Hong Kong Alliance, Lee and Chow convicted in subversion case
On.cc · 3 SOURCESabout 1 hour ago2 MIN
Summary
The dissolved Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan, and former vice-chairwoman Chow Hang-tung were convicted at West Kowloon Court after a 24-day trial over a charge of inciting subversion under the national security law.
The charge covered the period from July 1, 2020 to September 8, 2021, while former vice-chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan had earlier pleaded guilty and the remaining defendants denied the allegation.
The three-judge panel held that the Alliance’s slogan of “ending one-party dictatorship” was aimed at ending the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership status under the Constitution, and that Lee and Chow believed others would use unlawful means if incited to act.
The case was adjourned to next Friday, August 28, for mitigation, with the offence carrying up to five years’ jail in less serious cases and five to 10 years in serious cases.
Key Points
- The case, numbered HCCC 155/2022, was heard without a jury by designated national security judges Alex Lee Wan-tang, Chan Chung-hang and Esther Toh Yin-nei.
- Prosecutors argued unlawful means under the charge could include non-violent acts that still breached constitutional requirements after the 2018 constitutional amendment.
- Lee argued the platform could be achieved peacefully and legally, including through constitutional reform, and did not necessarily mean overthrowing Communist Party leadership.
- Chow, who represented herself, said the Alliance opposed unchecked power rather than a party’s rule and had never urged others to use unlawful means.
- The judgment said the defendants linked the June 4 crackdown with the 2019 anti-extradition unrest to stir hostility toward the Chinese Communist Party.
Why It Matters
The ruling sets out how Hong Kong courts are interpreting political advocacy under the national security law, especially where slogans are judged against the mainland constitutional order.
For Hong Kong readers, the case also matters because it concerns the legal boundaries of public commemoration, political speech and opposition organizing after the law took effect in 2020.