Hong Kong sentences 45 pro-democracy leaders to prison terms of up to 10 years
A Hong Kong court on Tuesday sentenced 45 pro-democracy leaders, the city’s most prominent activists among them, to prison terms of up to 10 years. None received sentences of less than four years and two months.
The harsh penalties for a nonviolent offense underscore how the territory’s legal system has become an extension of the repression Hong Kong has faced since massive pro-democracy protests five years ago, and authorities’ insistence on continuing to persecute longtime opposition leaders who they believe were at the forefront of the city’s resistance.
The sentences mark the end of a protracted legal drama for the activists, who were swept up and arrested over a single day in February 2021. All were Hongkongers who had committed themselves to fighting for greater democratic rights for the city and against Beijing’s legal and political encroachment.
They were charged with “conspiracy to commit subversion” under the Beijing-imposed national security law for their participation in an unofficial primary election. The prosecution accused them of seeking to disrupt the functioning of the government if they were to be elected.
A total of 47 were charged, and most have remained in pretrial detention since. Of the group, 31 pleaded guilty, hoping for reduced sentences, while 14 were found guilty in May after trial. Two were acquitted.
Benny Tai, a 60-year-old legal scholar who came up with the idea of the unofficial primary, received the harshest sentence, of 10 years. Those who chose to push back against the charges by going to trial received longer sentences than those who pleaded guilty. Youth activist Joshua Wong, one of the most recognizable of the group, was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison.
The eventual time they will serve in prison will be shorter than the sentences handed out Tuesday. Most have been in pretrial detention since early 2021, which will count as time served. Many are former lawmakers, and judges took into account their public service to slightly reduce their sentences.
The landmark trial, involving the largest number of defendants for a national security case, was seen as a bellwether of how strictly authorities would enforce the new law, which came into effect in 2020. At every step, the case - from the arrests to the initial bail hearings, the years-long pretrial detention and the trial itself - has shown how Hong Kong’s once-lauded judicial system now resembles a more authoritarian system, according to legal experts.
The trial was overseen by three judges handpicked by the government to try national security cases, departing from the tradition of trial by jury under Hong Kong’s common law system.
“The courts now are rarely departing from the government’s narrative,” said Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law. “Judges have been working to further the government’s line, using their definition of pro-democracy protests, on the strategies of the [opposition] democrats, rather than putting weight on safeguarding rights and freedoms.”
Together, the defendants represented the full gamut of Hong Kong’s once-robust opposition: LGBTQ activists, a longtime Marxist dissenter, veteran lawmakers and newcomers to the political scene. Those who have been locked away since their 2021 arrest have already faced significant hardship. Some have lost family members and pets. Others have seen their health deteriorate. They see their family and friends only for brief periods, separated by a barricade, and speak to them on phone calls monitored by guards.
“With living habits completely changed, in an environment that is not free and completely different from your past life … there are a lot of worries, tangible and intangible pressures,” said Chan Po-ying, whose husband, Leung Kwok-hung, known as “Long Hair,” has been imprisoned since 2021. Leung has become visibly thinner, she said, but has kept mentally active by reading.
Leung, at 68, is the oldest defendant among the group. He was sentenced to six years and nine months in jail, and will not be released until he is in his 70s.
More than 300 members of the public came to support the defendants on the rainy Tuesday morning, lining up outside the court with umbrellas. Near them, armed police officers were stationed in the streets. Only five seats were reserved for members of the public in the main courtroom.
In finding the defendants guilty, the judges said that they planned to use the primary election to seek political power and then disrupt the functioning of Hong Kong’s legislature by filibustering and vetoing the government’s budget. Tai’s idea was to force democratization of Hong Kong through this method, and the primary sought to pick the most viable candidates who could give the pro-democracy camp a majority in the legislature. The plan was in place for months before the passage of the national security law.
Tai - who also helped launch protests in 2014, known as the Umbrella Movement, that spiraled into a 79-day occupation of city streets - and the others decided to go ahead with the unofficial primary vote after Beijing imposed the law on Hong Kong. More than 600,000 voters took part in the 2020 citywide exercise.
Critics have argued that the defendants could not have understood the law’s implications at the time of their offense. Defense lawyers pointed out that the plan never materialized - and could not have - as the chief executive, the city’s head of government, later decided to delay the actual legislative election, citing issues related to the coronavirus pandemic. Some of the defendants were also disqualified from running in the legislative election, meaning they could not have taken office and then tried to subvert the system, as alleged.
Over the past four years, the national security law has done more than target opposition leaders. Every institution in the city has been transformed and is now subservient to the new order, from schools to the media, museums and even the film industry. Any public opposition was further chilled by additional national security legislation passed earlier this year, a set of laws known as Article 23 meant to focus on “domestic” threats.
The laws have chipped away at Hong Kong’s promised autonomy under the “one country, two systems” formula that was intended to hold for 50 years after its handover from Britain to China in 1997.
Analysts say the sentences come at a sensitive time for Hong Kong, with an incoming Trump administration packed with China hawks who have long advocated for greater freedoms in the city. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Trump’s pick for secretary of state, is a decades-long supporter of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement, one of the original sponsors of the bill that paved the way for U.S. sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials, and he has met activists such as Joshua Wong multiple times.
Other Western countries have also been closely watching the proceedings. Among the 45 sentenced is an Australian dual citizen, Gordon Ng. The Australian government has been denied consular access to Ng and said in a statement Tuesday that it has “expressed our strong objections to the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities on the continuing broad application of national security legislation, including in application to Australian citizens.”
“We call for China to cease suppression of freedoms of expression, assembly, media and civil society, consistent with the Human Rights Committee and Special Procedure recommendations, including the repeal of the National Security Law in Hong Kong,” the statement added.