A Hong Kong opposition activist has been convicted of arranging for the unapproved delivery of a complaint letter about prison conditions while being remanded under the Beijing-decreed national security law.
West Kowloon Court on Monday found Owen Chow Ka-shing guilty of carrying an unauthorised article out of prison after he gave his lawyer a letter for the Office of the Ombudsman, a watchdog that focuses on public administration concerns.
In the letter, he accused correctional services officers of barring him from receiving two books on Buddhism and tearing off their covers when they were returned to the sender.
Chow’s lawyer, Phyllis Woo Wing-see, was also convicted on the same charge for deliberately taking away the document without the permission of prison authorities.
Principal Magistrate Ivy Chui Yee-mei found it reasonable for prison authorities to impose stringent restrictions on correspondence between detainees and the outside world so that good order could be maintained.
She said that any written complaint against the Correctional Services Department must first be screened and approved by prison officers before it could be filed to the ombudsman’s office.
A different interpretation of the requirement would run contrary to the legislative intent of enforcing discipline over inmates, the magistrate warned.
The charge arose from a meeting between Chow and his legal team at the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre on May 2 of last year.
Security footage shows Chow covertly handing over a folded complaint form enclosed in a folder to Woo while a prison guard is not watching. The lawyer is then seen nodding her head after receiving the letter.
It was not until 10 days after when the office notified the department about a coming investigation that the latter realised Chow had already filed the complaint, the court heard.
Correctional services officer Lam Chun-cheong testified during the trial that the requirement for inspecting inmates’ grievance letters was to prevent the delivery of “inappropriate” articles, such as improvised weapons and obscene drawings.
He acknowledged the lack of an express legal provision allowing the inspection of the complaint letter, but said the requirement was part of the prison service’s working protocol.
Chow’s lawyers accused Lam of threatening their client by warning him the prison’s security staff would “definitely mess with” him if he dared send the letter, but the officer denied the allegation.
Chui did not make any finding on the truthfulness of the defence’s allegation, apart from ruling that Lam was an honest and reliable witness.
She found no reason to attach any weight to Chow’s complaints about previous obstructions by prison officers when he tried to communicate with his lawyers in writing.
The magistrate also found Woo, having seen Chow’s secretive manoeuvre during their meeting, must have realised the letter given to her was an unauthorised article.
“I rule that the defendants must have shared the same [criminal] intent and become involved in [the offence] for a common purpose,” Chui said. “They acted together and performed their respective roles. Undoubtedly, both of them are liable.”
The court adjourned sentencing until mid-August to give the defence time to prepare mitigation pleas and suggest the appropriate penalties.
Carrying an unauthorised article out of prison is punishable by up to three years imprisonment and a HK$2,000 (US$260) fine under the Prison Ordinance.
Chow, 27, is also among 45 opposition politicians and activists awaiting sentence for conspiracy to subvert state power over his role in an unofficial legislative election primary in July 2020.
He was jailed earlier this year for more than five years for rioting inside the Legislative Council during the 2019 anti-government protests.
