Jurors begin deliberations on fate of 7 suspects in Hong Kong bombing to kill police

The seventh suspect, Lau Pui-ying, denied the charge of conspiracy to provide or collect property to commit terrorist acts.

Brigade leader Wong Chun-keung previously pleaded guilty and became a prosecution witness, testifying against his former teammates, who allegedly knew about the plot and agreed to help lure police officers when plot mastermind Ng Chi-hung planned to detonate the bombs.

During the trial, the prosecution called two more suspects to testify: Eddie Pang Kwan-ho and David Su. They were to tell the court that Ng’s team had real weapons and explosives and had arranged for a sniper to shoot police officers with a rifle.

The jurors – three men and six women – have been in court every day since the trial began in April at 8:45 a.m. They receive a stipend of HK$995 for each day they serve.

Last week, the judge told jurors to pack their bags and prepare to spend the night. It was unlikely they would reach a verdict in a day, given the complexity of the trial. There were thousands of pieces of evidence, including 10 bundles of extensive Telegram chat data taken from the defendants’ phones.

The jury was instructed to compare the evidence of three prosecution witnesses with the chat transcripts to determine whether the texts supported the testimonies.

In Hong Kong, verdicts can be unanimous, meaning all jurors agree, or majority, meaning all but one or two jurors agree. For a nine-member jury to reach an effective verdict, it must be unanimous or a majority of at least seven.

If jurors cannot reach a verdict in one day, they must stay overnight in High Court accommodation. They are not allowed to speak to anyone other than fellow jurors until they have made a decision.

The jury may return to the court to request further legal instructions from the judge.

Juries in a number of high-profile trials in the past decade have taken days to reach a verdict. If jurors can’t agree on a verdict, the judge can dismiss them and select a new jury.

A judge may, at his discretion, exempt jurors from jury service for a specified period. Jurors who have endured gruesome murder trials may be exempted for life.

In 2014, a nine-member jury spent five days and four nights convicting former chief secretary Rafael Hui Si-yan of pocketing HK$19.6 million in bribes and enticements after a 131-day trial. The jurors were told they would not be summoned for five years.

The following year, jurors in a gruesome murder trial at the Supreme Court heard the case of an elderly couple who had been murdered and dismembered by their son Henry Chau Hoi-leung.

Although it took the nine jurors just seven hours to find Chau guilty, the judge took into account the shocking evidence during the hearing and exempted them from jury service for life.

In a multi-charge trial, the jury can return to give different verdicts on each charge. If there is a charge on which the jurors cannot agree on a verdict, the judge can dismiss them and select a new jury.

In 2019, the Supreme Court hosted a panel of nine jurors for five days and four nights in the trial of four men, including a pro-independence activist, Edward Leung Tin-kei, accused of rioting in Mong Kok in 2016.

At the time, it was reported that some jurors had watched videos on their personal devices one night. The judge decided to investigate and require written answers from the jury. He later reminded the jury that they had been ordered to surrender all electronic gadgets.

Residents may be called to serve as jurors if they are between 21 and 64 years of age, are of sound mind and are not impaired by any disability. They must have sufficient knowledge of the language in which the proceedings will be conducted.