Rome Newsroom, Oct 27, 2022 / 08:24 am (CNA).
The trial of Cardinal Joseph Zen resumed in Hong Kong on Wednesday, days after the Vatican announced the renewal of its agreement with Beijing.
Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang took the floor on Oct. 26 in the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, where Zen and five other pro-democracy activists have been charged for failing to apply for local society registration for the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund between 2019 and 2021.
The prosecution argued that the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund needed to be registered with the police because of its “massive” size and “systematic” mode of operation, according to the South China Morning Post.
The fund helped pro-democracy protesters pay their legal fees until it dissolved itself in October 2021. Chau argued that the fund was political in nature and therefore did not qualify for the exemption in Hong Kong’s Societies Ordinance for organizations set up “for religious, charitable, social, or recreational purposes.”
The defense will make its arguments before Principal Magistrate Ada Yim Shun-yee on Oct. 31.
According to the defense, the Societies Ordinance was unconstitutional, gave an ambiguous definition of a “society,” and had requirements that went beyond what was necessary to protect national security, Asia News reported.
The Societies Ordinance required any club, company, partnership, or association of persons to register with the police commissioner or ask for an exemption within one month of its establishment.
Zen and the other democracy activists could face a $1,200 (HK$10,000) fine for violating the ordinance.
The cardinal was arrested in May along with other democracy activists under Hong Kong’s strict national security law but now faces a less serious charge. He has been free on bail since early May.
All the defendants have pleaded not guilty. Those accused with Zen are lawyer Margaret Ng, singer-activist Denise Ho, cultural studies scholar Hui Po-keung, activist Sze Ching-wee, and ex-legislator Cyd Ho, who is already jailed for a different charge.
The 90-year-old and retired bishop of Hong Kong’s most recent court appearance took place four days after the Vatican announced its decision to renew for another two years its provisional agreement with the Chinese government on the appointment of bishops. Zen has been one of the most outspoken critics of the Vatican’s agreement with China since it was first signed in 2018.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
May I throw out some suggestions based on estoppel on statute and general law.
The topic on statute estoppeles in the Commonwealth is adequately summed up in the 2 links, Modern Law Review (Wiley) and Osgoode Hall (Digital Commons).
Both titles are important, “Estoppels against Statutes” and “Contradictory Government Action”. The sources discussed are all on point and seminal, it depends on the category of issue involved. One has to look at actions, representations, inducements, etc.
I can offer my own summary but I think if the material has application the advocates involved should have a go on it unaffected by any viewpoint. In any event both articles are skillfully written and well worth exploring in depth.
I would just point out that the authorities actually demonstrate that in the common law the idea that discretionary decision and action, of public authorities, generally are immune from review by the courts, IS FALSE and alien to the law.
And that is so in spite of assertions to the contrary all the way up to the House of Lords/Supreme Court of Judicature.
Wouldn’t you like to know!
By the looks of it the case for Cardinal Zen and company, has been submitted already; but quite likely there is time to make additional pleading and amendments if necessary.
Apart from estoppel there are the other areas like 1. retroactive imposition, where they may be trying to enforce the law later but can not implicate guilt under a prior policy; and 2. if non-compliance only created procedural consequences, there is no lawlessness.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb01094.x
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2071&context=ohlj
Could it be the Prosecution is “trying to get the courts to re-work prior policy decision of public authority that had already been validly exercised”?
‘ Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang maintained that the fund, initially set up to support those injured or arrested during the extradition bill movement in 2019, was political in nature and did not qualify for an exemption. ‘
https://www.licas.news/2022/10/28/cardinal-zens-trial-reopens-in-hong-kong-days-after-vatican-china-deal-renewal/