June
2024
A Hong Kong court found 14 Hong Kong pro-democracy leaders guilty of “conspiracy to commit subversion” under the National Security Law, a charge which carries with it a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
The 14 convicted were among the 47 defendants who allegedly tried to “subvert state power” by organizing or running as candidates in an unofficial primary election in 2020. This case marks the largest national security prosecution in Hong Kong since the law was imposed by Beijing in 2020, with major pro-democracy figures including Benny Tai, Joshua Wong, Leung Kwok-hung, and Gwyneth Ho, counted among the defendants. Since being charged in February 2021, many of those 47 have already been in pretrial imprisonment for more than three years.
Among the 47, 31 had previously pleaded guilty, and the other 16 chose to plead not guilty and proceed to a trial. The 14 convicted were among those who pleaded not guilty, with two acquitted. Soon after the court made the decision, prosecutors filed an appeal over one of the two acquittals.
Summary
The case is the first subversion trial in Hong Kong. Without any precedent, the court judgment is therefore of significant concern and will likely be indicative of the direction of future national security cases.
One of the major controversies during the trial was whether vetoing the budget and pushing for the resignation of the Chief Executive–allegedly the ultimate goal of the primary election–constitutes an “unlawful means with a view to subverting the State power” under the National Security Law. Defendants argued that vetoing the budget is supposedly a constitutional right of a Legislative Councilor, and thus should not be seen as “unlawful”. However, the court held that vetoing the budget indiscriminately would amount to an abuse of power, which thereby constitutes “unlawful means”, despite lacking any element of criminal behavior nor the use of force.
The judgment has greatly lowered the threshold for what constitutes “unlawful” behavior under the National Security Law, making the law a more arbitrary and effective tool against Hong Kong’s political opposition. It is also concerning that the judgment further weakens the role of the legislature in Hong Kong, to such an extent that legislators even speaking or voting against government directives could be considered an “abuse of power”.
Analysis
