The disbanded Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, along with its former chairman and vice-chairmen Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho Chun-yan, and Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, were each charged with one count of "inciting subversion of state power."
The case went to trial early this year. Albert Ho Chun-yan pleaded guilty in court on the very first day of the trial, while the remaining defendants denied the charges. Following the trial, the Court of First Instance of the High Court ruled last Friday (Aug 21) that all defendants were guilty as charged and adjourned the case to August 28 for mitigation.
Since its establishment, the Alliance had consistently advocated for its five operational goals, which included the objective of ending the leadership of the Communist Party of China.
Even after the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, it continued to promote these claims through websites, social media platforms, publications, memorial halls, assemblies, and street booths.
Its essence was to incite others to subvert state power. The court accepted the prosecution's evidence, deeming the evidence against all defendants to be solid and that their illegal acts had exceeded the boundaries of freedom of speech.
The case fully demonstrates that inciting the subversion of state power is an extremely serious crime, and the Special Administrative Region (SAR) has a responsibility to safeguard national security.
Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu stated that over the years, the Alliance had used various means to intentionally provoke feelings of aversion and hatred among citizens toward the Communist Party of China and the Central Government. Its conspiracy was plain to see and must be punished.
Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung also stated that regarding any plots to oppose China and disrupt Hong Kong, the SAR Government will strictly follow the principles of the rule of law to effectively prevent, suppress, and punish all acts and activities endangering national security in accordance with the law, without showing any leniency.
The court issued its reasons for verdict, pointing out that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the country and the most crucial component of the SAR's constitutional order.
The preamble of the Constitution clearly states that the leadership of the Communist Party of China is the core and foundation of the constitutional order of the People's Republic of China.
This clearly explains that the Communist Party of China and the People's Republic of China are an inseparable, unified whole; inciting others to overthrow, weaken, or end the leadership status of the Communist Party of China is, in substance, inciting the subversion of state power.
The court emphasized that the defendants were not on trial for their political views or beliefs; the court solely considered the laws and evidence relevant to this case.
The judgment pointed out that any reasonable person, especially those living in Hong Kong, when receiving messages from the Alliance's operational goals, would inevitably understand that its goal was to end the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and would also understand that the defendants were encouraging others to take action.
During the period of the charge, all defendants understood that the Alliance's operational goals would violate the Constitution, but they simply refused to "pull back from the brink" and obstinately continued their "resistance."
The court ruled that Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung attempted to destroy the "fundamental system" by provoking hostility and division to make others lose trust in the Communist Party of China.
Even though they knew their actions might exceed the scope of lawful freedom of expression and could violate the Hong Kong National Security Law, they still chose to continue.
Based on these reasons, the court ruled that the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the Alliance and all defendants guilty on all counts.
Reflecting on the 24-day trial, Albert Ho Chun-yan pleaded guilty in court on the very first day. Legal professionals pointed out that Ho, who has a legal background, has a full understanding of criminal trials, evidentiary thresholds, and the consequences of pleading guilty.
His decision to plead guilty on the first day of the trial reflects his clear understanding that the prosecution's evidence was solid, and that it would be difficult to overturn the case even if he continued to contest it.
During the trial, the prosecution invoked the "co-conspirator rule," pointing out that Ho’s relevant words and deeds after the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law could be used to prove that Lee Cheuk-yan and Tonyee Chow Hang-tung were aware of, agreed with, and acted jointly in the conspiracy.
The court subsequently ruled that the principle was applicable to this case, accepting various words and deeds presented by the prosecution as evidence against the other defendants.
The court's verdict also pointed out that the Alliance's corporate documents, massive amounts of webpage data and screenshots, 82 video clips of different occasions, and the words and deeds of each defendant relied upon by the prosecution were sufficient to prove all defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This demonstrated that they were not acting individually, but were jointly participating in, continuously publicizing, and promoting the same incitement to subversion criminal plan through the platform of the Alliance.
Many political figures agreed that the reasons for the verdict were very clear. Some even said: "During the period from the trial to the verdict, Western politicians, alongside anti-China forces and Hong Kong destabilizers, continuously used 'human rights and freedom' to cover up the years of evil deeds committed by Chow Hang-tung and other defendants, blurring or even 'heroicizing' their malicious intentions to overthrow the country! They not only interfered with judicial independence but also openly insulted the spirit of the rule of law! Yet, facts prove that when 'subversion of state power' criminals appear in those Western countries, they deal with them with severe punishment, fully exposing their 'double standard face' which is detestable."
Legal professionals cited examples showing that some Western politicians and organizations used Tonyee Chow Hang-tung's remand of nearly 1,800 days as a topic for hype to attack Hong Kong's judicial system.
However, in reality, Tonyee Chow Hang-tung actively raised multiple legal disputes before and during the trial, including applying to quash the indictment, requesting the replacement of the presiding judges, and applying to summon overseas or Taiwanese "expert witnesses." Ultimately, all of these were dismissed due to a lack of legal basis and irrelevance to the case.
"It is precisely because Hong Kong's judiciary respects Chow's rights that the trial was prolonged. In addition, during her submissions and testimony, Tonyee Chow Hang-tung repeatedly drifted away from legal and evidentiary issues, using the trial as a platform for political declarations.
The judges pointed out many times that she should focus on the facts of the case and legal issues, and clearly stated that the court is not a venue for political posturing," said a legal professional.
Following the court's verdict, Steve Li Kwai-wah, Chief Superintendent of the National Security Department, stated that the defendants used human rights as a shield to organize public activities that stirred up emotions, and colluded with foreign or external forces.
When they noticed public emotions cooling down, they added new elements to boost participation numbers. Such methods precisely reflect the characteristics of inciting behavior.
No matter how lawbreakers change their methods or how glib-tongued they are, as long as they endanger national security, they will ultimately be punished in accordance with the law under the Hong Kong National Security Law and the SAR's complete national security legal system and enforcement mechanisms.
All sectors of society strongly support the court's ruling. Some public commentaries directly pointed out that "the Alliance has planted seeds of hatred against the country in many people over the years, causing immense harm, and must be pulled out by the roots!" They believe the defendants got what they deserved. After years of unscrupulously smearing the country, they have finally "gotten their wish" today, which is absolutely their own doing!
