Although the protests which erupted in 2019 were ostensibly about the Hong Kong SAR government’s fugitive surrender proposals, other forces were covertly at work. Once the insurgency got underway, it became increasingly clear that the protest movement was harboring people who wanted to divide China, and were prepared to adopt terror-type tactics to achieve this end. Their vociferous opposition to fugitive surrender was a smoke screen, and the destruction of the “one country, two systems” project was their priority, as this would harm China as a whole.
On June 9, 2019, when the insurrection got underway, a peaceful protest was followed by a violent assault by hundreds of rioters on the police officers who were guarding the Legislative Council Complex. They used improvised weaponry, including metal barriers, steel rods and bricks to assail the police cordon. Eight police officers were injured, including one who sustained serious eye injuries. In the days leading up to June 9, there were, moreover, internet appeals to throw petrol bombs, bricks and water bottles on the day itself, and the Hong Kong Independence Union, the police discovered, was one of the groupings uploading messages onto Facebook.
It was, however, not until July 1, 2019, that the extent to which the secessionists had infiltrated the protest movement became apparent. Once the rioters had smashed their way into the Legislative Council Complex, using a loaded cart as a battering ram, they set about trashing the premises, damaging furniture, defacing paintings and stealing equipment. The repair costs subsequently came to HK$50 million ($6.4 million). At this point, the ugly face of the protest movement exposed itself, and it was manifestly secessionist.
On the walls, the fanatics scrawled “Hong Kong is not China”, and they gleefully brandished foreign and colonial era flags. They ostentatiously ripped up the Basic Law, the living embodiment of the “one country, two systems” policy, and sprayed the regional emblem with black paint, obliterating the words “People’s Republic of China”. Their hatred of China was flaunted for all to see, although the lengths to which they were prepared to go in order to divide the country were not yet known. Within days, however, all became clear.
TATP is the explosive of choice of international terrorism, and was used in the London bombings of 2005, the Paris bombings of 2015, and the Sri Lanka bombings of 2019. That the protest movement’s armed wing possessed this explosive in abundance was proof positive not only of their willingness to create carnage on the streets, but also of their determination to threaten the country’s territorial integrity
On July 19, 2019, the police, acting on information, conducted a raid on a rented studio in the Lung Shing Factory Building, Tsuen Wan. Inside, they found a kilogram of triacetone triperoxide (TATP), which was the largest seizure of high explosives in over two decades, together with raw materials for manufacturing it. They also discovered 10 petrol bombs, banners proclaiming “Hong Kong independence”, assorted weaponry, and equipment used by protesters, including helmets, masks and body shields. At the scene, the police arrested Louis Lo Yat-sun, aged 27, a member of the now-disbanded Hong Kong National Front, who was found to have two manuals on explosives stored on his phone.
The significance of this seizure was huge, as TATP is highly lethal and second only to military-grade explosives. As the force’s senior bomb disposal officer, Superintendent Alick Mcwhirter, explained at the time, a quantity of this size would “cause exceptional amounts of damage when used”. Indeed, TATP is the explosive of choice of international terrorism, and was used in the London bombings of 2005, the Paris bombings of 2015, and the Sri Lanka bombings of 2019. That the protest movement’s armed wing possessed this explosive in abundance was proof positive not only of their willingness to create carnage on the streets, but also of their determination to threaten the country’s territorial integrity. This seizure, moreover, was not a one-off as on Nov 27, 2019, the police seized more TATP in powder form at Caritas Ma On Shan Secondary School, with students claiming it had been provided by a black-clad man in Mong Kok.
With the enactment of the National Security Law for Hong Kong on June 30, 2020, it became possible to prosecute secessionists, subversives and terrorists alike for these specific offenses. It is, however, not retroactive, and Lo was only charged with an offense of keeping explosives with intent to endanger life or property, which is punishable, under the Crimes Ordinance, with up to 20 years’ imprisonment (Sect.54). Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty, and, as is customary, he thereby qualified for the one-third sentencing discount which is given in recognition of remorse, the saving of court time, and the avoidance of witness testimony.
Having taken 18 years’ imprisonment as his starting point, Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai reduced Lo’s sentence to 12 years, which was still the heaviest sentence imposed so far on anybody involved in the insurrection of 2019-20. The judge told Lo that he had come close to “declaring war on society”, by creating “terror among citizens”. He said he must have been the “mastermind” of the operation, and that he had intended to subvert the government and seek the city’s independence. Although Lo admitted keeping the TATP, not producing it, Chan ruled that he was no less culpable than the manufacturer. He said he would be failing in his duty if he did “not impose a heavy, deterrent sentence such as this”.
In assessing Lo’s culpability, Chan bracketed him with the late Yip Kai-foon, the so-called “King of Thieves” who, after a trial, was imprisoned for 18 years for the same offense in the 1990s. Yip had been found in possession of almost two kilograms of trinitrotoluene (TNT), although his motives, as a robber, would have been markedly different to Lo’s, as a secessionist, and Chan described Lo’s criminality as “just as serious, if not more” than Yip’s. On April 23, 1999, when Yip challenged this sentence in the Court of Appeal, he was told by Justice Noel Power that the TNT “had the capacity to inflict terrible damage to life and property in a crowded city such as this”, and that a deterrent sentence was inevitable (CACC 138&139/1997), a precedent which Chan followed.
Quite clearly, the judge was justified in taking 18 years’ imprisonment as his starting point, even though it is very close to the maximum of 20 years, and to emphasize the need for deterrence. In their own ways, albeit with different motives, Lo and Yip were planning to use explosives to create terror in Hong Kong, and multiple fatalities could well have resulted. Since, however, Lo, who is now 29, has already been in custody for almost two years, this will be deducted from the 12 years he has received, meaning he now has only about 10 years left to serve. If, moreover, he demonstrates what the Prison Rules call “industry and good conduct” during his incarceration, he will likely qualify for a remission of sentence of one-third (Rule 69). If so, the effect would be to reduce his actual term to approximately six years and eight months’ imprisonment, for which he would undoubtedly count himself most fortunate, not least because he will still only be 36 by that time.
If, however, Lo’s offense had occurred after June 30, 2020, the scenario would have been entirely different. He would, in all likelihood, have been prosecuted under the National Security Law not only for the offense of secession, but also for terrorism, and perhaps also subversion. In that eventuality, life imprisonment would, on conviction, have been a real possibility, and he could well have had to serve at least 30 years’ imprisonment, as the secessionists who are still at large hopefully appreciate. Lo should, therefore, thank his lucky stars that the new law is not retroactive.
The author is a senior counsel, law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.