdiction to handle the case and refused to accept the defense's submissions.

He pointed out that the National Security Law of the Port District overrides local laws, and the restrictions on the transfer of charges to the District Court in the Magistrates Ordinance are inapplicable and invalid. The relevant laws need to be adapted to the implementation of the National Security Law.

The defense will consider submitting a judicial review on whether the district court has the jurisdiction to hear the case, and the case will be postponed until April 19.

The three cases that will soon be charged have been merged

The defendant Tan Dezhi (48 years old) has been dealt with in a combined manner in the three cases. The first case alleged that he distributed anti-epidemic supplies in Causeway Bay on May 24, 2020, involving holding or convening unauthorized public gatherings, disrupting order in public places, and publishing seditious texts Wait 4 crimes.

In the second case, Tan was charged with 5 counts of publishing sedition, 1 count of disturbing order in a public place, and 1 count of conspiracy when displaying slogans such as "The five major demands are indispensable" on many street stations from March to July of the same year. There are 7 crimes for publishing incitement.

The third case alleges that Tan appealed to those present to participate in an unauthorized assembly in Tai Po on January 17 of the same year. He was charged with inciting others to participate in an unauthorized assembly and publishing sedition; and on the 19th of the same month, he led a crowd in Causeway Bay to insult. Police officer, accused of disrupting order in public places.

"Quiebi" Tan Dezhi's involvement in the seditious case said that the national security field should not be adjourned by the district court judge

"Quickly" Tan Dezhishe published seditious texts and remanded to trial and appointed judge to be responsible for the trial in May next year

Kuaibi Tan Dezhi involved in the publication of seditious texts, interrogating the prosecution and requesting a trial by the National Security Law judge

The defense questioned the district court's lack of jurisdiction to hear the case

Senior Counsel Dai Qisi, representing Tan Dezhi, stated earlier that according to section 88 of the Magistrates Ordinance and Part III of Schedule 2, Tan should be referred to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for the offence of publishing seditious writing. The district court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

In the case of Li Zhiying, the Court of Final Appeal also ruled that the crime of incitement was a national security crime and was subject to public prosecution procedures in accordance with the National Security Law.

The assistant prosecutor Zhou Tianxing insisted that the crime of incitement is a summary crime and is not an indictable crime, and the district court has the right to try it.

Judge Chen Guangchi now ruled that the district court has jurisdiction to handle cases, and that the referral of the case to the district court by the magistrate is legal and effective, and he refused to accept the defense's submissions.

He pointed out that the underestimation of the dispute between the prosecution and the defense has a profound impact on the effectiveness of the Magistrates Ordinance, and the consideration is more important than the suspension of the hearing.

Chen Guan only made actual rulings on the defense application in this case, reiterating that the interpretation power of the National Security Law rests with the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

The judge said that when there is a discrepancy between the national security law and local laws, the national security law shall prevail

In his ruling, Chen Guan stated that the National Security Law overrides the local law. When there is a discrepancy with the local law, the National Security Law shall prevail. The restriction on referral of sedition crimes to the district court in the Magistrates Ordinance is not applicable and invalid. He believes that it is relevant The law needs to adapt to the implementation of the National Security Law.

He pointed out that the National Security Law not only covers the four charges of secession and subversion of state power. The National Security Law also stipulates that unless otherwise specified, the Magistrates’ Courts, District Courts, High Courts and Court of Final Appeal can hear crimes against national security. case.

Chen Guan pointed out that if he accepts the defense's statement, there will be strange circumstances that make the crime of incitement an indictable crime, which is not in line with the original intent of his legislation.

He also criticized the defense for not raising objections to the referral of the case at the time, and that he agreed that the district court has the right to try it.

The defense will consider submitting a judicial review on whether the district court has the jurisdiction to hear the case, and the case will be postponed until April 19.

Case number: DCCC 927/2020, DCCC 928/2020, DCCC 930/2020

Tan Dezhi Court