Hong Kong’s High Court is set to hand down its verdict on seven defendants charged under a UN anti-terrorism law – the first such case in the city’s history – with six of them facing life imprisonment over their roles in a thwarted bomb plot to kill police during the social unrest of 2019.
The jury retired on Tuesday for deliberations, four months after the trial of the defendants, including members of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade”, began in April.
Brigade leader Wong Chun-keung is accused of entering into a conspiracy with another team of four, led by Ng Chi-hung, to plant two bombs on Hennessy Road in Wan Chai on December 8, 2019.
The court in February heard guilty pleas from another seven people, including Ng, two members of his team – sniper David Su and Eddie Pang Kwan-ho – and Wong.
In her instructions to the nine-member jury, presiding judge Mrs Justice Judianna Wai-ling Barnes asked them to decide whether the defendants had “agreed” to carry out some activities in preparation of the attack, or had discussed firearms and explosives that they were aware would eventually be used in the plot.
One of the main points of contention between the prosecution and defence was when exactly the conspiracy had been initiated.
Prosecutor Juliana Chow Hoi-ling had argued the conspiracy was hatched between Wong and Ng and came to light on November 18, 2019, after the two had met to confirm the roles of their respective teams in the plot.
According to their plan, members of the brigade would draw police out onto the street, while Ng would detonate a small bomb packed with 2kg of explosives. Predicting that police would then retreat to their headquarters on Arsenal Street, a sniper – Su – would be in place to take officers down.
After the planned sniper gunfire, a second bomb containing 8kg explosives would be detonated. Wong and Ng, together with their respective teammates, would then approach dead officers and collect their service weapons.
According to Chow, the plot involved a series of preparations between September and November, including a two-week military training camp in Taiwan, several meetings between Wong and Ng’s team, a weapons test involving explosives, a rifle and guns, and the recruitment of a sniper.
As it turned out, the attack did not happen, as Wong and Ng were arrested by police hours before they were about to carry out the alleged plot.
However, the defence argued that the activities cited by the prosecution – regardless of whether some defendants were aware of or had taken part in them – did not amount to a conspiracy.
Defence lawyers quoted evidence from Wong suggesting that he had not even been aware of the details of Ng’s plan before December 3, such as the location of bombs and the exact date of the attack. His ignorance of those details meant there was nothing for him to notify his team about with regards to the alleged operation, they argued.
Unlike other cases related to the 2019 social upheaval in which suspects were charged with rioting or possession of explosives or firearms, the accused in this case face a far more serious charge – conspiracy to commit the bombing of prescribed objects under the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance.
Rioting carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, while those charged with possession of explosives or firearms can face up to 14 years in jail. But offenders convicted of conspiracy under the UN ordinance can be jailed for life.
The six male defendants are Cheung Chun-fu, Cheung Ming-yu, Yim Man-him and Christian Lee Ka-tin, who allegedly belonged to the brigade, as well as Ng’s former teammates Lai Chun-pong and Justin Hui Cham-wing.
All denied an alternative charge of conspiring to cause explosions likely to endanger life or cause significant property damage, or to murdering police officers.
The seventh and only female defendant, Lau Pui-ying, denied a conspiracy charge of providing or collecting property for committing terrorist acts.
Throughout the trial spanning more than 80 days, prosecutors relied on an extensive record of Telegram chat group messages retrieved from different defendants’ phones, as well as testimonies from Wong, Su and Pang.
The three appeared as prosecution witnesses to give evidence on two major elements: how the conspiracy was hatched between the two teams; and how different defendants came together and entered into an agreement to use firearms and explosives to kill police.
According to Wong’s testimony, the creation of the brigade, which comprised about 10 protesters, and his encounter with Ng, whom he later partnered with, could be traced back as early as July 2019. Wong said he messaged Ng on Telegram after he saw a message by him advocating revenge against police in a public channel.
They bonded over their hatred of the force and shared a common vision to escalate violence in the 2019 protests. Wong admitted in court that he had wanted to use a gun to kill police as he heard Ng had means to import such a weapon from overseas.
But it was not until the firearms test in November that year that Wong realised Ng was serious about using guns and making bombs to launch an attack.
Before that, the military training in Taiwan conducted by a retired soldier in September was said to be unrelated to the conspiracy, according to evidence from Pang. But during the two-week camp, Pang said Ng and Lai had discussed a plan to subvert the government.
Cheung Ming-yu was the only member of the brigade who had attended the camp but had left early, the court heard.
Wong insisted all members were aware of the December 8 plot because he had mentioned the planned attack during a few brigade meetings. The group’s Telegram channel showed they used the code name “20kg” to refer to explosives and “glasses” to mean “gun”.
But defence lawyers told the court that “20kg” meant fireworks, which the brigade had planned to use in protests. They stressed not all members of the brigade had met Ng’s team, with several inactive in the group chat.
The court also heard that Su did not belong to either team, but joined the plot as a sniper after a long-time friend named Steven, who shared his political views, asked him to sell firearms to Ng.
Prosecutor Chow argued that accomplices did not have to know each other to enter into a conspiracy.
Justice Barnes told the jury defendants should be found guilty if any evidence showed a person had “intent” to execute the plot.
She asked the jury to decide on the culpability of each defendant formerly associated with the brigade, and consider whether Wong’s evidence was reliable, as his testimony played a key role in determining each defendant’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
Barnes reminded the jury not to be prejudiced against the defendants based on other alleged offences they had committed during the protests.
The defence had argued in its closing submission that one could not say their actions, despite being illegal, amounted to acts of terrorism.
