Several members of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” and their accomplices, accused of conspiring to kill police officers by detonating bombs during the “black-clad riots” in 2019, were sentenced last week in the High Court, with the ringleader of the terrorist plot receiving 23 years and 10 months in prison, while the remaining six core members were sentenced to between 5 years 10 months and 13-and-a-half years each.

This is the first case prosecuted under the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Chapter 575 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (UNATMO) in Hong Kong, in which the Department of Justice invoked the UNATMO for a jury trial. The defendants were charged with “conspiracy to murder”, “unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition”, “manufacture of explosives” and other serious charges, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment.

This is the heaviest sentence among the cases involving violence in the 2019 riots, and carries a high degree of significance, sending out a strong message that Hong Kong is firmly committed to upholding the rule of law and resolutely punishing crime, as well as conveying the message that the law has zero tolerance for acts of violence, especially terrorism.

Details of the crime revealed during the trial were horrifying. After setting up a “Dragon Slaying Brigade” squad in July 2019, seven members of the group traveled to Taiwan to receive military training, including how to make explosives and use firearms; they then finalized a plan to detonate bombs and kill police officers during a protest. As part of their plot, they also ordered real guns by mail from the United States and tried them out in Sai Kung over a six-month period.

Obviously, the “Dragon Slaying Brigade’s” bomb plot was an organized, premeditated and well planned terrorist action with evil intent, targeting law enforcers while disregarding the life of other people at the scene, including protesters from their own ranks.

Their operation would have resulted in a large number of casualties, including police officers, protestors, passersby and bystanders, had the plot not been thwarted by the police just before it was carried out.

The trial judge said in her sentencing that the plot mastermind, Ng Chi-Hung, had a “staggeringly vicious mind”, while the defendants did not care about the lives of others. Their “viciousness is beyond description”, and the plot obviously a declaration of war against society, she added.

The heavy penalties, which match those handed down in similar cases in other jurisdictions, reflect the seriousness of the bomb plot case and the culpability of the defendants,  and send a clear message to all potential offenders: Terrorist activities and acts that jeopardize public security or disrupt the tranquility of the community will be dealt with according to the law.

This was the first time that the anti-terrorism ordinance has been invoked to prosecute a case.

While seven offenders in this case were convicted and given heavy sentences, six other defendants were acquitted by the jury, arousing strong doubts about the city’s jury system and calls for an overhaul.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has emphasized that it will not hesitate to invoke the National Security Law for Hong Kong and the Safeguarding Hong Kong National Security Ordinance to deal with any similar case in the future.

That means offenders would have less chance of escaping justice as the national security laws have closed off many legal loopholes.

Terrorism is a serious crime anywhere in the world, to which governments have adopted an intolerant approach. According to the National Security Act, enacted in July 2023, the police in the United Kingdom can prohibit a suspect from leaving their home, or compel them to remain on certain premises, and prohibit the use of computers or cell phones as a mandatory punishment whenever they consider that there is a “reasonable excuse” to do so.

Under the National Security Act, UK courts can choose not to hold a public trial for reasons of “protecting national security”.

The case of the Jan 6, 2021 violent break-in of  Capitol Hill in Washington by radicalized protesters ended with two protesters, Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio, convicted for their involvement in the incident, with Rhodes sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment and Tarrio receiving a heavier sentence of 22 years. In the US, both physical acts of violence and terrorist speech on the internet are subject to strict legal scrutiny and punishment.

In comparison, countries such as the UK, the US and Singapore have a wide range of provisions in their national security laws, and the penalties are tougher than those under Hong Kong’s national security laws. It is significant thatboth the US and Singapore can impose the death penalty .

The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong &Macao Studies, and president of the Association for the Promotion of Rule of Law, Education and Technologies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.