28 Feb 2023法庭線#6110
兩國安案3人各判囚5年 呂世瑜申終極上訴許可 光城者2人申刑期上訴
Polytechnic University student Lui Sai Yu was accused of using a TG channel in 2020 to incite Hong Kong independence and sell weapons to incite violence. In April 2022, Lui Sai Yu pleaded guilty to “inciting others to commit secession”. The court initially reduced the sentence from 5 years and 6 months to 3 years and 8 months. However, the prosecution argued that sentencing was subject to the minimum sentences for offences under the National Security Law, under which serious cases must be sentenced to “5 years or more”. Judge Amanda Jane Woodcock subsequently changed the sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment.
Lui Sai Yu earlier challenged the sentence in an appeal to the High Court, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the application. According to the Judiciary’s website, Lui Sai Yu has applied to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal. A notice of hearing has yet to be issued, and no hearing date has been scheduled.
Separately, the two defendants in the “Light City” case pleaded guilty to “conspiracy to subvert state power” and were sentenced to between 5 years and 5 years and 3 months in prison. Referring to the “Lui Sai Yu case”, the judge deducted 6 months from their sentences, reducing them to the minimum term of 5 years. Neither received the full one-third reduction. The two defendants, dissatisfied with their sentences, lodged sentence appeals on Monday (the 27th).
理大男生呂世瑜被指 2020 年在 TG 頻道煽動港獨及售武煽暴，2022 年 4 月承認「煽動他人分裂國家」罪，原獲法庭由判囚 5 年半減刑至 3 年 8 個月。惟控方指，判刑受《國安法》罪行的最低刑期所限，情節嚴重者須「處 5 年以上」，法官胡雅文改判被告監禁 5 年。
呂世瑜早前不服刑罰向高等法院提上訴，上訴庭駁回申請。根據司法機構網頁顯示，呂世瑜已向終院申請上訴許可，尚待發出聆訊通知書，聆訊未有排期。
此外，「光城者」案兩被告承認「串謀煽動顛覆政權」罪，判囚 5 年至 5 年 3 個月，法官參照「呂世瑜案」把刑期扣減 6 個月至最低刑期 5 年。兩人亦未獲全數三份一扣減。兩人不服刑期，周一（27 日）提出刑期上訴。
24 Feb 2023法庭線#6095
47人案｜第15日審訊 控方播放初選記者會片段 戴耀廷稱看不到初選如何違反《國安法》
The 15th day of trial in the case involving 47 pro-democracy figures charged with conspiracy to subvert state power began on Friday (24th), with the testimony of Au Nok-hin continuing. During Thursday’s (23rd) hearing, the prosecution said it agreed to let Au read transcripts of parts of the press conference, without playing all the footage. It said, however, that one clip needed to be played because some defendants had remained silent, and the clip could show their reactions at the time.
The footage showed Benny Tai saying at the press conference that the primary election candidates had not made remarks relating to secession. He reiterated that they were exercising the constitutional powers conferred on the Legislative Council by the Basic Law and demanded that the HKSAR Government be held accountable: “This is a power conferred on the Legislative Council by the Basic Law ... I cannot see how this constitutes the ‘unlawful means’ referred to in Article 22 of the National Security Law.”
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周五（24 日）展開第 15 天審訊，續傳區諾軒作供。控方周四（23 日）審訊時表示，同意讓區閱讀部分記者會的謄本，毋須播所有片段，但提到需要播放其中一段片段，解釋指有部分被告保持沉默，片段可顯示他們當時的反應。
片段見到戴耀廷在記者會稱，初選參選人沒提出涉及分裂國家的言論，重申行使《基本法》賦予立法會的憲制權力，要求特區政府問責，「呢個係《基本法》所賦予畀立法會嘅權力嚟嘅⋯我見唔到點樣符合《國安法》第廿二條所講嗰個非法手段。」
24 Feb 2023法庭線#6096
被指倡武裝手法達「港獨」 武館教練認煽動顛覆等囚5年 女助力認無牌管槍械囚16月
A male instructor at a martial arts gym in Tsim Sha Tsui was accused of posting on Facebook over a period of one and a half years from 2020, advocating the establishment of a “Hong Kong independence armed force” and organising “Kill Ghost Team training classes”. He earlier pleaded guilty to the offence of “inciting others to subvert state power” under the National Security Law. The instructor and a female assistant also pleaded guilty to possessing arms without a licence in connection with the possession of a machete, crossbow and other items. Judge Lian Kin-hong sentenced the instructor to five years’ imprisonment and the female assistant to 16 months’ imprisonment at the District Court on Friday (24th).
