The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal delivered a unanimous verdict, overturning the convictions of opposition activists Chow Hang-tung, Tang Ngok-kwan, and Tsui Hon-kwong. The case revolved around their non-compliance with a data provision notice under Article 43 of the China-imposed National Security Law (NSL).
Central to the legal dispute was the interpretation of section 3(3) in Schedule 5 of the Implementation Rules for Article 43. It required a foreign agent to provide requested information to the Commissioner of Police, contingent upon a reasonable belief that the information was necessary for preventing and investigating offenses threatening national security. The prosecution relied on a heavily redacted report to substantiate its case, a move that the court found insufficient for proving that the defendants acted as foreign agents. The court’s decision overturned a prior ruling which set a lower threshold for proving foreign agent status.
The judgment noted that the redacted information significantly weakened the prosecution’s argument by leaving the court with no concrete evidence to identify the defendants as foreign agents. Furthermore, the court opined that invoking public interest immunity, as claimed by the police, infringed upon the defendants’ right to a fair trial. The redactions deprived them of understanding the specifics of their alleged interactions with foreign entities, thus blocking their ability to form an effective defense based on reasonable doubt.
The defendants were once part of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, an organization known for organizing annual vigils commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. While the group was disbanded under national security pretexts in October 2021, implications related to the disbanding continue to resonate through the judiciary. Notably, earlier this year, Chow’s conviction was reinstated for incitement linked to unauthorized assemblies.
Chow remains in custody, facing charges of incitement to subvert state power and sedition under ordinances enacted in 2020 and 2024, respectively. This comes despite findings by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which declared her detention as arbitrary last year.
The court emphasized that international legal standards, such as those enunciated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, uphold validity in Hong Kong’s jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the administration remains firm on its stance that external commentary contravening court proceedings may equate to criminal contempt.