Sentences for detainees not too heavy: lawyer - RTHK
A A A
Temperature Humidity
News Archive Can search within past 12 months

Sentences for detainees not too heavy: lawyer

2020-12-30 HKT 16:27
Share this story facebook
  • Zhang Dongshuo says if the Hongkongers behave well, 'accept education' and follow prison regulations, they could be released early. File photo: RTHK
    Zhang Dongshuo says if the Hongkongers behave well, 'accept education' and follow prison regulations, they could be released early. File photo: RTHK
A mainland criminal lawyer says the jail sentences two Hongkongers received on Wednesday for “organising an illegal border crossing" were not very heavy, adding that they could get parole after serving half their terms.

Zhang Dongshuo was speaking to RTHK after Tang Kai-yin and Quinn Moon were jailed for three and two years respectively for their "leadership" role when they and 10 others allegedly illegally entered mainland waters during an apparent bid to flee to Taiwan in August.

The lawyer noted that the court referred to the two as "accomplices", meaning it thinks they committed the crime on the instructions of others.

Zhang said this is a mitigating factor according to mainland law, and since they also pleaded guilty, the two weren't given the maximum seven-year jail term possible.

Eight of the other members of the group were jailed for seven months, while the youngest two were taken back to Hong Kong on Wednesday without being charged.

Zhang said he believes the 10 prisoners could have time deducted from their sentences, adding that if they behave well, "accept education" and follow prison regulations, they could get a reduced sentence or parole, after serving more than half of their terms.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong's sole delegate to National People's Congress Standing Committee, Tam Yiu-chung, said he thinks the sentences were lenient.

On why diplomats couldn't attend the hearing, which was not broadcast online either, Tam insisted that the case was handled in accordance with the law.

He said he doesn't know the exact reason why the trial wasn't open to the public, but said it could involve factors such as state or commercial secrets, or privacy issues.

Another possibility, he said, was that the defendants themselves had asked for a closed hearing.