Australia Concerned by Detained Journalist's Delayed Verdict in China
Facts
- Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong on Friday expressed concerns over delays in the case of Chinese-Australian journalist Cheng Lei, as no verdict has been handed exactly a year after she faced a closed-door trial in Beijing.1
- Wong's statement comes as Cheng's sentencing has reportedly been postponed for a fourth time, now expected for April 19. Due to the case allegedly involving China's national secrets, Australian officials were denied access to the trial.2
- Asked about Cheng's case in a daily briefing on Friday, China's foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning claimed her lawful rights and interests are fully protected but offered no new information.3
- The China-born, Australia-raised former TV host for Chinese state broadcaster CGTN and mother of two was arrested in 2020 on the charge of providing state secrets to a foreign country.4
- Her partner, Nick Coyle, called this week for Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews to raise her case during his visit to China after the regional leader said he wouldn't discuss Cheng's situation.5
- Australian news outlet The Daily Telegraph last August reported that Cheng Lei has experienced dire prison conditions, allegedly based on consular reports produced by Australian diplomats.6
Sources: 1Al Jazeera, 2The canberra times, 3Associated Press, 4Reuters, 5Archive and 6Dw.com.
Narratives
- Anti-China narrative, as provided by Skynews. This case exposes how little Beijing cares about international norms. It's absurd that one year after facing a closed-door trial, Cheng is still waiting to learn the outcome, despite Canberra's renewed efforts to ensure she would be afforded basic standards of justice, procedural fairness, and humane treatment.
- Pro-China narrative, as provided by Global times. Though Australia attempts to slander China and damage its judicial sovereignty under the guise of protecting a dual national, the fact is that everything related to Cheng's case is in accordance with the law. The closed-door trial was completely legitimate as state secrets were being discussed, and a verdict will be issued in due time.