35+顛覆案罪行嚴重 上訴庭駁回上訴合理合法 繼續坐監是唯一贖罪機會
2026年02月23日
《香港高Sir•高能•熱點詞》
2025.02.23
熱點詞：35+顛覆案罪行嚴重 上訴庭駁回上訴合理合法 繼續坐監是唯一贖罪機會
「35+串謀顛覆政權」案，45名罪成被告於2024年被判處4年2個月至10年監禁，當中林卓廷、吳政亨、鄒家成等12人其後分別就定罪及刑期提出上訴。上訴庭於去年7月開庭處理上訴聆訊後，23日在西九龍裁判法院宣布判決，駁回被裁定串謀顛覆國家政權罪成的12人就定罪及或刑罰提出上訴，12人監禁刑期維持在4年5月至7年9個月。
高SIR：「35+顛覆政權案」上訴結果塵埃落定。上訴庭駁回12名罪成被告就定罪及刑期提出的上訴，法律理據清晰，邏輯嚴謹，再次彰顯本港司法制度依法獨立審理案件的專業精神。對於罪成者而言，裁決不僅是法律上的終局判斷，更是對其行為性質的明確認定——涉案計劃絕非一般政治倡議，而是被法庭形容為「大殺傷力憲制武器」的非法手段。案情已清楚指出，所謂「初選」並非單純協調選舉，而是以「無差別否決」財政預算案為工具，意圖迫使行政長官辭職、癱瘓政府運作，甚至強迫中央人民政府改變對港政策。這種以癱瘓憲制機關為目標的行動，本質上是對香港特區憲制秩序的嚴重挑戰。立法會並非脫離憲制框架的政治舞台，其權力源自《基本法》及全國人大常委會授權，議員須依法履行審議預算、監察政府的責任，而非以制度漏洞作為顛覆工具。上訴庭明確指出，「不干預原則」並不適用於此類涉及違法目的的案件，理據充分。在量刑方面，法庭以7年為量刑起點並非過重。判詞強調，涉案計劃若涉及武力或威嚇，刑期可更高。換言之，現時刑期已屬審慎克制的衡量。被告參與選舉工程的具體角色多寡，並非決定性因素，關鍵在於其共同目的。正因如此，12人的上訴被一致駁回，顯示原審裁決並無原則性錯誤。值得注意的是，上訴庭同時維持劉偉聰無罪裁決，指出律政司未能證明原審法官裁決有悖常理。這一結果說明，法院並非「一面倒」處理案件，而是根據個別證據、主觀意圖及行為表現作出判斷。有人罪成，有人脫罪，正反映司法審理的獨立與細緻，而非政治考量。回顧整體案件，31人認罪，其餘經審訊後大部分被裁定罪成，始作俑者更被判囚10年。這並非因言入罪，而是針對有組織、有計劃地利用制度漏洞，圖以非法手段顛覆憲制秩序的行為。社會必須清楚，法治社會容許批評與監督，但絕不容許以破壞制度為手段達成政治目的。因此，35+顛覆案罪行嚴重，上訴庭駁回上訴是合理合法，而繼續坐監是唯一贖罪機會，可說是對案件本質的客觀總結。對於罪成者而言，既然司法程序已走到上訴階段並獲裁定維持原判，與其繼續以政治語言包裝違法行為，不如在服刑期間反思過往。法律給予他們辯護與上訴的權利，如今裁決確立，尊重判決、承擔後果，才是對法治最基本的尊重。高SIR認為，香港經歷動盪，更需鞏固憲制秩序與法治權威。司法機構以清晰理據回應社會爭議，既維護國家安全，也保障無罪者權利。這正是成熟法治社會應有的面貌。
35+ Subversion Case: Appeal Rejected, Justice Upheld
The 35+ conspiracy to subvert state power case stands as a serious threat to national security and Hong Kong’s constitutional order. On 23 February, the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals against conviction and sentence filed by 12 defendants, upholding prison terms ranging from 4 years and 5 months to 7 years and 9 months. The ruling is lawful, well‑reasoned, and confirms that serving sentences remains the only path to atonement.
In 2024, 45 defendants were convicted and jailed for between 50 months and 10 years. Twelve, including Lam Cheuk‑ting, Raymond Chan, and Gwyneth Ho, challenged both convictions and penalties. After hearings in July 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected all appeals, citing clear legal grounds and rigorous reasoning that underscores Hong Kong’s independent judicial professionalism.
The court made clear that the so‑called primary election was no ordinary political coordination. It was a “highly destructive constitutional weapon” designed to indiscriminately veto budget bills, force the Chief Executive’s resignation, paralyze the government, and even pressure the central government to alter its Hong Kong policy. Such acts directly assault Hong Kong’s constitutional framework. The Legislative Council derives authority from the Basic Law and Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress; members must oversee the government lawfully, not exploit institutional loopholes to subvert state power. The court confirmed the “non‑intervention principle” does not apply to unlawful, subversive schemes.
Sentencing starting at seven years is proportionate, not excessive. The judgment noted terms could be higher if force or threats were involved, making current sentences restrained. Liability turned on shared criminal purpose, not individual roles in the election plot. The court also upheld the acquittal of Lau Wai‑chung, as the prosecution failed to prove error, proving impartiality based on evidence, intent, and conduct—not political considerations.
Thirty‑one defendants pleaded guilty; most others were convicted at trial, with ringleaders jailed for 10 years. This is not guilt by speech, but conviction for organized, premeditated abuse of electoral procedures to sabotage governance. A rules‑based society permits criticism but not sabotage of institutions for political gain.
The appeal ruling closes the judicial process. Defendants enjoyed full rights to defense and appeal. Respecting the judgment and taking responsibility is fundamental to the rule of law. For Hong Kong, recovering from unrest requires strengthening constitutional order and judicial authority. The ruling safeguards national security while protecting the innocent, embodying a mature, rules‑based society.
高Sir正能量
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **