Hong Kong Court Sentences 12 Activists Over Legislative Council Breach During 2019 Protests

District Court Judge Li Chi-ho described the storming of the building as a direct challenge to the Hong Kong government, with long-lasting ramifications for the city. The defendants, including prominent figures such as actor Gregory Wong and activists Ventus Lau and Owen Chow, were found guilty of attacking government institutions and damaging public property.

Sentences ranged from 54 to 82 months in prison for the convicted individuals. Notably, actor Gregory Wong received a six-year, two-month sentence, while Ventus Lau and Owen Chow were sentenced to four and a half years and 61 months, respectively.

The court also fined two journalists who entered the legislature during the protest without authorization, signaling the severity with which the breach of government premises was treated. This incident, occurring on the 22nd anniversary of Hong Kong's transfer from British colonial rule to China, marked a significant escalation in the ongoing protests against perceived infringements on the city's autonomy.

Judge Li Zhihao emphasized the gravity of the offense, highlighting the unique constitutional significance of the Legislative Council Complex and its symbolic importance to Hong Kong's governance. The breach of the complex aimed to insult and provoke the government, sparking a series of subsequent protests.

The court categorized the activists into three groups based on their level of involvement, with varying degrees of severity in sentencing. Despite arguments for leniency from some defendants' counsel, the court maintained that all individuals involved had contributed to the escalation of tensions and the undermining of public order.

The sentences handed down underscore the Hong Kong judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and addressing actions deemed to threaten the stability and integrity of the region. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has previously raised concerns about the potential for excessive restriction of civil and political rights in cases such as these, highlighting the delicate balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding fundamental freedoms.