In 2021, the national security police alleged the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China was a “foreign agent” and requested the group turn over its internal communications and documents. The Alliance refused.
The Alliance was formed in May 1989 as pro-democracy students began to gather and protest in China. For years afterwards the group organized Hong Kong’s annual Victoria Park candlelight vigil commemorating the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square massacre.
In 2021, the Alliance’s then-vice chairperson Tonyee Chow Hang-tung and four other committee members were charged with “failing to provide information in compliance with the notice of [National Security Law] ordinance.”
Chow, together with Tang Ngok-kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong, were found guilty after trial and each sentenced to four and a half months in prison. The trio filed an appeal directly to the Court of Final Appeal after completing their sentences.
In their decision, the Court of Final Appeal judges unanimously allowed the appeal and overturned the three convictions. Their ruling affirmed the appellant’s view that the prosecution must prove that the person or organization to whom the notification was issued is in fact a “foreign agent.” This is a necessary element of the crime and cannot be determined solely on the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard, the ruling read.
It also asked the prosecution to explain the reason why part of their investigation report submitted was completely redacted with black ink. The latter said this was to avoid exposing the proceedings to the police investigation. The Court of Final Appeal countered that with parts of the report concealed, the appellant is placed in a position they are unable to defend effectively, thus affecting their right to a fair trial.
Tang Ngok-kwan, a former member of the Alliance’s committee, said after the court hearing: “Justice lies in the hearts of the people. Today, we can prove that the Alliance is not a foreign agent, and I hope that in the future, it can be proven that the 1989 Democracy Movement was not a counter-revolutionary riot too.”
Tang said that Chow’s insistence on defending their rights and persistence during the case encouraged the Alliance.
Chow’s mother, who was at the court as the ruling was announced, said that she saw her daughter smiling in court. “She always said that she was doing what she thought was right. She had no reason to be unhappy, so everyone can be rest assured.” She added: “I hope the world will become a better place, and everyone must insist on kindness and justice.”
Chow and Others Face Multiple Charges
Although the appeal ended in favor of the defendants, Chow is still fighting a 15 month-sentence for promoting the Tiananmen Square massacre commemoration activities, including calling on the public to commemorate June 4 in 2021.After the Hong Kong government enacted Article 23 of the Basic Law (the “Safeguarding National Security Ordinance”), Chow, her mother, and others were imprisoned after being arrested for social media posts related to the June 4 event.
In 1989, after the Tiananmen Square crackdown, the Alliance participated in the rescue of mainland pro-democracy activists. It then started hosting the candlelight vigils in Victoria Park on June 4 every year.
After the CCP implemented the National Security Law in Hong Kong in June 2020, members of the standing committee of the Alliance still entered Victoria Park to light the candles in defiance of the Beijing-imposed rule.
In August 2021, the police cited the National Security Law and asked the Alliance to hand over its internal documents. In September 2021, the National Security Department of the Police arrested members of the Alliance’s standing committee for their refusal to comply. Chairperson Lee Cheuk-yan and vice chairpersons Albert Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung were all charged with “inciting subversion of state power.”
The case is still awaiting trial. In October 2021, the government canceled the Alliance’s registration as a company in Hong Kong.
Court Rejects Appeal Against Sedition Sentencing
Also on March 6, the court made a landmark ruling on an appeal against Hong Kong’s first sedition sentencing since the city’s handover from the UK to Beijing in 1997.
The judges ruled that the prosecution did not need to prove that the defendant’s remarks specifically caused violence or public disorder, and upheld the original sentence of three years and four months in prison.
The ruling sets the precedent that sedition convictions don’t require proof of violent intent, drawing criticism from human rights groups over concerns for free speech and the ability for Beijing to prosecute dissent against the CCP in the city.