尖沙咀一間武館的男教練，被指 2020 年起年半間，在 Facebook 發帖倡建「港獨武裝力量」、辦「殺鬼隊訓練班」，他早前承認《國安法》下的「煽動他人顛覆國家政權」罪。男教練另與女助手，就藏有開山刀、弩等承認「無牌管有槍械」罪。法官練錦鴻周五（24 日）在區域法院判男教練監禁 5 年，女助手監禁 16 個月。
24 Feb 2023法庭線#6102
47人案｜區諾軒指鄒家成等3人為「抗爭派」 控方下周一交代「共謀者」依賴言論
The trial of 47 pro-democracy figures charged with conspiracy to subvert state power entered its 15th day on Friday (24th). Au Nok-hin referred to the term “protest camp” while testifying, prompting the judge to ask him to explain it. Au cited defendants who had pleaded not guilty as examples, identifying Owen Chow, Gwyneth Ho and Yu Wai-ming as belonging to the “protest camp”. He also said Ho was “someone with more left-wing views”, and at one point turned towards the defendants’ dock and asked, “Is that accurate?”
By Friday, Au had testified for 10 days, and the prosecution said its examination-in-chief was nearing completion. In response to questions from the judge, the prosecution also clarified that it alleged all the defendants had participated in the conspiracy by 1 July 2020. Judge Li Yun-tung said this was a new position taken by the prosecution. The defence again asked the prosecution to explain how it would rely on the “co-conspirator rule”; the prosecution said it would do so when the trial resumes next Monday (27th).
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周五（24 日）展開第 15 天審訊。區諾軒作供提及「抗爭派」一詞，法官要求解釋。區提出以不認罪被告為例，指鄒家成、何桂藍及余慧明為「抗爭派」，又指何屬「較為有左翼思想嘅人」，並一度面向被告席問「準唔準確？」
截至周五，區已作供 10 日，控方表示對他的主問接近完成。控方又在法官提問下澄清，指控各被告均於 2020 年 7 月 1 日已參與串謀；法官李運騰指此為控方新的說法。此外，辯方再促控方交代如何使用「共謀者原則」，控方聲稱於下周一（27日）續審時交代。
23 Feb 2023法庭線#6091
47人案｜控方認遲交兩警專家證供 官批不合理、指未達無法彌補不公准呈堂
In the case against 47 pro-democracy figures charged with “conspiracy to subvert state power”, the prosecution earlier said it intended to call two serving police sergeants as expert witnesses to explain how Facebook and YouTube operate. Gwyneth Ho’s leading counsel objected, questioning the prosecution’s delay in submitting the expert evidence. The judge ultimately allowed the police experts’ evidence to be admitted, but said this did not mean its contents had been accepted; their expert qualifications still had to be confirmed.
The three High Court judges designated under the National Security Law, Andrew Hing Wai Chan, Lee Wan-tang and Chan Chung-hang, handed down their reasons for decision on Thursday (23rd), criticising the Department of Justice’s reasons for the delay as unreasonable (see the chronology table in the main text). However, they considered that there was still time before the prosecution called the two sergeants and, taking into account the nature and content of the expert evidence, believed that Ho’s side still had sufficient time to consider it and, if necessary, obtain defence expert evidence. The situation would not cause irremediable unfairness to Ho or impede a fair trial.
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，控方早前指擬傳召兩現職警長作專家證人，講解 Facebook 及 YouTube 運作。何桂藍的代表大狀反對，質疑控方延誤提交專家證供。法官最終批准警專家證供呈堂，但指不等於已接納內容，專家資格仍有待確認。
3 名高院《國安法》指定法官陳慶偉、李運騰及陳仲衡，周四（23 日）頒下裁決理由，批評律政司的延誤理據不合理（時序見內文表），但認為現時距離控方傳召兩警長前仍有時間，考慮到專家證據的性質及內容，相信何桂藍一方仍有足夠時間考慮，及在需要時取得辯方專家證供；情況不會對何一方構成無法彌補的不公，亦不礙公平審訊。
23 Feb 2023法庭線#6092
《立場》被指煽動案｜控方再新呈4篇《立場》文章 以推論鍾沛權意圖 辯方強烈反對
On the 14th day of the prosecution’s cross-examination of Chung Pui-kuen, questioning focused on Nathan Law’s blog article “Hong Kong – Beautiful Island”, which is part of the case. The prosecution questioned whether the article’s information was incomplete, making readers more likely to accept the author’s commentary and causing them to be misled by inaccurate information. Chung said commentaries were generally concise and polished, combining narrative and opinion. As the primary election case had not yet reached a final conclusion, the public could debate whether Law’s claims were factually grounded. In response to the prosecution’s assertion that the article’s wording clearly prompted hatred of the Central Government and Hong Kong’s judiciary, Chung said that freedom of expression should allow criticism directed at public authorities.
