The Court of Appeal of the High Court today delivered its judgment on the appeals in a case of conspiracy to commit subversion, dismissing the appeals against convictions or sentences lodged by 12 defendants.

Regarding one defendant against whom the evidence was insufficient for the trial court to be sure of his participation in the conspiracy offence, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's verdict.

In its judgment on the appeals in the case, the Court of Appeal rejected each of the grounds of appeal against convictions or sentences raised by the defendants.

Regarding the appeals against convictions, the Court of Appeal noted that provisions of the Basic Law establish an executive-led system headed by the Chief Executive, recognising that the Chief Executive, the Government, the Legislative Council and the Judiciary have different constitutional roles.

The judgement added that interaction and co-ordination between them are inevitable in areas where both the executive and legislative authority are required.

It also pointed out that LegCo’s primary function under Article 73(2) of the Basic Law is to evaluate the merits of the budget through fiscal considerations before granting approval.

The judgement clarified that LegCo must exercise its powers and functions in accordance with the Basic Law. It cannot contravene the fundamental provisions establishing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s constitutional order, nor can its members violate their constitutional duty under the LegCo oath to uphold that order.

The Court of Appeal said that, in this case, as envisaged and publicised by the first defendant Tai Yiu-ting and known to any participant who chose to join it, "Project 35+" was a "constitutional mass destruction weapon" that aimed to compel the Chief Executive to resign, paralyse the Government and force the Central People's Government to declare an end to the "one country, two systems" policy, which constituted an unlawful means of subverting the constitutional order of the Hong Kong SAR.

The Court of Appeal said that pursuing that aim under the pretext of examining budgets necessarily amounted to a breach of a LegCo member's duty to uphold the Hong Kong SAR’s constitutional order.

The judgement also noted that the defendants agreed to join "Project 35+" and participate in conduct aimed at achieving subversive consequences, and therefore constituted the offence of conspiracy to commit subversion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s findings based on the totality of the evidence adduced. It added that when considered in context, the conclusion that each defendant joined the conspiracy was sound and that the trial proceedings were conducted fairly.

Regarding the appeals against sentences, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision to categorise the defendants in the "primary election" as "active participants". It found that "Project 35+" sought to undermine the Hong Kong SAR’s constitutional order through the defendants’ election bids.

The Court of Appeal further noted that the defendants exploited the system to bring about potentially devastating consequences to the Hong Kong SAR. Accordingly, it ruled that “ignorance of the law" was not a valid mitigating factor, and any sentencing discounts given by the trial court on this basis were entirely gratuitous.

In a statement, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government noted 45 defendants were convicted in this case. The trial court’s verdict clarified that by early 2020, the clear objective of “Project 35+” was to undermine, destroy or overthrow the Hong Kong SAR’s existing political system established under the Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” principle.

The statement highlighted that the court pointed out that the defendants, led by Tai Yiu-ting, spent considerable time and money planning the “primary election”, while other defendants actively worked to ensure the success of “Project 35+”.

The statement added that had the plan been fully implemented, it would have resulted in profoundly negative consequences as severe as the overthrow of the Government.

The Government also noted that the trial had revealed that the people concerned put forward the “10 Steps to mutual destruction” which would bring Hong Kong society to a standstill through large-scale street riots and other means. Coupled with international political and economic sanctions, “mutual destruction” would be achieved, causing suffering to the public.

The Government clarified that the severity of the crime was supported by irrefutable evidence and the convicted individuals deserved their punishment.

It added that the Court of Appeal's dismissals of relevant appeals against convictions and sentences demonstrate that any person who intends to subvert and endanger national security will be punished in accordance with the law.

As for the decision to uphold the verdict for a defendant against whom there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to be sure of his participation in the conspiracy, the Department of Justice will study the judgment carefully and consider whether to lodge an appeal.

The Government emphasised that Hong Kong is a society underpinned by the rule of law. The Hong Kong National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance clearly stipulate that the principle of the rule of law shall be adhered to in preventing, suppressing and imposing punishment for offences endangering national security.

The statement said the court’s judgment in this appeal case shows that the Judiciary of the Hong Kong SAR exercises judicial power independently in accordance with the law, and everyone charged with a criminal offence will receive a fair trial in accordance with laws applicable and as protected by the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

The statement noted that courts decide cases strictly based on evidence and applicable laws. It clarified that legal proceedings are never influenced by the profession, political beliefs or backgrounds of those involved.

It added that the prosecution must prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt for a defendant to be convicted.