Former HKJA chairman Ronson Chan was convicted on May 29 in an old case involving him obstructing a plainclothes police officer in the execution of duty in Hong Kong, the Associated Press reported.
In September 2022, he was sentenced to five days in prison for refusing to show his identity card to police while reporting on a residential estate event in Mong Kok for the independent media outlet Channel C. A plainclothes officer had stopped him from covering the event, claiming he was behaving “suspiciously,” according to details released by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the international press freedom organization.
The organization also issued a statement criticizing the ruling, arguing that Chan had been imprisoned on what it described as “baseless charges.”
RSF said the case demonstrated the authorities’ willingness to use every available means to silence independent media. The organization warned that the verdict sets a dangerous precedent, potentially giving police greater latitude to further erode press freedoms that have already been significantly weakened.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Ronson Chan sentenced to five days in jail
According to media reports Chan was stopped by police while reporting in 2022 and was asked to present his identity card.
Chan was particularly sensitive about police requests to inspect his ID because, during the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests, officers had displayed his identity card in front of a live camera broadcast. As a result, he questioned why he was being stopped. The exchange between Chan and the officer lasted for roughly half a minute before another officer intervened, according to reports.
An old report by Hong Kong News said that Hong Kong police broke “privacy law” by publicly displaying Chan’s ID card and the cop’s act was also criticized then by the Privacy Commissioner.
Although Chan eventually produced his identity card, he was arrested and later charged with “obstructing a police officer in the lawful execution of duty,” commonly referred to in Hong Kong as “obstructing police.”
Chan pleaded not guilty. In September 2023, he was convicted and sentenced to five days’ in prison. He subsequently appealed the ruling.
When he appeared in court on May 29 to hear the appeal decision, Chan wore a black T-shirt printed years earlier by the HKJA bearing the words “Press Freedom.” He said that press freedom is a solemn guarantee enshrined in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Yet, he noted, he had been accused of committing a crime merely because he did not immediately hand over his identity card
Chan argued that, in the face of the laws under which he was prosecuted, the principle of press freedom appeared increasingly fragile. “Where exactly is press freedom?” he asked. He also expressed hope that he would be the last journalist to face legal proceedings as a result of carrying out journalistic work under such laws.
The appellant argued that the Hong Kong Police Force Ordinance grants police the authority only to stop a suspect, but does not authorize officers to inspect a suspect’s identity card. According to the appeal, any authority to examine an identity card must derive from the Public Order Ordinance or the Immigration Ordinance.
The defense also challenged the legality of the stop-and-search, arguing that the undercover female officer repeatedly changed her explanation for why she considered Chan “suspicious.” At times, she said he had crossed the street diagonally; at other times, she said he was holding onto his cross-body bag. The defense contended that neither action could reasonably be considered suspicious behavior and questioned whether the officer had targeted Chan for political reasons because he was the chairman of the journalists’ association.
Judge Wong Sze-lai rejected the argument, stating that the Hong Kong Police Force Ordinance expressly provides that police officers may “stop a person and require that person to produce proof of identity for inspection by the police officer.” She said the statute clearly empowers police to stop individuals and inspect their identity documents.
The judge further criticized the appellant’s interpretation, arguing that it effectively sought to insert words into the legislation that do not appear in the text of the ordinance.
In her written judgment, Judge Wong Sze-lai said that she accepted the officers’ testimony that they did not know who Ronson Chan was. She found that the defense’s allegations lacked both evidentiary and factual support and ruled that the police had acted properly in carrying out their duties under the circumstances.
The judge further held that Chan’s delay in producing his identity documents constituted obstruction. As a result, she upheld both the conviction and the original sentence of five days’ imprisonment.
RSF: A dangerous precedent
In response, Reporters Without Borders issued a statement expressing dissatisfaction with the ruling.
According to Aleksandra Bielakowska, RSF’s Asia-Pacific Advocacy Manager, the imprisonment of Ronson Chan—a prominent figure in Hong Kong’s independent media community—on what she described as “trumped-up charges” demonstrates the authorities’ willingness to go to great lengths to silence independent journalism.
She argued that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent by granting police broader scope to act against journalists and further erode press freedoms that have already been significantly diminished.
RSF noted that the Hong Kong Journalists Association has defended press freedom since 1968, but in recent years has come under attack from the Hong Kong government and pro-Beijing figures. According to the organization, the HKJA has faced pressure including what it described as “arbitrary” tax audits, surveillance, and doxxing, while remaining one of the few independent civil society organizations still operating in the city.
HKJA raises press freedom concerns
The Hong Kong Journalist Association (HKJA) also issued a statement expressing concern that journalists carrying out reporting duties could be deemed suspicious by police and subjected to stops and searches. The association argued that journalists may not be given a reasonable opportunity to verify the identity of law enforcement officers, creating additional legal risks for reporters in the field and potentially undermining press freedom.
The statement further argued that the so-called “suspicious actions” accepted by the court were, in reality, ordinary everyday behaviors. It maintained that when confronted by unidentified plainclothes officers, citizens are acting reasonably and lawfully when they ask those officers to provide identification and clearly explain the purpose of the interaction.
According to the HKJA, such conduct is fundamentally different from deliberately obstructing law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.
