Closing Arguments Heard in Hong Kong Alliance's National Security Law Case

(CNA, Reporter Chang Chien, Hong Kong, 18th) The case involving the disbanded Hong Kong Alliance and its core members for violating the "Hong Kong National Security Law" began its closing arguments in a Hong Kong court today. This is another high-profile national security law case in Hong Kong, following the one involving Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai. The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (Hong Kong Alliance), its former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan, and vice-chairs Albert Ho and Chow Hang-tung, are accused of inciting others to organize, plan, implement, or participate in acts aimed at subverting state power by unlawful means between July 1, 2020, and September 8, 2021. When the trial began earlier this year, Albert Ho pleaded guilty in court, while Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung pleaded not guilty. The Hong Kong Alliance, represented by a senior counsel hired by the Official Receiver's Office, also pleaded not guilty. According to comprehensive reports from Hong Kong media today, the trial resumed this morning at the West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts (temporarily used by the High Court), where the prosecution and defense began their closing arguments. Lee and Chow were escorted to the court in a prison van this morning. In court, the judge asked the prosecution to explain the meaning of "overthrow, undermine" in the Hong Kong National Security Law, noting the lack of relevant case law and formal discussion. The representative from the Department of Justice explained that "overthrow" means "to topple," "to bring down (the original regime) or change (the social system)," and "to completely negate." The prosecution stated that the Alliance's core goal of "ending one-party dictatorship" is equivalent to "overthrowing" the state's fundamental system and the central government organs in Beijing. According to reports, Lee Cheuk-yan's lawyer responded that the Alliance's slogan focused on "dictatorship," arguing that no party should hold absolute power, and it was not specifically targeting the Chinese Communist Party. The defense lawyer also stated that the prosecution has no evidence to prove that the defendants incited others to achieve their goals by unlawful means. He pointed out that no incidents occurred in Hong Kong because of the Alliance's June 4th marches and candlelight vigils in Victoria Park, and no one acted on the Alliance's specific requests, which reflects that the Alliance did not incite others to achieve goals by unlawful means. In March, the judge had ruled that there was a prima facie case against the Alliance, Lee, and Chow. In Hong Kong, a "prima facie case" means that in a criminal case, after the prosecution has presented its evidence, the court preliminarily finds the evidence sufficient to constitute a crime, requiring the defendant to present a defense, call witnesses, or testify. However, this does not mean a final conviction, only that the evidence on its face is sufficient to support the charge, and the trial will proceed. The Hong Kong Alliance had organized annual June 4th marches and candlelight vigils for many years. It disbanded in September 2021 after the implementation of the National Security Law. This is another high-profile national security case in Hong Kong, following the one involving Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and eight others. (Editor: Chiu Kuo-chiang) 1150518