Zou Xingtong, former vice chairman of the stake, was charged with the crime of inciting others to subvert state power under the "Hong Kong National Security Law". An earlier application for lifting the media reporting restrictions on the delivery process was rejected by the chief magistrate, Luo Quan.
She therefore filed a judicial review, claiming that Mr Law had no right to refuse the application.
After hearing the arguments earlier, Supreme Court Judge Li Yunteng issued a verdict today (2nd) and ruled that Zou Xingtong won the case, saying that Luo Guan's decision was beyond his authority.
The judge pointed out that the magistrate has no discretion to lift the restriction when a defendant proposes it.
The applicant is Zou Xingtong, and the respondent is Chief Magistrate Luo Quan.
Zou Xingtong applied to the West Kowloon Magistrates' Court in February this year to lift the restriction on media newspapers delivering the trial content, but was rejected on April 25.
Zou Xingtong was accused of violating the National Security Law. When the case was arraigned, she had repeatedly applied for an exemption from media reporting restrictions, but was rejected.
(file picture)
The Ordinance states that if the defendant proposes that the judge must follow
Zou's lawyer said earlier that, according to Section 87 of the Magistrates Ordinance, if the defendant applies to lift the restriction on media reporting, the court will have to lift the restriction. He also pointed out that even if the magistrate has discretion, Law's decision is still wrong. Because Guan Luo considered factors unrelated to the case, and did not consider other measures to make up for the lifting of the reporting restrictions.
DOJ insists magistrates can refuse applications
However, the representative of the Department of Justice pointed out that the Ordinance allows magistrates to have the discretion to refuse to approve the application, and also pointed out that Mr. Law also considered nuisance behaviors by onlookers, and was worried that if the restrictions were lifted, potential witnesses would be affected.
Judge says magistrate has no discretion
Judge Li Yunteng held that, according to section 87A(2) of the Magistrates Ordinance, when the defendant makes an application, the magistrate has no discretion but only to lift the restriction on reporting.
Therefore, the magistrate's claim to exercise discretion, but that discretion does not exist, is an ultra vires decision.
To refuse unless absolutely necessary to do justice
The judge also pointed out that, assuming that the discretion does exist, under section 10 of the Bill of Rights, a magistrate should not refuse an application unless it is "absolutely necessary" to do so in the interests of justice.
On this basis, there is no "absolute necessity" to restrict the reporting of the case involved in Zou, and it is believed that Luo Guan's decision is flawed.
The case has been scheduled for primary inquest on September 2
Zou Xingtong (36 years old, lawyer) is charged with inciting others to organize, plan, carry out or participate in the implementation of acts aimed at subverting state power by illegal means in Hong Kong from July 1, 2020 to September 8, 2021. , undermining the fundamental system of the People's Republic of China, or overthrowing the central government of the People's Republic of China, the case has been scheduled for preliminary investigation on September 2.
Case number: HCAL 401/2022
Why can't the media report the content of primary inquiries?
According to section 87A of the Magistrates Ordinance, there are certain restrictions on the media reporting on committal proceedings.
Restrictions include those?
The media can only report the name of the court and the judge, the personal information of the defendant and the charges, and the lawyers representing both the prosecution and the defense.
(see link for details)
Zou Xingtong's request to remove the media coverage restriction was refused. Questioning the magistrate's lack of sympathy and asking the court for review Controversial Zou Xingtong pointed out that the trial changed to self-directed and self-acted Zou Xingtong went to court to apply for bail, but the official refused to ask the observers to pay attention to court etiquette
