Hong Kong 47: who are the activists convicted and cleared in pivotal national security trial?

Timeline

←  Scroll or drag horizontally  →

Who are the 47

The prosecution’s case

Prosecutors alleged the 47 opposition figures conspired to seize a controlling majority in Legco so as to indiscriminately veto the fiscal budget and compel then chief executive Carrie Lam to step down.

The Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, provides that the chief executive must resign if the same financial blueprint is rejected twice by the legislature.

Prosecutors argued the unofficial poll formed part of an illegal scheme to “seriously interfere in, disrupt or undermine the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of power of [Hong Kong]” — one of four acts defined as subversive by the national security law.

The court debate

A key point of contention lies in whether a conspiracy, or agreement, existed among the 47 to subvert state power.

Prosecutors argued the defendants had all agreed to Tai’s plan to paralyse the government. They highlighted various documents in which the accused allegedly made such undertakings, including an online declaration titled “Resolute resistance, inked without regret”, which 33 of the accused were said to have signed. Several of the court testimonies, however, differed from the prosecution’s arguments.

Unofficial election organiser turned prosecution witness Au Nok-hin said no consensus had ever been reached as to whether those running in the primary must block the fiscal budget once elected.
Another prosecution witness, Andrew Chiu, who provided administrative support to the unofficial primary, added any consensus reached by hopefuls would not affect their post-election conduct.

Another area under contention was whether the 16 defendants standing trial had used any “unlawful means” to achieve their political goals. Prosecutors argued an indiscriminate vote against the government’s budget was unlawful — albeit not a criminal offence — as it constituted an abuse of power and a breach of the lawmaker’s oath.
Defence lawyers pushed back at the argument and said a lawmaker’s voting preference was a political issue instead of a legal one. The defence also challenged the definition of “unlawful means” under the security legislation and argued a failure to observe the lawmaker’s oath could not be seen as breaching the law.

What are the defence’s key arguments?

Ten of the 16 defendants, all of whom contested the unofficial primary, chose to give evidence in court. All of them denied reaching a prior agreement to block government budgets, but some displayed a firmer stance than the rest when asked about their public statements in the past.

Political implications of the case

Observers say the “47 case”, as it is called, signals Beijing’s determination to implement the national security law and ensure no such repeat incident can take place again where the government can be paralysed and brought down.

The opposition camp was dismantled overnight with most of its key leaders, and rising and veteran politicians thrown behind bars en masse for their participation in the unofficial election.

Dozens of political parties, civil groups and labour unions disbanded one after another after weighing the risks, with some activists also deciding to move overseas.

The Beijing-led electoral overhaul which took place a few months after the arrests to ensure only “patriots” can run for election also sealed the fate of the once-defiant opposition camp. The city has only one non-establishment lawmaker in the 90-member legislature.

What’s next?

After the verdict, the court is expected to set dates for hearing pleas for mitigation from anyone convicted, including the 31 accused who have decided to admit liability.

The defence is also expected to make submissions on the level of culpability of their clients and the appropriate sentencing range to be applied.

The national security law adopts a three-tier system in classifying offenders found guilty of subversion, with a “principal offender” liable to a minimum sentence of 10 years in jail.

A sentence of three to 10 years applies to an offender who “actively participates in the offence” and lesser penalties for “other participants”.

The mitigation hearings are expected to be held after Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s national security trial is adjourned next week, as one of the judges is involved in both cases.