On Nov 29, 2019, the 12-day siege of the Polytechnic University (PolyU) came to an end. This was after those who had invaded the university and were part of the wider attempt to wreck the “one country, two systems” policy had trashed the premises, causing damage of approximately HK$700 million ($90 million). Although they also attacked the police with Molotov cocktails, catapults, and bows and arrows, the officers, who could have stormed the campus, played a waiting game, which paid dividends.

Nobody was killed, injuries were limited, and there were no “martyrs”. As everything played out in public, those directing the violence had little scope for mythmaking. They could not, for example, invent stories of people being killed by the police, as they did after their thugs were cornered at the Prince Edward MTR station on Aug 31 of that year (at least one of those who allegedly died was later paraded in London by Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China hate machine).  

However, while the siege progressed, those who supported the invasion tried to help the culprits from outside. When they attempted to break through the police blockade, violent clashes erupted. On the night of Nov 18, there were multiple arrests, with 213 people later being charged with rioting.

Meanwhile, once their situation became intolerable, the invaders inside PolyU tried to flee, although many were caught. By then, the insurrection was in its seventh month, and the successful police operation at PolyU, which saw over 1,300 arrests, was the beginning of the end. Never again would black-clad separatists be able to terrorize the streets, torch public and private facilities, and attack people who tried to reason with them.

Once the occupation ended, the president of PolyU, Teng Jin Guang, reported (Nov 29) that severe damage had been done by the invaders to buildings, facilities, laboratories and many other things (he also pointed out that most of them were unconnected to the university). They were not, as the foreign media claimed, pro-democracy activists but political hoodlums bent on violence and destruction. It was, for them, of no consequence that the city’s educational institutions were being destroyed and that the prospects of the broad mass of decent students were being imperiled.  

Although Hong Kong survived the insurrection, it had a very narrow escape. Whereas the police displayed great courage throughout, despite being repeatedly firebombed and having their families targeted, the prosecutors and the judges also stepped up to the plate. It was a collective effort to save Hong Kong, and everybody focused resolutely on sustaining its capitalist system and way of life.

Once the central authorities realized the police lacked essential defensive tools, and saw foreign forces encouraging the insurrectionists, they could have easily called time on the “one country, two systems” policy.

However, instead of ordering the People’s Liberation Army to restore law and order, as many of those behind the violence wanted (knowing it would represent the policy’s failure), they kept faith with Hong Kong. They not only stood four-square behind the local authorities but provided the national security law of 2020, which enabled the city to properly defend itself (for which they have been denigrated ever since by the US and its allies who, having aided and abetted the troublemakers, provided them with safe haven when they fled from the scene of their crimes).

Once the situation had been regularized at PolyU, the police and the prosecutors faced logistical difficulties. As the police operation had been so successful, numerous rioters were arrested. There was a mountain of evidence to evaluate, which took a lot of time. The prosecutors spent hundreds of hours studying the video recordings, the identification evidence and the witness statements and deciding whom to prosecute.

Although the authorities were criticized for not moving more expeditiously, the critics appreciated neither the scale of the task the prosecutors faced nor the caution they exercised. Suspects cannot be prosecuted unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction on the available evidence, and prosecutions cannot be rushed. If the evidence is not carefully evaluated, the wrong people might be charged, and prosecutors have a professional duty to ensure this does not happen.  

If prosecutors err, the consequences can be dire. In the UK, for example, between 1999 and 2015, over 900 sub-postmasters employed by the Post Office were accused of theft, fraud and false accounting, and 236 were imprisoned (“the Horizon IT scandal”). It was subsequently found that the convictions were based on faulty evidence, and the then-prime minister, Rishi Sunak, in May 2024, described the scandal as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history. The British Parliament enacted a law overturning the convictions, and the sub-postmasters are now eligible for compensation expected to exceed 1 billion pounds ($1.33 billion). However, the lives of many have been ruined (some committed suicide), and this type of outrage must never be allowed to happen in Hong Kong. This explains why its prosecutors always exercise such care before authorizing a prosecution.

In the event, the prosecutors, having assessed the PolyU evidence, decided that the most sensible course was to try the 213 rioters in 17 batches, and the trials have lasted for over two years. Riot cases like these invariably involve a multiplicity of suspects, but there could be no question of trying them all together. The first trial began in April, 2022, and the last trial, which ended on Sept 16, saw eight rioters sentenced to between 50 and 54 months’ imprisonment (three suspects were acquitted). Twelve of their co-accused had pleaded guilty, and, to recognize their remorse, the judge imposed lesser sentences of between 36 to 40 months’ imprisonment (DCCC 800/2020 & DCCC 577/2021).

A police spokesman, Superintendent Wong Yick-lung, described the 17 trials as having been “a very lengthy process”. He explained that the case was “unprecedented and complicated in the sense that it involved a large number of arrests”.  Indeed, all the officers involved, including the riot squad, deserve to be commended upon a job well done. They demonstrated the best that modern policing has to offer in a hazardous urban environment in which the survival of their city and the unity of their country were at stake.      

After the 17 trials concluded, the police revealed that over 500 witnesses had testified, and that over 5,000 items of evidence were adduced. Of the 213 suspects prosecuted, 189 were convicted and sentenced to between 29 and 64 months’ imprisonment, with 11 minors receiving correctional training orders. Whereas six suspects were acquitted and seven absconded, the high conviction rate was testament to the thoroughness of the police investigations and the professionalism of the prosecutors, who ensured that only meritorious cases proceeded to trial.

Although it has taken time, justice has finally been done. Those who thought they could create mayhem and destroy the “one country, two systems” policy have been thwarted and disabused of their evil ideas. However, although Hong Kong is now safe from internal threats, it still faces external dangers. They include possible sanctions on the legal community and others, business disruptions and the undermining of the economy.

Unfortunately, the US and its proxies have learned nothing from how Hong Kong overcame the turmoil of 2019-20. They still do not appreciate the resolve of its leaders and the mettle of its people, who possess courage, loyalty and resilience in abundance. They will do whatever is necessary to protect their city and safeguard its way of life, even if it involves hardship. If China’s antagonists believe they can harm the country by targeting Hong Kong, they could not be more mistaken.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.