Tam Tak-chi sedition case | Edward Wong Kai-yeung i: Judgment adopts a stricter stance on freedom of speech; Grenville Cross says National Security Law, Article 23 and international standards are consistent
譚得志煽動案｜黃啟暘：判詞對言論自由採較嚴厲立場 江樂士：國安法、23條與國際標準一致
Former People Power vice-chairman “Fast Beat” Tam Tak-chi was found guilty of 11 counts of sedition under the Crimes Ordinance (the former sedition offence) over remarks including “all black cops’ families should die” and “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” made at street stalls in 2020. He earlier brought a final appeal, which was unanimously dismissed by the five judges of the Court of Final Appeal on Thursday (the 6th). The Court of Final Appeal held that Hong Kong’s sedition offence is a statutory, rather than common law, offence, and that a common law intention to incite violence is not a necessary element for conviction. It also ruled that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear sedition cases. Legal commentator Wong Kai-yeung said the ruling reflected a stricter judicial approach to freedom of expression. He also said he was “surprised” that the Court of Final Appeal had referred to the newly enacted Safeguarding National Security Ordinance to support the conclusion that the court should not reach an inconsistent interpretation, although he believed the ruling would have only limited impact on future cases. Former Director of Public Prosecutions Grenville Cross, meanwhile, described the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling as “impeccable”. He said decisions of the UK Privy Council are not binding on Hong Kong, and that since 1997 Hong Kong has developed its common law in light of local circumstances and its own criminal law. He added that both the National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance expressly provide for the protection of freedoms in accordance with the law, and said Hong Kong had gone to additional lengths to remain aligned with international standards.
人民力量前副主席「快必」譚得志，被指 2020 年擺街站時，發表「黑警死全家」、「光時」等言論， 被裁定 11 項《刑事罪行條例》下的煽動罪成（舊煽動罪）。他早前提出終極上訴，周四（6 日）被終院 5 位法官一致駁回。 終院判詞指，本港煽動罪非普通法罪行，普通法煽暴意圖並非定罪必要條件，又裁定區院有權審理煽動罪。法律評論員黃啟暘認為，裁決反映法庭對言論自由採取較嚴厲立場；又對終院以新訂的《維護國家安全條例》，反證法庭不應達致有矛盾的結論表示「驚訝」，但認為裁決對日後案件影響有限。 前刑事檢控專員江樂士則認為，終院裁決無可挑剔（impeccable），指出英國樞密院判決對港無約束力，香港自 1997 年後根據本地情況及刑事法律發展普通法；又指《國安法》及《維護國家安全條例》均訂明依法保障自由，認為本港已付出額外努力與國際標準保持一致。