Case Summary and Outcome

The West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court sentenced Chung Man to 10 months imprisonment for multiple charges of sedition, with portions of sentences for Counts 2 and 3 to be served consecutively to Count 1. The case involved incidents between March and April 2024 where the Defendant wrote various political slogans including “Hong Kong Independence,” “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times,” and derogatory comments about police officers on upper deck bus seats. After being identified through CCTV footage and caught discarding a double-ended pen used for writing the slogans, Chung Man was arrested and admitted to writing the messages, claiming he did so to exercise freedom of speech and conduct a “social experiment.” The Court rejected Chung Man’s defense of impulsive action, citing evidence of premeditation through his consistent carrying of writing tools. The Court emphasized the increased gravity of sedition offenses following the March 2024 legislative changes. While acknowledging the Defendant’s guilty plea as a mitigating factor reducing the initial 12-month sentence, the Court maintained that the repeated nature of the offenses and their impact on national security warranted consecutive sentencing.

Facts

On March 25 and April 21, 2024, the Police Officials found that slogans like “National Self-Strengthening”, “Hong Kong Independence”, “Hong Kong Independence, the Only Way Out”, “Liberation”, “Restoration of Hong King” and “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times”  written on the upper seats in the back of the bus. These writings were positioned in a way that made them visible to bus passengers. The police launched an investigation and obtained CCTV footage, which showed the person named, Chung Man- the Defendant, boarding the buses and sitting in the seats where the messages were later discovered.  In further incidents on April 2 and April 18, 2024, Chung Man wrote additional phrases on bus seats, including “721 Don’t See Me,” “831 Beat to Death,” and comments about Police Officers, such as “Black Cop’s Shit.” These phrases referenced significant events during the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, particularly the events which involved violent confrontations between protesters and the police. 

On April 27, 2024, a police officer observed Chung Man boarding a bus at 7:30 AM. Later, the words “Liberate Hong Kong” were discovered written on the back of the seat in front of where Chung Man had been sitting. The police officer followed Chung Man when he left the bus and witnessed him discarding a double-ended pen. The police arrested Chung Man on June 23, 2024. Under caution, he admitted to writing the messages. 

During a subsequent video interview, Chung Man explained that he had written the words impulsively when no one else was present on the bus, claiming he did so to exercise his freedom of speech. In his statement, Chung Man provided interpretations of his writings, explaining that they represented: the right to resist the government, advocacy for Hong Kong’s self-determination, and support for governance by anti-government social activists. He acknowledged awareness that writing “Liberate Hong Kong” was illegal and that publicly displaying such messages could threaten national security and social stability.

Decision Overview

Chief Magistrate So Wai Tak of the West Kowloon Magistrates’s Court delivered the decision. The primary issue before the Court was to determine whether the Defendant was guilty of sedition or not.

The Senior Public Prosecutor contended that the Chung Man deliberately targeted public transportation, specifically choosing upper and rear seats to avoid detection by bus staff while ensuring that passengers would see his slogans promoting Hong Kong independence, thus endangering national security. The slogans were displayed for periods ranging from one day to a month, advocating for Hong Kong’s separation from China’s legitimate governance, threatening national unity and territorial integrity. The prosecutor emphasized that early legal intervention was necessary to prevent societal chaos, and that the sentence should reflect the preventive nature of the crime.

On the other hand, Chung Man pleaded that his criminal intentions were under warning, hoping to prove that there was still freedom of speech in Hong Kong and that “his social experiment was destined to fail.” Chung Man along with his family members, submitted letters of intercession, praising him as a warm-hearted and dutiful person. He expressed deep remorse, acknowledging his guilt and attributing his actions to a moment of impulse and external influences. He admitted to being affected by national bias and the influence of certain writings. Chung Man also contended that the crime was relatively minor, as it was committed in a primitive manner—by handwriting slogans on bus seats—rather than through more impactful methods, such as incitement over the internet. Additionally, he criticized the splitting of the charges into multiple counts, suggesting it was unnecessary given the circumstances.

The Court began its discussion by examining the principles for determining sentences in cases involving sedition and national security offenses. It emphasized the importance of considering legislative intent when interpreting increased maximum penalties. [paras. 15-16] The Court referred to HKSAR v. Lee Tin-sang, wherein it was initially suggested that increased maximum penalties might not necessarily lead to correspondingly heavier sentences for all offenses. Citing the English case of Richardson, the Court emphasized that while increases in maximum penalties shouldn’t be applied mathematically across all cases, there should be some corresponding increase in sentences for cases of varying severity. The Court also referenced Secretary for Justice v. Lau Sin Ting, which underlined that increased maximum penalties reflect public sentiment calling for greater deterrence. [para. 19]

The Court stressed that the intention of the legislature must be taken into account when determining sentences, as it reflects the seriousness of such crimes. [paras. 21-22] It noted that the substantial increase in maximum penalties for sedition offenses in March 2024 clearly demonstrated the legislature’s position on the gravity of these crimes. The Court also highlighted that maintaining national security is a fundamental consideration in sentencing, citing HKSAR v. Ng Hau Yi Sidney [para. 23], which classified the old “sedition” offense as a national security offense. While acknowledging that a sentence cannot be extended solely for protecting public safety, the Court, referencing HKSAR v. Chiu Wai Kan Vicken (No.2) [paras. 24-25], affirmed that it can consider national security when exercising sentencing discretion.

In the present case, the Court addressed the Defendant’s defense of acting impulsively. The Court rejected this claim citing concrete evidence that demonstrated premeditation: the Defendant consistently carried a double-headed pen to commit the offenses and deliberately disposed of these tools afterward, indicating planned rather than impulsive behavior. [para. 28] Additionally, the Court considered the Defendant’s claim of being influenced by biased foreign articles, noting that this awareness should have actually heightened his understanding of the potential consequences of seditious acts on public security. [para. 29]

In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court employed a comprehensive analysis considering multiple factors: the nature and circumstances of the crimes, the Defendant’s intention, and the impact on national security. [para. 30] The Court initially set a 12-month sentence per charge, subsequently reduced to 8 months in recognition of the Defendant’s guilty plea.  However, the Court referred to The Queen v Tong Hoi-fung, which mandates higher sentences for multiple similar offenses committed at different times. [paras. 31-32] This principle was reinforced by the authoritative text Cross & Cheung’s Sentencing in Hong Kong, emphasizing the importance of deterring repeat offenses. [para. 33] In conclusion, the Court sentenced the Defendant to a total of 10 months imprisonment for multiple charges of sedition. The Court ordered that portions of the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 be served consecutively to the sentence for Count 1, resulting in a total 10-month imprisonment.