A court verdict that saw 14 democrats convicted under a Beijing-imposed security law last week shows there are “real risks” to national security, Hong Kong leader John Lee has said.
The Chief Executive commented on the verdict for the first time on Tuesday, days after Hong Kong’s High Court convicted 14 democrats charged with participating in a conspiracy to commit subversion under the national security legislation.
“The defendants made use of the so-called primaries and planned to secure a majority of seats in the Legislative Council… and indiscriminately veto the budgets and public works proposals,” Lee said.
A panel of three judges designated to preside over national security cases convicted 14 former activists and lawmakers who will now join 31 democrats who had earlier pleaded guilty.
See more: Hong Kong judges’ reasons for convicting 14 democrats under national security law
Two of the 47 democrats – barrister Lawrence Lau and former district councillor Lee Yue-shun – were acquitted on Thursday, becoming the first to be cleared of national security charges since the legislation took effect in June 2020.
Prosecutors announced their intention to appeal the acquittals shortly after judges handed down the verdict.
Risks and vigilance
Chief Executive Lee said on Tuesday that the trial “ending in the conviction of 45 people shows the scale and gravity of the case. It shows there are real risks to our national security.”
“In this case, they used the so-called primaries for the ultimate aim of undermining national security. That’s why we should remain vigilant; we should be aware that risks to our national security can come anytime, catching us unaware,” he added.
Unlawful to indiscriminately veto – Lee
Lee also said that the legislature has a constitutional duty to consider the merits of budgets and resolutions when scrutinising them, and to make comments with a view to enshrine the interests of Hong Kong.
Indiscriminately voting down the budget would amount to a contravention of Article 73 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, he added.
“[The court] said that the ultimate purpose and aim was made very clear to the public: It was to undermine, destroy, or overthrow the existing political system of Hong Kong SAR established under the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems,” he said.
Citing the court’s verdict, Lee said the interpretation of “unlawful means” extends beyond violent acts or criminal offences.
What might constitute unlawful means was a point of contention throughout the trial, during which the defence submitted that the democrats must have used violence and intended to subvert state power if they were to be found guilty.
But judges dismissed that contention as being too narrow, and that limiting the scope of the law would be “absurd and illogical.”
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
