Case Summary and Outcome

The West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court found Chuo Kai, the Defendant guilty of sedition based on his guilty plea. The case involved Chuo Kai, who was arrested on June 12, 2024, for wearing a shirt with pro-democracy slogans and a mask with the acronym “FDNOL”, symbolizing political demands. The Court considered Chuo Kai’s actions as premeditated, noting that he deliberately chose to wear the inflammatory attire on a date significant to demonstrators. The court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, stating that Chuo Kai’s actions posed a risk to social order by potentially reviving unrest and undermining the governance of Hong Kong. The Court rejected Chuo Kai’s claim of acting spontaneously and stressed the preventive nature of the law in discouraging actions that could incite public unrest and endanger national security.

Facts

On June 12, 2024, at approximately 12:15 PM, police officers observed Chuo Kai, the Defendant, a 27-year-old man, near the exit of the Shek Mun MTR station in Shatin. Chuo Kai was wearing a shirt with the slogan “Free Hong Kong, Restore Hong Kong, Times Revolution” and a yellow mask with “FDNOL” printed on it. Both the shirt and the mask contained symbols associated with Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. The acronym “FDNOL” signifies a political meaning ‘Five demands, none of which are indispensable [五项要求，缺一不可]” which inter alia includes, withdrawal of the extradition bill, prohibition on labeling of protesters as “rioters”, dropping of charges against protesters, conducting an independent inquiry into police behavior and implementation of genuine universal suffrage for both the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive.

Upon approaching Chuo Kai, the Police Authorities requested him to present his identity card for inspection. Chuo Kai refused to comply with this request. A subsequent search of Chuo Kai’s handbag revealed a box of fecal matter.

According to the Police Authorities, Chuo Kai had left his residence in Siu Lek Yuen, Sha Tin at approximately 11:50 AM, as confirmed by CCTV footage. He traveled to the Shek Mun MTR station by public light bus, during which time he openly displayed his attire bearing the pro-democracy slogans. At around 1:15 PM, Chuo Kai was arrested and was charged with multiple offenses, including Section 24(1)(a)(i) of the Maintenance of National Security Ordinance (6 of 2024) of the Laws of Hong Kong, for his actions. The Chuo Kai pleaded guilty to sedition at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts.

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 Chuo Kai, the Defendant was guilty of sedition or not.

The Senior Public Prosecutor contended that Chuo Kai’s actions were premeditated, as he purchased the shirt with inflammatory slogans from Taiwan in March 2024 and deliberately wore it on June 12, a date regarded as symbolic by demonstrators. The Prosecutor emphasized that the Chuo Kai intended to use this significant day to promote a message that endangered national security, inciting others to commemorate the 2019 unrest. Chuo Kai’s actions, according to the court, posed a serious risk to social order by attempting to revive the unrest and undermine the legitimate governance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Prosecutor further contended that Chuo Kai’s slogans promoted separatism and incited hatred towards the government and law enforcement, which threatened national unity and territorial integrity. The Prosecutor stressed the need for an early legal intervention to prevent such acts from leading to chaos and to deter those who either share or agree with Chuo Kai’s views. The sentence was intended to reflect the preventive nature of the law, discouraging similar actions that could incite public unrest and endanger national security.

On the other hand, Chuo Kai himself pleaded guilty to sedition. 

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.

After considering all relevant factors, including the circumstances of the crime, the defendant’s intention, the impact on national security, and the nature of the offense, the Court adopted a 12-month sentence for each charge. [para. 30] However, this was reduced to 8 months due to the defendant’s guilty plea, as there were no other valid mitigating factors. The Court structured the sentences to be served consecutively in part, resulting in a total sentence of 10 months imprisonment. [paras. 34-35] This final sentence was equivalent to a hypothetical starting point of 15 months for the three charges combined, reflecting the Court’s consideration of the case’s severity balanced with the defendant’s guilty plea.