https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/93y47p/hong-kong-national-security-trial-tong-ying-kit
法官形容法庭對刑事法概念的理解「惹人質疑」，又指唐英傑並非殺人或縱火犯，是「世界上最仁慈的恐怖份子」，質疑判刑過重。
The judge, who spoke to VICE World News anonymously due to the sensitivity of the matter, said that the court relied on a “questionable” understanding of criminal law concepts and sentenced Tong too harshly. That assessment was based on the judge’s prior experience, though they had no involvement in Tong’s trial.
“[Tong] didn’t do much of anything—he didn’t commit murder or arson,” the judge said wryly. “He is the most benevolent terrorist in the world.”
法官指唐英傑案前從未聽過高等法院審訊沒有陪審團，被告是三合會領袖亦然，又指如果想保障陪審員安全（律政司以此為由申請無陪審團審訊），必然有其他方法，而不是直接廢除制度。
In their interview, the judge said that, before Tong, they had never heard of jury-less criminal trials at the High Court. It was standard to have a jury even in cases involving triad bosses or violent sociopaths. If the government wanted to protect jurors, the judge said, “There must be some other way apart from abolishing the whole system.”
法官指解讀政治口號應交由陪審團處理，而不是依賴專家證供，但這在唐英傑案變得不可能。
According to the anonymous judge, expert testimony is useful for the court to understand matters outside the legal realm—but for interpreting political slogans, it is a flawed tool. This is precisely the kind of question best left to a jury’s “common-sense approach”, as opposed to judges thinking in an overly legalistic way, the judge said. But with the removal of the jury in Tong’s case, this became impossible.
法官指若唐英傑被控危險駕駛，刑期只會是三年監禁。他又擔心香港法庭會變得像新加玻，商業法如常但刑事法、人權法大幅倒退。
The anonymous judge who spoke to VICE World News disagreed, saying that Tong’s penalty was too severe for what was essentially a traffic offence. Had Tong been charged with dangerous driving, the facts of his case would result in three years’ imprisonment at most, the judge said.
The judge was also less sanguine about the future of Hong Kong’s courts and their ability to stay independent in politics-related cases. “We might become more like Singapore. The business law is fine, but there’s a big problem in criminal law and human rights,” which would disproportionately affect local residents, they continued.
但法官強調「法治未死」，將國安法比喻為心臟疾病，但若繼續忽視則會導致心跳停止。
The judge compared the national security law to heart disease—but hastened to add it was no reason for despair. “It’s a sign of danger. If it continues to develop, it will lead to cardiac arrest. But is it fair to say a person is worthless just because of a heart condition? No, the body is still there to compensate.”