A Hong Kong judge has questioned the relevance of evidence linked to the 2019 anti-extradition protests in the national security trial of former leaders of the now-disbanded Hong Kong Alliance, as prosecutors concluded their case on Tuesday.
“I cannot see how the anti-extradition protests are relevant to this case,” Judge Alex Lee said on Jan. 30, during the hearing of video evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
Lee is one of three judges presiding over the trial of former Hong Kong Alliance chairman Lee Cheuk-yan and former vice-chairwoman Chow Hang-tung, who are charged with one count of inciting subversion of state power under the Beijing-imposed national security law.
The prosecution wrapped up its presentation on Feb. 4, and the court adjourned proceedings to March 9, when it will hear Lee’s no-case-to-answer application and legal arguments over the application of the “co-conspirator principle”. The defence has indicated that if the court finds a prima facie case, Lee plans to testify, including on the Alliance’s founding history.
Prosecutors allege that the Hong Kong Alliance, over many years, used the banner of “democracy” and the June Fourth Incident to advocate the slogan “end one-party rule”, arguing that even without a concrete plan, such advocacy would naturally lead to the “ending of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party”, constituting subversion.
Chow sought to call Ho Ming-hsiu, a Taiwan-based sociologist specialising in social movements, as a defence expert to interpret the Alliance’s “Five Core Principles,” including the call to “end one-party rule,” arguing the language did not violate the Chinese constitution. The court rejected the application, ruling the expert evidence was not relevant to the case.
The charge has drawn attention as it centres on speech-related conduct, with the prosecution contending that expression alone can satisfy the elements of the offence.
Although the alleged offence period runs from July 1, 2020, a day after the national security law came into effect, to Sept. 8, 2021, the prosecution’s evidence consists largely of 82 video clips spanning from 1996 to 2021. These include footage from annual June Fourth vigils, activities related to the Pillar of Shame, and public remarks by Alliance members. More than 70 per cent of the clips were recorded before the law came into force.
During proceedings, the court noted that the prosecution’s case rests on the constitutional framework following China’s 2018 constitutional amendments, while agreeing that the national security law does not have retrospective effect. Judges questioned the probative value of relying on footage that was lawful at the time it was made.
The prosecution subsequently agreed that clips recorded before 2018 would be dealt with by transcript only, with only post-2018 footage played in court.
However, transcripts of a June 2018 discussion hosted by Bowen Press were later found to contain nearly 20 errors, prompting the court to order revisions. Judges also queried the relevance of post-2018 footage, including interviews referring to the anti-extradition protests, a 2019 march where protesters chanted “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong”, and overseas congressional testimony.
At one point, Judge Lee warned that without specificity, assessing the evidence would be like “searching for a needle in a haystack”. Prosecutor Ivan Cheung responded that the prosecution’s case was that the Alliance sought to make use of “current events” to incite subversion.
The prosecution called only one witness, Superintendent Chow Wing-yee, who had issued a notice of objection to a June Fourth assembly in 2020. She testified that the decision was based primarily on public health considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court observed that no other national security-related factors were apparent. Consular representatives from several countries, as well as democratic figures and members of the public, attended the hearings. The case will resume on March 9.