The prosecution also sought to introduce four more Stand News articles related to the National Security Law to infer Chung’s intention in publishing the articles. The defence objected twice, saying it had “already lost count of how many times new articles have been introduced”. Judge Kwok Wai-kin instructed Chung to read the articles after the court adjourned. The trial will continue on Friday (24th).
控方第 14 日盤問鍾沛權，圍繞涉案羅冠聰〈香港－美麗島〉的博客文章。控方質疑文章資料不全，會令人容易接受作者的評論，誤導失實。鍾沛權認為，評論文章大多簡潔精鍊，夾敘夾議，加上初選案尚未「蓋棺定論」，公眾可辯論羅的說法是否有事實根據。至於控方指文章用字明顯令人憎恨中央和本港司法，鍾沛權認為在言論自由下，應容許針對公權力的批評。
另外，控方欲新呈《立場》4 篇國安法相關文章，以推論鍾發布文章的意圖。辯方兩度反對稱「已經唔知係第幾次再入新文章」。法官郭偉健著鍾散庭後細閱文章。案件周五（24 日）續審。
23 Feb 2023法庭線#6094
《立場》被指煽動案｜控方呈新文章後指屬煽動 辯方稱「印證點解我覺得唔公道」
The prosecution on Thursday (23rd) newly submitted four articles related to the National Security Law, and on Friday (24th) asked Chung Pui-kuen whether the newly added articles involved sedition. Senior Counsel Audrey Eu objected twice, saying that after the prosecution had completed its case, it kept introducing new articles and saying that they were seditious, inappropriate and incited hatred. She said the series of questions posed the previous day and that day “confirm why I feel it is extremely unfair”. She also described the prosecution as a magician, “pulling white rabbits out of a hat”, saying she had “already lost count of which article it is”. Judge Kwok Wai-kin ruled that the articles were relevant to the case and allowed the prosecution to question Chung.
The prosecution also referred to the Stand News blog article “Kafkaesque Hong Kong”, saying that its author compared Hong Kong under the National Security Law with Kafka’s famous work The Trial, thereby inciting hatred against the National Security Law. Chung disagreed, saying the author used a literary work as a metaphor to express concern about the absurdity of society. When the prosecution said it did not understand what the article was trying to express, Chung replied: “If you understand, you understand; if you still don’t after reading it, there’s nothing that can be done.” He said the blog article reflected public sentiment and alerted the government to people’s concerns. The case was adjourned to 7 March for continuation.
控方周四（23 日）新呈 4 篇《國安法》相關文章，周五（24 日）詢問鍾沛權，新增文章是否涉及煽動。辯方資深大律師余若薇兩度反對，指控方完成案情後，不斷提出新文章，「話呢啲文章係煽動、唔啱、引起憎恨⋯尋日、啱啱一連串問題，印證點解我覺得非常唔公道」。她又形容控方如魔術師，「喺頂帽到攞啲白兔出來⋯我已經數唔到係第幾篇」。法官郭偉健裁定文章與案件有關，批准控方詢問。
控方又提及《立場》博客文章〈卡夫卡式香港〉，指作者將《國安法》下的香港與卡夫卡的名著《審判》類比，是煽動憎恨《國安法》。鍾不同意，指作者以文學作品借喻，表達對社會荒誕的憂心。控方稱「唔明要表達啲咩」，鍾聞言稱「明就明，睇完唔明都無計」，認為博客文章是反映民情，警惕政府有人提出擔憂。案件押至 3 月 7 日續審。
22 Feb 2023法庭線#6090
47人案｜區諾軒：初選5區各有協議 因憂違法沒簽署亦沒公開 官另質疑控方播片
The trial of 47 pro-democracy figures charged with conspiracy to subvert state power entered its 12th day on Tuesday (21st) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, temporarily sitting as the High Court. Au Nok-hin testified that, during coordination of the primary, each of the five geographical constituencies had an agreement. However, because of concerns that they could be accused of violating the law and that candidates could be disqualified, the candidates were not asked to sign the agreements and they were not made public.
Under examination by the prosecution, Au testified that the document contained the wording “actively exercise the powers conferred by the Basic Law to veto the Budget”. He continued: “My account is going to be somewhat complicated, so please listen patiently...” At that point, a defendant applied to leave to use the washroom, and the judge adjourned the hearing.
