Hong Kong Court Upholds Convictions of Cardinal Joseph Zen and Trustees of Protest Relief Fund
2 sources · Hong Kong
Who reported this
- Hong Kong Free Press
- South China Morning Post
What the colours mean
- Left
- Centre-left
- Centre
- Centre-right
- Right
- A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.
Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.
Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.
The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.
Every source for this story reports from Hong Kong.
A Hong Kong court has upheld the convictions of Cardinal Joseph Zen and four other trustees of the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund for failing to register the group as a society. The Court of Appeal on Thursday dismissed the appeal filed by Zen, barrister Margaret Ng, former lawmaker Cyd Ho, scholar Hui Po-keung, and singer-activist Denise Ho. The five individuals were originally found guilty in November 2022 and were each fined HK$4,000 by the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts.
The 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund was established in June 2019 to provide financial support to protesters arrested or injured during the anti-extradition bill movement. The fund announced its dissolution in August 2021. The appellants argued that the fund was a trust rather than a society and contended that the ruling could infringe upon the freedom of association. However, the three Court of Appeal judges ruled that the fund was indeed a society and that the registration scheme was constitutional.
Chief Judge of the High Court Jeremy Poon wrote that the appellants intended to use the fund as a vehicle to collect and apply public donations to support the 2019 protests. The court found that the appellants managed the operations like a governing body. Margaret Ng stated that the group intends to take the case to the Court of Final Appeal, noting that the case concerns the broader application of the Societies Ordinance.
Reports on the ruling differ in framing. A center-left source emphasizes the potential negative impact on civil society and the freedom of association. A center-right source focuses on the court's finding that the registration scheme is constitutional and does not impose an unacceptably harsh burden on rights.
How each side framed it
- Centre-left
- Framed the ruling as a potential threat to civil society and the freedom of association.
- Centre-right
- Framed the ruling as a confirmation that the registration scheme is constitutional and legally sound.
Sources
100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.