On Thursday, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region sentenced Joshua Wong Chi-fung to 10-years’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to request sanctions, blockades or other hostile measures against the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong. The reasons for the sentence show a structured application of Article 29 of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL). The court first classified the offense as of a grave nature, then fixed a starting point, assessed mitigation and applied the statutory minimum.

The gravity finding rested on the admitted nature and extent of the conspiracy. The charge covered conduct from July to November 2020, after the NSL came into force on June 30, 2020. Wong admitted that he continued to support an international campaign with the object of securing foreign sanctions, blockades or other hostile measures against the Chinese mainland and the SAR. The court considered the campaign’s organization, its persistence after the promulgation of the NSL, Wong’s role in it, and the measures that followed. It found that the sanctions and hostile measures imposed had significantly affected and endangered national security.

The court also drew a careful temporal boundary. It expressly stated that Wong was not being sentenced for his pre-NSL activities or political beliefs. Those earlier activities served as context for assessing the post-NSL agreement, its scope and Wong’s part in it. That distinction is important to the court’s reasoning as liability rested on the admitted continuation of the conspiracy after the NSL took effect, while the earlier history helped explain the nature and seriousness of that continuing agreement.

ALSO READ: Legal principles affirmed in Joshua Wong verdict

The statutory framework made the classification of the offense decisive. Article 29 prescribes a sentence of three to 10 years for an offense outside the “grave” band, and life imprisonment or a term of at least 10 years for an offense of a grave nature. Following the sentencing approach in HKSAR vs Lui Sai Yu (2023) 26 HKCFAR 332, the judge determined the applicable band before considering the guilty plea and other mitigating factors. This ordering gives effect to the statutory distinction between the gravity of the offense and the personal circumstances relevant to the final term.

The court’s starting point of 13 years recognized both the seriousness of the conspiracy and the need to assess Wong’s individual role. The judge considered the sentences in Jimmy Lai Chi-ying’s case, including the 18-year starting point for Lai as mastermind and the 15-year starting points for other conspirators. The judge assessed Wong’s role within that scale, describing him as a ringleader who had played a supporting role, and set a lower starting point of 13 years. The three-year reduction for Wong’s early plea and mitigation brought the term to 10 years, the minimum available for a grave offense. The defense accepted that the reduction provisions in Article 33 did not apply, leaving no statutory basis for a sentence below that floor.

READ MORE: Sentencing of Joshua Wong: A triumph for judicial justice and rule of law

The judgment also applied the local principle of totality alongside the NSL sentencing provisions. The court ordered two months and two days of the sentence to run concurrently with the remaining term Wong was serving for the “primary election” offense. This recognized the relationship between the sentences while preserving the minimum term required for the Article 29 grave offense.

The 10-year sentence is therefore supported by the court’s findings on the conspiracy’s duration, purpose, organization, consequences and Wong’s role, and by the statutory band governing grave offenses. The reasons also identify the limits of the decision. Wong pleaded guilty, so the court applied Article 29 to admitted facts rather than determining disputed elements. Within that sentencing posture, the court explained why the offense fell within the grave band and how mitigation operated under the law.

The author is a (nonpracticing) solicitor of Hong Kong, and is currently working as a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Law of City University of Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.