The verdict in the sedition case against Hong Kong outlet Stand News and two of its former editors has been postponed again pending a higher court’s ruling.
It has been almost two years since the online news outlet and the veteran journalists were charged under the colonial-era sedition law. A verdict was originally expected on Wednesday, after already being delayed, following the closely-watched trial which has fuelled concerns about the city’s press freedom.
Instead, district judge Kwok Wai-kin decided to delay his verdict until after the Court of Appeal had ruled in a separate sedition case involving pro-democracy activist “Fast-Beat” Tam Tak-chi. In July, the Court of Appeal said that it would deliver its decision on Tam’s case within nine months.
Kwok’s decision came after a recent judgement reached by UK’s Privy Council about a case in the Caribbean country Trinidad and Tobago, which ruled that sedition offences “must include an intention to incite violence or disorder.”
Once the final court of appeal for places colonised by Britain, the Privy Council still rules on appeals from some former colonies. This could have wider implications on future rulings within common law jurisdictions, according to legal experts.
It was also revealed in District Court on Wednesday that the Court of Appeal had received submissions from both the prosecution and the defence in Tam’s case regarding the Privy Council’s decision. It had not yet given further instruction, according to lead prosecutor Laura Ng.
Tam was convicted of 11 charges, including sedition, and sentenced to three years and four months in prison last March. He launched an appeal in July, with his lawyer Philip Dykes arguing that an intention to incite violence should be proven in sedition cases, which had not been done during Tam’s trial.
Kwok said that since the Court of Appeal would rule on the same issue, and given the “persuasive authority” of the Privy Council’s decision, it would be “safest” to wait for the higher court’s judgement.
He said his verdict would be handed down within 30 days of the Court of Appeal ruling on Tam’s case, describing it as a “clear formula.”
Seditious intent
Chung Pui-kuen, former Stand News editor-in-chief, and Patrick Lam, former acting chief editor, both stand accused of conspiring to publish seditious publications along with the outlet’s parent company, Best Pencil Limited. They were arrested and charged in December 2021.
A lengthy trial which began last October has put 17 allegedly seditious articles – including interviews, profiles, hard news reporting and opinion pieces – under scrutiny.
The 17 allegedly seditious Stand News articles – click to view
- Profile of Gwyneth Ho, a candidate in the 2020 legislative primaries held by the pro-democracy camp, published on July 7, 2020.
- Profile of Owen Chow, a candidate in the 2020 legislative primaries held by the pro-democracy camp, published on July 27, 2020.
- Profile of Fergus Leung, a candidate in the 2020 legislative primaries held by the pro-democracy camp, published on August 12, 2020.
- Commentary by Chan Pui-man, Apple Daily’s former associate publisher, criticising speech crimes, published on September 12, 2020.
- Commentary by Nathan Law, a former lawmaker now in self-exile, on “how to resist” under the national security law, published on September 20, 2020.
- Profile of Law on his “battlefront” of calling for sanctions on the Hong Kong government in the UK, published on December 9, 2020.
- Commentary by Law on “resilience in a chaotic world,” published on December 13, 2020.
- Feature interview with Ted Hui, a former lawmaker in self-exile, after he fled Hong Kong with his family, published on December 14, 2020.
- Feature interview with Baggio Leung, a former lawmaker in self-exile, as he called for sanctions on Hong Kong and a “lifeboat scheme for Hongkongers,” published on December 15, 2020.
- Commentary by Sunny Cheung, an activist in self-exile, responding to being wanted by the Hong Kong government, published on December 28, 2020.
- Commentary by Allan Au, a veteran journalist, on “new words in 2020,” which included “national security,” “disqualified” and “in exile,” published on December 29, 2020.
- Commentary by Au calling a national security trial a show, published on February 3, 2021.
- Commentary by Law paralleling the mass arrests of candidates in the democrats’ primaries to mass arrests during Taiwan’s white terror period, published on March 2, 2021.
- Commentary by Au accusing the authorities of “lawfare” in usage of the sedition law, published on June 1, 2021.
- Commentary by Au describing Hong Kong as a disaster scene after the implementation of national security law, published on June 22, 2021.
- Feature about CUHK graduates’ march on campus to mourn the second anniversary of the police-student clash in 2019, published on November 11, 2021.
- Report on Chow Hang-tung’s response to being honoured with the Prominent Chinese Democracy Activist award, published on December 5, 2021.
During the trial, the prosecution argued that there was no need to prove the editors’ seditious intent. Instead, the focus should be whether the 17 articles concerned – including interviews and commentary – were seditious, and whether the editors knew they were seditious, lead prosecutor Ng told the court in June.
Defence counsel Audrey Eu contended that the articles in question were cherrypicked out of ten of thousands of pieces published by the outlet, adding that the prosecution had shifted ground by introducing hundreds of articles beyond the original evidence list.
See also: Hong Kong’s Stand News Trial
Ng and Eu spoke in turn on Wednesday to debate whether the Privy Council’s decision was relevant in the Stand News case.
Ng argued that Hong Kong and Trinidad and Tobago had a vastly different social order and that the decision was “totally irrelevant.”
In response, Eu said that both Hong Kong and Trinidad and Tobago had based their sedition laws on the “modal law” provided by the UK during the colonial era. She added that the decision was aligned with the defence argument that a judge should not unreasonably restrict freedom of speech when adjudicating sedition cases.
In July, Court of First Instance judge Anna Lai also said the court would hear the appeal application from a 19-year-old who was convicted of sedition and insulting national symbols after the Court of Appeal had ruled on Tam’s case.
Sedition is not covered by the Beijing-imposed national security law, which targets secession, subversion, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts and mandates up to life imprisonment. Those convicted under the sedition law – last amended in the 1970s when Hong Kong was still a British colony – face a maximum penalty of two years in prison.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.
