Written by 
A Hong Kong court has rejected a man’s attempt to appeal his conviction and six-year prison term for attempting to seize a police officer’s gun during a protest in 2019.
Woo Tsz-kin’s leave to appeal application was turned down by three judges from the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, with the panel said there was no evidence to support the appellant’s arguments because he did not testify during the trial, local media reported.
Woo was convicted and jailed alongside his former schoolmate Chow Pak-kwan, who was shot by a traffic officer during a protest in Sai Wan Ho on November 11, 2019. Protesters gathered that day in multiple districts to block traffic and disrupt the rush hour commute in an attempt to mobilise a city-wide strike.
Protests erupted in June 2019 over a since-axed extradition bill. They escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing’s encroachment. Demonstrators demanded an independent probe into police conduct, amnesty for those arrested and a halt to the characterisation of protests as “riots.”
Chow and Woo were found guilty in August 2022 of obstructing a police officer and attempted robbery, while Chow was also convicted of attempting to escape from lawful custody. Both were sentenced to six years behind bars.
Chow also filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, but withdrew the application in March. During that hearing, Woo confirmed with the court that he would only challenge the attempted robbery charge.
According to local media, Woo’s representatives argued on Tuesday that the trial judge, District Judge Adriana Noelle Tse Ching, concluded that Woo attempted to snatch the officer’s weapon without concrete factual basis. It could not be ruled out that Woo may have “reacted naturally” to push the officer’s gun away rather than attempting to seize it, the lawyers said.
The panel, consisting of justices Derek Pang, Maggie Poon and Anthea Pang, rejected the argument. They said Woo should have provided such explanation during trial by testifying, adding that the appellant’s lawyers could not “give evidence on [Woo’s] behalf.”
Woo’s side also sought to challenge the jail term by submitting that Woo was not armed at the time of the offence, nor did he cause serious injury to the police officer. He was only 19 at the time and was “brainwashed” to think what he did was “righteous,” the counsel said.
The judges refused Woo’s application and said they would hand down a written judgement later.
When trial judge Tse put Woo and Chow behind bars in November 2022, she said the pair had “relied on their numbers to bully a police officer working alone.” What the two defendants did amounted to “openly and seriously challenging the police’s authority to enforce the law, acting with impunity and showing blatant disregard for the law.”
During mitigation, Woo told the court that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and depression and had been receiving psychiatric treatment at a public hospital since September 2021. But the judge offered no reduction in his jail term, saying both defendants were not remorseful.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
Source link