Court of First Instance Delivers Verdict of Conviction in Incitement to Subversion Case of "Hong Kong Alliance"

Court of First Instance delivers verdict of conviction in incitement to subversion case of "Hong Kong Alliance"

The Court of First Instance of the High Court today (August 21) delivered the verdict in the case concerning the "Hong Kong Alliance" (the Alliance), Lee Cheuk-yan, Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung, who were charged with "incitement to subversion" (contrary to Article 23 of the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL)). The Alliance, Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung were convicted as charged after trial, while Ho Chun-yan pleaded guilty earlier and was convicted. The court adjourned the case to August 28 for mitigation. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) welcomes the court's verdict of conviction.

The prison van, Photo by Bastille Post

Since its establishment, the Alliance's fundamental agendas and objectives were to end the leadership by the Communist Party of China (the CPC) and overthrow the fundamental system of the People's Republic of China (the PRC) established by the Constitution of the PRC (the Constitution). This organisation had been promoting its objectives and advocating relevant agendas through various activities and channels persistently. The defendants in this case, Lee Cheuk-yan, Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung, served as office-bearers of the Alliance at various times. Even after the HKNSL took effect, the defendants continued to engage in relevant acts and activities, constituting the criminal act of inciting other persons to organise, plan, commit or participate in acts by unlawful means with a view to subverting the state power. In fact, in 2021, the HKSAR Government had already prohibited the operation of the Alliance in accordance with the law, with the Chief Executive in Council ordering that the Alliance be struck off the Companies Register under the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32).

The verdict handed down by the court is forceful and compelling, as well as well-reasoned and sound, detailing the analysis of the legal principles and evidence of the case, as well as the considerations for conviction. The court emphasised that the defendants were put on trial not because of their political views or beliefs. The court would only consider the laws and evidence relevant to the case to decide whether the prosecution is able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. "Other unlawful means" referred to in the offence of "subversion" under Article 22 of the HKNSL includes an act in breach of the provisions of the Constitution with a view to overthrowing or undermining the fundamental system of the PRC. When ordinary reasonable persons received the messages of the Alliance and other defendants, they must have understood that the aim of their agendas was to end the leadership by the CPC, and that other people were being encouraged to put the agendas into action.

Police were on standby outside the court. Photo by Bastille Post

The court pointed out that the defendants had all along been hostile towards the CPC and the Central Government under its leadership, and adhered to the course of resisting the Central Government and refusing to make any compromise. After the implementation of the HKNSL, the defendants refused to pull back from the brink and were bent on embracing the resistance line of the Alliance to the very end. Even though the defendants knew that what they had said and done might have already gone beyond the scope of lawful freedom of expression, they paid no regard to it. The defendants intended to cause others to lose confidence in the CPC by stirring up hostility and causing division, so as to achieve the objective of undermining the fundamental system of the PRC.

The Chief Executive, Mr John Lee, Photo source: reference image

The Chief Executive, Mr John Lee, said, "The Alliance had long been deliberately planting seeds of hatred against the CPC and the Central Government in the Hong Kong society, attempting to incite disaffection, hatred and other sentiments among members of the public against the CPC and the Central Government through various means, and inciting people to subvert state power. The acts of the defendants over a long period of time endangered national security; their conspiracy was abundantly clear, which must be brought to justice.

"Incitement to subversion is an extremely serious offence. The HKSAR Government has the responsibility to safeguard national security, and will resolutely prevent, suppress and punish acts and activities endangering national security. This case once again demonstrates that no matter how offenders disguise their real agendas with sophistry and rhetoric, as long as they commit an offence endangering national security, the HKSAR Government will ensure that laws are observed and strictly enforced to bring the offenders to account."

Police were on standby outside the court. Photo by Bastille Post

A spokesman for the HKSAR Government said that during the trial of this case, external forces blatantly and repeatedly smeared the Judiciary, the Department of Justice and law enforcement agencies, using political tactics and misleading remarks in an attempt to interfere with the fair trial of the case, and making baseless attacks against the HKSAR's efforts in protecting human rights and freedoms as well as safeguarding national security. The HKSAR Government strongly condemns their despicable attempt to openly trample on the rule of law. The law never allows anyone to openly harm one's own country and compatriots under the pretext of human rights, democracy and freedom. The court reached its verdict strictly in accordance with the law and evidence, free from any interference, and absolutely without any political considerations. Any suggestion that certain individuals or organisations should be immune from the legal consequences for their illegal acts is no different from advocating a special privilege to break the law, and this totally runs contrary to the spirit of the rule of law.

The Central Government Offices, Photo source: reference image

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the state and the most important component of the constitutional order of the HKSAR. The core of the constitutional order of the state is the establishment of the CPC's position as the governing party. The Preamble to the Constitution makes it clear that the leadership by the CPC is the core and foundation of the constitutional order of the PRC. Article 1 of the Constitution further specifies that "the socialist system is the fundamental system of the PRC" and "leadership by the CPC is the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics". No organisation or individual shall attempt to overthrow the leadership by the CPC, undermine the fundamental system of the state, or damage the socialist system.

The HKSAR is an inalienable part of the PRC. The state provides the fundamental guarantee for the prosperity and development of Hong Kong, and the highest principle of "one country, two systems" is to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests. The HKSAR Government will resolutely safeguard the fundamental system of the state established by the Constitution and the security of state power, and will, in strict accordance with the principle of the rule of law, prevent, suppress and punish acts and activities endangering national security with full force and in accordance with the law.