47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，周二（21 日）在西九龍裁判法院（暫代高院）展開第 12 天審訊。區諾軒供稱初選協調時，5 個地方選區各有一份協議，但當時因憂被指違法及令候選人被取消資格，沒要求參選人參署亦未有公開。
在控方主問下，區供稱協議文件「內文入面係有『積極運用《基本法》賦予權力，否決《財政預算案》」的字句。他續指「我嘅表述係會有啲複雜，請耐心聽一聽...」，惟有被告此時申請離席去洗手間，法官宣布休庭待續。
21 Feb 2023法庭線#6084
《立場》被指煽動案｜控方稱初選投「墨落」市民「人心不穩」易受誤導 鍾沛權不同意
The case in which former Stand News editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen, former acting editor-in-chief Lam Siu-tung and the company behind Stand News are charged with conspiracy to publish seditious publications entered its 34th day of trial at the District Court on Tuesday (21st). During afternoon questioning on the background to the pan-democrat primary, the prosecution said that of the 600,000 people who voted in the primary, 460,000 supported candidates who had signed the “Ink Cast, No Regrets” declaration, and asked whether this represented “unsettled public sentiment”. Chung said the prosecution’s wording was ambiguous, adding that the public sentiment of 2020 still existed. “As I recall, apart from dissatisfaction, there were also emotions such as fear and disappointment,” he said. He also disagreed that voters were easily misled by incorrect information or influenced by inflammatory remarks.
Regarding the prosecution’s suggestion that supporters of Au Ka-shing were susceptible to his influence, Chung cited former US President Donald Trump as an example. He said Trump’s victory in the presidential election resulted from favourable timing, circumstances and public support; his platform aligned with public sentiment and resonated with the political demands of the community, so he gained support. Chung said the positions behind the localist platform were also the result of structural political and social problems in Hong Kong that had accumulated over a long period. “That is why, in the end, some figures on the localist platform performed relatively well in the primary.”
Chung questioned whether the prosecution was seeking to establish that the primary candidates’ positions could influence hundreds of thousands of people, thereby proving that Hong Kong was unstable at the time, with undercurrents, and that residents were easily misled. He said that anti-communist thinking had existed both before and around 1997. “Could it have been because of the positions of several primary participants [that people were influenced]? It’s a chicken-and-egg question; it wasn’t a one-off thing,” he said. The trial will continue on Thursday (23rd).
前《立場新聞》總編輯鍾沛權、前署任總編輯林紹桐，及《立場》所屬公司被控「串謀發布煽動刊物罪」案，周二（21 日）於區域法院踏入第 34 日審訊。控方下午就民主派初選背景盤問，指 60 萬初選投票者當中，46 萬人支持簽署「墨落無悔」聲明的參選人，詢問是否代表「人心不穩」。鍾沛權認為控方所用字眼有歧義，指 2020 年的民情依然存在，「我回憶到當時除咗不滿，仲夾雜好多恐懼、失望呢啲情緒」，又不同意投票者易受到不正確資訊誤導、渲染性言論影響。
就控方提及鄒家成的支持者，容易受鄒的影響，鍾沛權以美國前總統特朗普為例，指他勝出總統選舉，是配合「天時地利人和」，其路線配合到民情，與社群的政治訴求呼應，就會得到支持。他認為，本土路線主張背後，亦是過去一段長時間累積下來的香港政治、社會的結構性問題結果，「所以最後喺初選，有啲本土路線嘅人物攞到比較好嘅成績」。
鍾沛權質疑，控方想舉證指，初選參選人主張能影響幾十萬人，證明當時香港是不穩、有暗湧，市民易受誤導；但他認為「反共」的思維，在 1997 年前後均有出現，「會唔會因為幾個初選參與者主張（而受影響）？係雞同雞蛋，唔係一回咁嘅事。」案件周四（23 日）續審。
20 Feb 2023法庭線#6072
《立場》被指煽動案｜控方舉拉登、普京等例子問審批界線 鍾沛權指關乎重大公眾利益需如實記錄
On the 12th day of the prosecution’s cross-examination of Chung Pui-kuen, it cited hypothetical examples involving Osama bin Laden, Vladimir Putin and the Nazi German military to ask about the boundaries for approving articles. Chung said that in extreme circumstances, he could not say he definitely would not publish an article: “I would hesitate; freedom of speech is close to a kind of faith to me.” Chung agreed that after 9/11, if given the opportunity, he would interview bin Laden, saying that bin Laden’s actions and views concerned major public interest and should be accurately recorded regardless of how strongly he disagreed with them. He would, however, publish other articles alongside it to analyse or criticise bin Laden’s actions.
控方第 12 日盤問鍾沛權，列舉拉登、普京、納粹德軍等假設例子，詢問鍾審批文章的界線。鍾沛權表示在極端情況下，「唔敢話一定唔發表，我會有猶豫，言論自由對我嚟講係接近一種信仰」。其中鍾沛權同意，在「9.11」事後，若有機會會訪問拉登，指其行為主張關乎重大公眾利益，不論自己有多不認同，都要如實記錄，但會配合其他文章，分析或批評其行為。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
