In Hong Kong’s courtrooms, mitigation pleas are often the most emotionally charged part of proceedings before sentencing. When defendants or their lawyers plead for leniency on grounds of deteriorating health or advanced age and frailty, the public often feels sympathy. However, as a legal scholar, I must point out: For crimes with irrefutable evidence, especially those of an extremely serious nature, personal circumstances must never override the fundamental principles of the rule of law. Hong Kong’s scales of justice, when faced with serious crimes, must ultimately be calibrated by societal justice.

Under common law, Hong Kong’s mitigation system aims to allow courts to fully consider a defendant’s personal circumstances during sentencing, embodying the humanitarian spirit of the Judiciary. However, this is by no means unprincipled forgiveness. A key principle consistently followed by the courts is: “Mitigating factors are only considered where appropriate, and must never outweigh the fundamental seriousness of the offense.” This is not empty rhetoric.

In a series of authoritative judgments, such as HKSAR vs Abdallah Anwar Abbas (2009), the Court of Appeal clearly stated that for serious offenses, societal justice and the deterrent effect of punishment must be the overriding considerations. The weight given to personal hardship factors must be measured against the nature of the crime and the harm inflicted upon victims and society.

In Hong Kong law, the offense of murder is the prime example embodying the principle of supremacy of the right to life. According to the Offences against the Person Ordinance, the mandatory sentence upon conviction for murder is life imprisonment. This is a rigid statutory provision, underpinned by the supreme respect for the right to life.

In the Ho Wai-ha Street Killing Case (1999), despite the defendant having multiple grounds for mitigation, the court firmly stated that the seriousness of murder necessitated a life sentence to reflect society’s abhorrence of such crimes.

Cases like this clearly convey a message: When a crime involves the unlawful deprivation of another’s life, the law’s response must be absolute and consistently severe. Any personal circumstance, including health and age, cannot constitute grounds for sentence reduction before this iron rule. This is not cold-blooded, but the ultimate defense of the value of life by a society governed by the rule of law.

Local cases affirm the limited role of mitigation in serious crimes. It is not only murder where Hong Kong courts have repeatedly demonstrated this steadfast stance. In other serious criminal cases, such as large-scale drug trafficking (HKSAR vs Tam Yi-chun (2014)) or severe corruption and fraud cases, even when defendants are elderly or ill, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly dismissed appeals seeking substantial sentence reductions based on personal circumstances.

The courts have emphasized that showing undue leniency toward serious offenders due to personal hardship would severely undermine the law’s deterrent effect and damage public confidence in judicial fairness. These judgments firmly establish a principle: The levee of the rule of law cannot be breached by the individual misfortune of specific defendants.

When a crime involves the unlawful deprivation of another’s life, the law’s response must be absolute and consistently severe. Any personal circumstance, including health and age, cannot constitute grounds for sentence reduction before this iron rule. This is not cold-blooded, but the ultimate defense of the value of life by a society governed by the rule of law

Allowing health or age factors to excessively influence sentencing for serious crimes would have extremely negative societal consequences. It would send a dangerous signal that simply being old enough or sick enough might earn one leniency from the law.

Certainly, this constitutes a double injury to victims and their families and erodes society’s collective sense of security. The Judiciary must not only resolve individual cases but also uphold the overall legal order and public trust. When evidence is irrefutable and the crime is serious, imposing a severe sentence is the court’s manifestation of responsibility to society, a clear condemnation of criminal behavior, and a necessary warning to potential offenders.

Of course, this is by no means advocating neglect for elderly or ill prisoners. The Hong Kong Correctional Services Department has the responsibility and capability to provide all people in custody with medical care meeting humanitarian standards. For the very few prisoners whose health deteriorates extremely severely, strict review mechanisms exist within the system to consider whether special arrangements (such as applying for early release under the Prison Rules) can be made on compassionate grounds.

The key point is that humanitarian considerations should be reflected in the execution of the sentence, not by distorting the sentence itself during the sentencing stage. Only this can balance the solemnity of the rule of law with societal benevolence.

National security is a matter of paramount importance, brooking no failure. Had Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s collusion activities succeeded, the consequences would have been extremely severe. It would not only have led to so-called sanctions against Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland, seriously affecting the economy and people’s livelihoods, but also undermined Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, causing losses to the interests of the general public.

Recalling the “black-clad riots” in 2019-20, Lai’s related conspiracies already inflicted immense harm on Hong Kong. Beyond economic damage and a severe blow to prosperity and stability, it also resulted in students being unable to attend school normally and major disruptions to transportation and economic activities, with profound and far-reaching detrimental effects.

During the trial of Lai’s case, there have consistently been those with ulterior motives attempting to package legal enforcement against his criminal as so-called political persecution, and to portray him as a hero suffering from poor health and unreasonable treatment. However, facts speak louder than words. The judges, Lai’s own defense lawyers, and the records of the authorities have all rebutted such claims.

As for his daughter’s recent attempts to play the empathy card recently, they are utterly baseless. All are equal before the law, and no special treatment is given based on status. The Correctional Services Department has consistently provided a safe detention environment, which has been acknowledged even by Lai’s defense lawyers. The allegations of mistreatment are entirely unfounded.

Furthermore, Lai continued to commit offenses related to this case during his bail and remand periods, including instructing co-defendant witness Cheung Kim-hung to operate Apple Daily in its original manner. This demonstrates his fundamental contempt for the rule of law.

The rule of law is the cornerstone of Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. Its strength lies precisely in the clarity of its rules and the fairness of their enforcement. For extremely serious crimes such as murder and endangering national security, the law has set penalties that admit no compromise. This is precisely the most fundamental safeguard for life, social order and national security.

The firmness usually displayed by the courts when handling mitigation pleas is not a lack of compassion, but rather a steadfast adherence to a broader, more fundamental societal justice. Personal misfortune deserves sympathy, but the bottom line of justice cannot be shaken. In the face of serious crimes supported by ironclad evidence, only by steadfastly upholding the rigidity of the law can we truly defend the fairness and justice upon which we all depend for our existence. The court will certainly deliver a just final verdict on Lai. This is the profound essence of Hong Kong’s spirit of the rule of law.

The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and president of the Association for the Promotion of Rule of Law, Education and Technologies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.