The Court of First Instance of the High Court today (August 21) delivered the verdict in the case concerning the "Hong Kong Alliance" (the Alliance), Lee Cheuk-yan, Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung, who were charged with "incitement to subversion" (contrary to Article 23 of the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL)). Photo by Bastille Post

38 landlords of subdivided units under regulated tenancies convicted of contravening relevant statutory requirements

Thirty-eight landlords of subdivided units (SDUs), who contravened Part IVA of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap. 7) (the Ordinance), pleaded guilty and were fined between $700 and $22,400, amounting to a total of $135,100, on August 7, August 14 and today (August 21) at the Eastern Magistrates' Courts. Since the Ordinance came into force, the Rating and Valuation Department (RVD) has continuously strengthened enforcement actions and has prosecuted a total of 1 586 cases to date. Among the 1 334 cases dealt with by the court, all were successfully convicted, which involved a total of 1 168 SDU landlords, amounting to a total of $3,719,260 in fines. In addition, 252 cases are pending a hearing.

The offences of these 38 landlords include (1) failing to submit a Notice of Tenancy (Form AR2) to the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation within 60 days after the term of the regulated tenancy commenced; and (2) requesting the tenant to pay money other than the types permitted under the Ordinance (including requiring the tenant to pay an amount of rent for the second-term tenancy exceeding the maximum amount of rent permitted under the Ordinance).

The RVD earlier discovered that the landlords failed to comply with the relevant requirements under the Ordinance. Upon a comprehensive investigation and evidence collection, the RVD prosecuted the landlords.

A spokesman for the RVD reiterated that SDU landlords must comply with the relevant requirements under the Ordinance, including prohibiting landlords from doing any act calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of members of the tenant's household, with the intention of causing the tenant to give up occupation of the SDU; or requiring the tenant to pay an amount of rent for the second-term tenancy exceeding the maximum amount of rent permitted under the Ordinance, and also reminded tenants of their rights under the Ordinance, including a four-year (i.e. two years plus two years) security of tenure. He also stressed that the RVD will continue to take resolute enforcement action against any contraventions of the Ordinance. Apart from following up on reported cases, the RVD has been adopting a multipronged approach to proactively identify, investigate and follow up on cases concerning landlords who are suspected of contravening the Ordinance. In particular, the RVD has been requiring landlords of regulated tenancies to provide information and reference documents of their tenancies for checking whether they have complied with the requirements of the Ordinance. If a landlord, without reasonable excuse, refuses to provide the relevant information or neglects the RVD's request, the landlord commits an offence and is liable to a maximum fine at level 3 ($10,000) and to imprisonment for three months. Depending on the actual circumstances, and having regard to the information and evidence collected, the RVD will take appropriate actions on individual cases, including instigating prosecution against suspected contraventions of the Ordinance. In addition, the RVD has started a new round of publicity and education work to enhance public awareness about the key offences and penalties, emphasising that the RVD proactively checks whether landlords have committed the offences under the Ordinance.

To help curb illegal acts as soon as possible, members of the public should report to the RVD promptly any suspected cases of contravening the relevant requirements. Reporting can be made through the telephone hotline (2150 8303), by email (enquiries@rvd.gov.hk), by fax (2116 4920), by post (15/F, Cheung Sha Wan Government Offices, 303 Cheung Sha Wan Road, Kowloon), or in person (visiting the Tenancy Services Section office of the RVD at 7/F, South Tower, Tseung Kwan O Government Offices, 30 Tong Yin Street, Tseung Kwan O, New Territories, and please call 2150 8303 to make an appointment). Furthermore, the RVD has provided a form (Form AR4) (www.rvd.gov.hk/doc/en/forms/ar4.pdf) on its website to enable SDU tenants' reporting to the RVD.

The RVD reminds that pursuant to the Ordinance, a regulated cycle of regulated tenancies is to comprise two consecutive regulated tenancies (i.e. the first-term tenancy and second-term tenancy) for an SDU, and the term of each regulated tenancy is two years. A tenant of a first-term tenancy for an SDU is entitled to be granted a second-term tenancy of the regulated cycle, thus enjoying a total of four years of security of tenure. The RVD has been issuing letters enclosing relevant information to the landlords and tenants concerned of regulated tenancies in batches, according to the expiry time of their first-term tenancies, to assist them in understanding the important matters pertaining to the second-term tenancy, and to remind them about the procedures that need to be followed about two months prior to the commencement of the purported second-term tenancy as well as their respective obligations and rights under the Ordinance. These landlords and tenants may also visit the dedicated page for the second-term tenancy on the RVD's website (www.rvd.gov.hk/en/tenancy_matters/second_term_tenancy.html) for the relevant information, including a concise guide, brochures, tutorial videos and frequently asked questions. The landlords and tenants concerned are also advised to familiarise themselves with the relevant statutory requirements and maintain close communication regarding the second-term tenancy for handling the matters properly and in a timely manner according to the Ordinance.

For enquiries related to regulated tenancies, please call the telephone hotline (2150 8303) or visit the RVD's webpage (www.rvd.gov.hk/en/our_services/part_iva.html) for the relevant information.

Source: AI-found images