By Jerome A. Cohen
This case is important for understanding the contemporary PRC criminal justice system. Yet so little is known to the public about it, and it raises so many questions. Perhaps our Australian colleagues, in and out of government, can tell us more. Is the conviction based on conduct committed over 30 years ago in Hong Kong? Is Yang, as reported, too weak to lodge an appeal? That seems surprising. Has Australia retained PRC counsel well-connected to the Ministry of State Security? On occasion I have found that useful in arranging, for example, release on medical grounds for prisoners who have been harshly sentenced in a first instance trial.
It is evident that there has been a long struggle within the PRC bureaucracy over this case, which is why it took three years to announce a sentence after "trial". Has Australia released the record of its contacts with Yang including consular access, retention of counsel, efforts to attend the "trial" and to obtain relevant documents including the indictment and the court's judgment, and conversations with his "defense counsel"? If Yang is very seriously ill, there is a chance of medical release since the PRC does not like political prisoners to die on its premises, and in any event an appeal might reduce the sentence to something more conventional like a dozen years.
An adverse world reaction can occasionally overcome even the preference of the Ministry of State Security. So this case goes far beyond the fascinating details of Australia-China relations.