Case Summary and Outcome

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance found NG Gordon Ching-Hang and other defendants guilty of conspiring to subvert State power under Article 22 (subversion) of the National Security Law of Hong Kong. The case arose from the defendants’ participation in the 2020 Legislative Council Primary Election, during which they allegedly planned to indiscriminately veto government budgets if elected, with the aim of compelling the Chief Executive to accept the “Five Demands” or resign. The Court of First Instance ruled that such conduct, when done with the specific intent to seriously interfere with or undermine the lawful performance of governmental functions, amounted to “subverting the State power” under Article 22(3) of the National Security Law. It rejected the defence of parliamentary privilege, holding that the alleged scheme originated outside the legislature and constituted an abuse of constitutional authority. The Court concluded that the offence was clearly defined and that the acts of NG Gordon Ching-Hang and the 46 others, if proven, would fall squarely within its ambit. In conclusion, the Court found most of the defendants guilty of the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Subversion. The Court acquitted Lau Wai-chung and Lee Yue-shun. 

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression notes that some of the information contained in this case analysis was derived from secondary sources.

---

Facts

The initial background to the case lies in the mass nationwide protests that erupted across Hong Kong in 2019 in response to a proposed extradition bill by the Hong Kong government. The demonstrations evolved into a larger pro-democracy movement, with widespread calls for reforms articulated through the now-famous slogan: “Five Demands, Not One Less”.  The “Five Demands Not One Less” includes: (1) Full withdrawal of the Extradition Bill; (2) A commission of inquiry into alleged police brutality; (3) retraction of the categorisation of protesters as ‘rioters’ (rioting is a punishable crime); (4) amnesty for arrested protesters and (5) dual universal suffrage (for elections of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council and Chief Executive). In the wake of these protests, the Chinese central government enacted the NSL on 30 June 2020, criminalizing acts deemed as secession, subversion, terrorism, or collusion with foreign forces. 

Prior to the NSL’s enactment, in December 2019, Benny Tai (Defendant 1 and then Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong) published an article titled “Capturing a LegCo majority as an important step toward genuine universal suffrage,” proposing that pro-democracy candidates coordinate to win at least 35 seats, termed as “Project 35+”, in the Legislative Council (LegCo). The idea was to utilize institutional mechanisms such as budget veto powers to press the government toward democratic reforms, including responding to the ‘Five Demands.’ Alongside Tai, the other defendants in the present case, inter alia, including district councillors, political party members, labour organizations, lawyers, educators, and activists, joined the proposed scheme. While some helped coordinate or promote the primary, others ran as candidates based on diverse platforms, from housing reform and labour rights to environmental policy and education.

A primary election was organized in July 2020 to coordinate pro-democracy candidates and avoid vote-splitting in the then-upcoming LegCo election. Over 600,000 Hong Kongers voted in this unofficial but widely supported primary. Shortly thereafter, authorities initiated the mass arrests of 47 activists and politicians for alleged subversion under Article 22 of the NSL.

As per the prosecution, between 1 July 2020 and 7 January 2021, NG Gordon Ching-hang, Cheng Tat-hung, Yeung Suet-ying Clarisse, Pang Cheuk-kei, Ho Kai-ming Kalvin, Lau Wai-chung, WONG Pik-wan, Sze Tak-loy, Ho Kwai-lam, Chan Chi-chuen Raymond, Chow Ka-shing, Lam Cheuk-ting, Leung Kwok-hung, Or Yiu-lam Ricky, Lee Yue-shun, and Yu Wai-ming Winnie, were part of a conspiracy with 31 others, to subvert State power through a coordinated scheme (‘Scheme’ or ‘Project 35+’) aimed at paralysing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government by organising, planning, committing, or participating in a political strategy (a.k.a Scheme) through unlawful means.  The prosecution further claimed that the defendants sought to abuse the powers and functions conferred upon LegCo Members under Article 73 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Scheme involved obtaining a controlling majority in the LegCo to indiscriminately veto all government budgets and public expenditure proposals, regardless of their content or merit, to force the Chief Executive to dissolve the LegCo under Article 50 of the Basic Law. This, in turn, would paralyse the functioning of the Government and ultimately compel the Chief Executive to resign under Article 52 of the Basic Law. 

The prosecution further urged that the defendants, to implement this Scheme, allegedly stood, or encouraged others to stand (or not to stand), in the LegCo election in furtherance of the plan. They were further accused of agreeing, or inciting others to agree, to exercise or refrain from exercising their legislative powers after the election in accordance with the Scheme, particularly in relation to examining and approving government budgets. The prosecution also alleged that the defendants undertook or encouraged others to willfully neglect their constitutional and statutory duties as LegCo Members, including the duty to uphold the Basic Law, bear allegiance to the HKSAR, and serve with honesty and integrity. To the prosecution, these actions seriously interfered with, disrupted, or undermined the lawful functioning of the government, and thereby constituted the offence of subversion under Article 22(3) of the Hong Kong National Security Law, read with Sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance. 

The prosecution’s case was that between 1 July 2020 and 7 January 2021, the 16 defendants (who didn’t plead guilty), along with the other defendants (31 who pleaded guilty), entered into an agreement to implement a political strategy with the objective of subverting State power. Their aim, as alleged, was to compel the Chief Executive to respond to the political movement’s “Five Demands, Not One Less.” Should the Chief Executive refuse, the plan was to force them to dissolve the LegCo and eventually resign. Prosecutors treated the entire primary election process, and associated campaign materials, speeches, and strategy discussions, as evidence of a criminal conspiracy to subvert state power.

