Duty of Hong Kong courts to uphold law

That the courts in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have rejected the bail applications of some detainees arrested by the police in the recent riots for the first time since the unrest began in June has been viewed as a sign that at last the courts are going to stop showing the rioters excessive－and therefore encouraging－leniency.

Whether that proves to be the case or not remains to be seen.

Until now, the city's judicial system, inherited from the British colonial system, has been a condoner of the rioting, rather than a defender of law and order. Before the current rejections of bail applications, it is believed that more than 5,000 detainees charged with illegal assembly or violent crimes had been released on bail.

Under Hong Kong law, a magistrate is required to grant bail to a defendant, unless there appear to be substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would abscond or commit an offense while on bail. Given the nature of the offenses that has led to the rioters being brought before the bench, and the public comments of some after being granted bail, most people of reasonable mind would consider it likely that the rioters would re-offend after being released on bail.

With the courts seemingly giving a wink as good as a nod to their unbridled hooliganism and vandalism, the rioters have felt free of any legal constraints on their behavior, which has led the young radical protesters to believe that illegal actions no matter how extreme will not be sanctioned by the law.

That's why the violence has constantly intensified and become more prevalent. So long as the death toll is kept at the level of being isolated incidents then the rioters can still claim they are engaging in a "peaceful protest" and any fatalities are merely unfortunate one-offs.

Hong Kong's judiciary should realize how much debt it has already incurred by acquiescing in the unlawfulness over the past six months.

This is evident in the bail applications that frequently cite such excuses as study, travel or attending friends' weddings as reasons for the detainees to be released. If not for the leniency of the courts, the detainees would have understood the possible consequences and legal liabilities of their highly dangerous actions, which range from using corrosive chemicals to attack law enforcers, bringing explosives to schools and deliberately sabotaging mass transit railways.

That those Hong Kong residents who have dared to stand out by cleaning the roadblocks under the threat of attack are praised as heroes indicates how far this previously model city for the rule of law has been damaged by the perverted hubris of the rioters.

Rather than the toothpaste-squeeze of a makeshift concession to answer the calls for restoring law and order in the SAR, what Hong Kong desperately needs now is a fundamental change in the perspective of the courts, otherwise it will continue to be an out-of-bounds area for law-abiding citizens.