The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal has upheld the convictions of opposition activist Tam Tak Chi for uttering seditious words under the now-repealed section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes Ordinance.
This decision comes amid ongoing scrutiny of sedition laws in the region, particularly concerning whether the prosecution must demonstrate intent to incite violence or public disorder. The court analyzed these issues beginning with the colonial-era Sedition Ordinance of 1938, which defined seditious acts such as uttering seditious words.
In 1970, amendments further defined “seditious intention,” including the act of counseling disobedience to law or to lawful orders. The court concluded that statutory law has superseded any common law requirement to prove intent to incite third-party violence or disorder.
One legal question concerned whether the offense should be tried as an indictable offense, requiring a judge and jury. The court affirmed that the magistrate correctly assumed jurisdiction, as seditious offenses carry maximum sentences of two years or three for repeat offenders. The Magistrates Ordinance allows for short-term imprisonment verdicts within a magistrate’s purview, while Article 41(3) of the 2020 China-imposed National Security Law does not make these offenses indictable due to procedural inefficiencies.
This judgment also echoed in a prior case where a district court convicted Stand News and its editors for publishing seditious content. The court there ruled that mens rea merely requires recognizing seditious intent without regard for publication consequences.
The 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance replaced these sedition offenses with new crimes under Division 4. Section 25 notably eliminated the need to prove defendant intent to incite disorder or violence. It aims to preemptively address potential community disorder by deterring unchecked seditious publications.
Tam Tak Chi has been the first person since Hong Kong’s 1997 Handover to stand a full trial for sedition. The district court sentenced him to 40 months imprisonment for 11 convictions, including seven counts of seditious speech.
The full details of the court’s decision can be reviewed in the official court documents.