-6-
3. Given that this is the first case involving offences under the NSL and that therefore there is no precedent, the court had to deal with a number of issues prior to the commencement of this trial. The Defence, for instance, have challenged the procedure adopted for this case, that is, trial by a panel of three judges instead of by a jury.[1] Parties also could not agree as to the elements involved in each of the offences.
4. Insofar as the challenge to the certificate issued under Article 46 of the NSL by the Secretary for Justice, directing that the case be tried without a jury, is concerned, the Defendant proceeded by way of judicial review and it was not a matter which we dealt with.
5. In respect of the elements of the offences, after hearing parties’ arguments and upon consideration of the legal principles involved, we gave our ruling orally on 29 April 2021.
6. Further, we also dealt with an application by the Prosecution to adduce expert evidence and an application to add the 3rd count as the alternative to the 2nd count which applications were opposed by the Defendant. The brief reasons for our decisions were respectively given in writing on 9 April 2021 and 7 June 2021.[2]
7. It is important to reiterate that although this is a case presided over by a panel of three judges, the legal principles such as the burden of proof, the standard of proof, the presumption of innocence, the right of silence and the right to a fair trial, apply in this case as much as
- ↑ Pursuant to a certificate issued by the Secretary for Justice under Article 46 of the NSL.
- ↑ [2021] HKCFI 946 and [2021] HKCFI 1644.
