Date
27 May 2017
Lam Long-yin (left) and Li Chung-chak (right) were sentenced in a Sha Tin magistrate's court after being convicted of unlawful assembly. Photos: HK govt, The Stand News
Lam Long-yin (left) and Li Chung-chak (right) were sentenced in a Sha Tin magistrate's court after being convicted of unlawful assembly. Photos: HK govt, The Stand News

Scholarism duo sentenced to 80 hours of community service

Lam Long-yin, 20, a former convener of Scholarism, and Li Chung-chak, 18, a member of the student activist group, have been sentenced to 80 hours of community service for unlawful assembly, Apple Daily reported Friday.

The pair charged police lines when Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying attended a public consultation at Sha Tin Government Secondary School in November 2013.

They each pleaded guilty in a Sha Tin magistrate’s court to three counts of unlawful assembly.

The magistrate handed out the sentence on the recommendation of a community service order report.

He said Lam and Li, who were young and had good records, had showed remorse.

The pair’s lawyer said Lam and Li have come to understand their mistakes and will adopt legal and peaceful methods to get their message across in future.

Lam said he has stepped down from the front line of the fight for democracy but will continue to join gatherings for that cause in future. 

Li said he would like to devote his time to sit for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education examination.

The defendants rejected a request by the Department of Justice to obtain copies of their community service order reports for its files.

Lam said outside court that he felt gutted at the DOJ’s attempt to collect confidential information on the pair and their families.

Barrister Albert Luk Wai-hung said probation orders and community service order reports are highly classified documents, as they contain personal information.

These reports are always directly submitted to magistrates for their reference in deciding on a sentence.

While the defendants are entitled to obtain a copy to verify the accuracy of information in them, there is no need for the plaintiff to read the reports.

Luk said he was curious as to why the DOJ would want a copy of the reports.

He said that to have a copy for the department’s records is not a valid reason.

– Contact us at [email protected]

EL/AC/FL

EJI Weekly Newsletter

Please click here to unsubscribe