The arrest of sundry journalists on sedition charges was followed, as such events usually are these days, by a barrage of prejudicial comment from the police person in charge. I promised to stop complaining about this, so enough said.
However this time we also had a surprising offering from the Secretary for Security, John Lee.
Offending paragraph here: ‘When asked why former directors of Stand News who had already resigned were also arrested, Lee said that “anyone who breached the criminal law… will be pursued for their life time.” He said he strongly supported the police’s “appropriate action” based on “evidence and necessity.”’
Not only is that the sort of thing which used to get reporters into trouble – the quality of the evidence or necessity is a matter for the courts, once an arrest has been made – it also includes a legal error.
The relevant part of the Crimes Ordinance goes like this:
Legal proceedings
(1)No prosecution for an offence under section 10 shall be begun except within 6 months after the offence is committed.
Crimes Ordinance Section 11
Section 10 lists the possible offences and includes conspiracy. So the situation is actually not that offenders will be pursued for their lifetime. As long as they stick to sedition, once six months have passed they are off the hook.
This brings us to an interesting question which will no doubt come up in the proceedings sooner or later. Some of the directors now facing sedition charges are among the six who resigned following the police raid on Apple Daily on June 17. The newspaper closed on June 24 and Stand News then announced the resignations, among other changes.
Yesterday’s arrests took place on December 29. That is more than six months after June 24. I suppose it is possible that the directors’ resignations did in some legal sense not take immediate effect. But it seems rather unlikely that in their short period as ex-directors in everything but name they had anything to do with Stand News content.
Has the effect of the six month deadline been (ahem) overlooked?
tim's experiment 
Tim — Having seen your pieces in HKFP, it’s been a joy to now stumble upon your blog.
The transparent opacity which frames much of what you write is a great way to engage the reader, with reading in between the lines being a key skill. This is possibly an important attribute in the current climate, where being very clear about certain issues may not be a good way to go.
My acquaintance as it were with your writing extends back some time. I had some input into the then-termed “English language benchmark test” for Hong Kong English language teachers in the late 90s and thereafter. Some of your pieces were excellent vehicles for seeing how far Hong Kong English language teachers could negotiate their way through certain English language texts. I seem to recall once or twice you were somewhat nonplussed about the Hong Kong Examinations Authority using some of your stuff without applying for permission or sticking their hand in their pocket). (The HKEA fork out??). We used your stuff for the very reason of seeing how well English language teachers were able to engage with opaque transparency in texts, if you know what I mean ….
So for fun, I dug around in me bin. “Examiners should watch their words with Maria” was one of your pieces – October 2, 2000 in the Moron Post. We used the text virtually as is.
One piece of text in that article went thus:
———————–
“Enter, with black strip and whistle, Gregory James, the director of the language centre at the University of Science and Technology. This is an interesting job, rather like being the head of pig husbandry at the Jerusalem Agricultural College …”
———————-
A coupla questions – requiring textplanations, not multiple guess – then followed:
———————–
10. Why is Professor James introduced to the reader “with black strip and whistle” ?
11. The writer wants the reader to understand a link between
“pig husbandry” … and …”the Jerusalem Agricultural College”
and
“director of the language centre” … and … “the University of Science and Technology”
What is the link between these two sets of ideas?
———————–
… Plus a bunch of other questions which worked a treat. Those who did get the message became English language teachers; those who didn’t, eh, what was it one smart Education Dept suggested? That they might work in the library instead?
Anyway, keep up the opaque transparency, or its cousin. May the apparatchiks remain befuddled.