A verdict was delivered on the “35-plus primary election” case by a panel of Hong Kong High Court judges on Thursday. Fourteen defendants who had pleaded not guilty were found guilty of “conspiring to subvert state power”. The court made a fair ruling in accordance with the law, clarifying the legal definition of and the provisions on the “crime of subverting state power”.

This is another important manifestation of the law enforcement and judicial authorities of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to safeguard national security by law, which is conducive to the more comprehensive and accurate implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL).

The judgment has important reference value for future similar cases and will be helpful in safeguarding national security as well as the Hong Kong SAR’s security.

READ MORE: HK High Court convicts 14 in subversion trial

A total of 47 defendants were charged with “conspiracy to subvert state power” in violation of Article 22(3) of the NSL and Sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200 of the Laws of Hong Kong), which state that anyone who organizes, plans, implements, or participates in the implementation of acts aimed at subverting state power by force, the threat of force, or other unlawful means is guilty of a crime.

According to the prosecution, the 14 defendants conspired with others to engage in a series of actions aimed at gaining control of the Legislative Council (LegCo) through an election originally slated for September 2020, after which they would veto the government’s budget regardless of its merits or content, with the intention of forcing the chief executive to resign according to Article 52 of the Basic Law.

‘Other unlawful means’ is not limited to use of force

Article 1 of the NSL stipulates that it is necessary to adhere to and comprehensively and accurately implement the principle of “one country, two systems”, as well as to improve the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for safeguarding national security.

Article 3 of the NSL states that the HKSAR has a constitutional responsibility to safeguard national security. Article 6 of the NSL requires Hong Kong residents to comply with the law and not to engage in acts or activities that endanger national security.

The first major element of the subversion charge, a violation of Article 22(3) of the NSL, was “seriously interfering with, obstructing, or undermining the functions of the central government organs of the People’s Republic of China or the government organs of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the law”.

Additionally, the defendants who pleaded guilty had planned to indiscriminately veto the government budget after being elected into the legislature, with the aim of paralyzing the HKSAR government, which constitutes a criminal act that seriously interferes with the government’s functions in accordance with the law.

Another element of the charge was “by force, the threat of force, or other unlawful means”. The defense argued that the phrase “other unlawful means” should be limited to the use of force or the threat of force.

The court ruled that all acts or activities aimed at subverting state power, regardless of their form or method, cannot be considered acceptable or tolerable.

The court further pointed out that the interpretation of Article 22(3) of the NSL must cover not only the use of force or the threat of force, but also other unlawful means. Limiting Article 22 of the NSL to the use of force or the threat of force is unreasonable, illogical, and contrary to the legislative purpose of the NSL.

Paralyzing LegCo constitutes subversion

Another legal issue in this case is whether violating the powers under Article 73 of the Basic Law would constitute the “other unlawful means” referred to in Article 22 of the NSL.

After considering the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, the court held that LegCo members obviously have a constitutional responsibility to review and pass the fiscal budget based on its merits when necessary. If the budget is passed, the chief executive is responsible for reporting it to the Central People’s Government for the record. Furthermore, Article 104 of the Basic Law requires LegCo members to swear to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

The court concluded that vetoing the government’s budget or public expenditure to force the government to respond to their “five demands” would have violated the provisions of Articles 73 and 104 of the Basic Law, which prescribe the powers and functions of LegCo, especially if such actions were intended to seriously undermine the powers and authority of the government or the chief executive. In addition, the court further reiterated that parliamentary privilege is not an absolute privilege; the plan to paralyze LegCo’s operations involved not only anti-China forces but also foreign and external forces.

ALSO READ: Apologists for NSL offenders serve a greater purpose

Therefore, the court’s verdict clearly indicates that indiscriminately vetoing the government’s budget and having the intention to paralyze LegCo’s operations was bound to “seriously interfere with, obstruct, or undermine the functions of the government organs of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the law”, which is a crime of subverting state power.

Thursday’s court ruling was reasonable and fair, in line with the relevant provisions of China’s Constitution, the Basic Law of the HKSAR, and the NSL. It also further clarified the legal definition of and provisions on the crime of subverting state power, upholding the principles of rule of law and justice, and fulfilling the court’s responsibility to safeguard national security.

The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and vice-president of the Hong Kong Basic Law Education Association.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.