On the other hand, the 16 defendants (who pleaded not guilty) categorically denied the existence of any unlawful conspiracy. The defendants rejected the prosecution’s characterization of the “Project 35+” plan as a criminal conspiracy. They contended that the primary objective of Project 35+ was political coordination within legal bounds to achieve a majority in the LegCo through democratic means. The defendants maintained that the primary election was a legitimate grassroots exercise, aimed at increasing electoral efficiency within the pro-democracy camp by avoiding vote-splitting. For example, NG Gordon Ching-Hang argued that his calls for coordination and unity were meant to reflect the collective will of the voters, not to orchestrate any plan to subvert government institutions. Several defendants explained that their candidacy was motivated by issue-based politics and community needs rather than a desire to paralyse the government. Cheng Tat-hung (D8) testified that he stood for election to improve public policy in areas such as district planning and health care. Similarly, Pang Cheuk-kei (D11) stated that he hoped to advance policies on free education, environmental protections, and youth entrepreneurship. Both made clear that their election campaigns were centered around constructive legislative goals, not regime change or institutional breakdown.

Furthermore, the defence also categorically denied that there was any binding agreement among the defendants, whether formal or informal, to veto government budgets indiscriminately. Cheng Tat-hung stated that although political messaging might have referenced veto power to appeal to voter sentiment, he had no intention of blindly rejecting every government proposal. He emphasized that he would have used the Civic Party’s internal “exemption mechanism” to vote independently on any bill, depending on its substance. Pang Cheuk-kei similarly noted that while budget vetoes were discussed at coordination meetings, they were framed as conditional tactics, not fixed strategies or preconditions to candidacy. Following the enactment of the NSL on 30 June 2020, multiple defendants testified that they revised their political platforms and campaign materials to ensure compliance. Cheng Tat-hung stated that campaign scripts were amended, and rhetoric regarding indiscriminate vetoing was removed. The Civic Party, in particular, shifted its position, advocating for legal amendments to the NSL within the constitutional framework rather than wholesale opposition. These adjustments, the defence contended, demonstrate that the defendants did not act with seditious or subversive intent.

The defence further asserted that there was no unified platform or “common programme” among all candidates, and that the diversity of political goals among the defendants undermined the prosecution’s claim of a coordinated conspiracy. In this regard, Leung Kwok-hung (D14) explained that his campaign focused on labour protections and working-class interests. Lee Yue-shun (D16) testified that he joined the race primarily to expand the reach of his party, ADPL, in the Kwun Tong district and was unaware of any strategy to cripple the executive branch by legislative obstruction. The defendants urged that the prosecution’s theory amounted to the criminalization of legitimate political speech and electoral participation. They emphasized that campaign slogans, calls for accountability, and political criticism are hallmarks of democratic societies, not evidence of subversion. Yu Wai-ming Winnie (D47) testified that her motivation stemmed from grassroots organizing and advocating for better pandemic management, healthcare equity, and labour protections. She insisted that she had no knowledge of any illegal plan or intention to violate the NSL. In conclusion, the defence held that the primary election and the broader Project 35+ strategy were neither unlawful nor seditious. Rather, they were expressions of political will and civic engagement aimed at working within Hong Kong’s legal and constitutional framework. Far from conspiring to subvert State power, the defendants claimed to have pursued legitimate democratic participation through the ballot box, which was protected under the Basic Law.

The HKSAR Court of First Instance heard the case because the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Subversion under Article 22(3) of the NSL is a serious indictable offence carrying a potential sentence of life imprisonment.  During the 118-day trial, four of the defendants who had pleaded guilty testified as prosecution witnesses. In the end, the court convicted 14 of the 16 defendants and acquitted two.

---

Decision Overview

Justice Andrew Chan, Justice Alex Lee, and Justice Johnny Chan unanimously delivered the decision for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance. The primary issues before the Court were:

(1) Whether the acts allegedly agreed upon and pursued by NG Gordon Ching-hang and the other co-defendants amounted to “unlawful means” under Article 22(3) of the NSL;

(2) whether the defendants’ conduct, advancing the so-called ‘Scheme’ to obtain a majority in the Legislative Council and trigger a constitutional crisis, constituted a conspiracy to seriously interfere in, disrupt, or undermine the performance of duties and functions of the HKSAR Government, as defined under Article 22(3); and

(3) whether the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the specific intent required for the offence of subversion, including whether the defendants’ actions were carried out with a view to subverting State power, and whether such actions were pursued after the enactment of the NSL despite being initiated beforehand.

On the interpretation of “unlawful means”

NG Gordon Ching-Hang and the others defendants, relied on the ejusdem generis (of the same kind) principle, contending that “other unlawful means” should be read narrowly to include only acts of a similar nature to “force or threat of force.” However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the mischief rule displaced the ejusdem generis principle because the legislative purpose of the NSL made clear that non-violent acts could equally endanger national security. While referring to  HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying, the Court of First Instance held that the NSL must be construed “in light of its ordinary meaning, purpose and context.” [para. 17] The Court observed that the legislative history and explanatory materials from the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee indicated that the law was enacted in response to activities such as advocating independence, inciting hatred, and “paralysing governance by the government and operation of the legislature,” many of which did not involve violence. [para. 22] The Court thus held that “there is no valid basis for criminalising the former [violent acts] but not the latter [non-violent acts].” [para. 22]

The Court also dismissed the defendants’ argument that the term “unlawful means” must refer only to criminal offences and that interpreting it to include civil wrongs would render the provision overly broad and vague. It held that such a narrow interpretation would undermine the purpose of the NSL, particularly its aim to prevent actions that could paralyse the legislature and threaten national security. The Court emphasized that the phrase must be interpreted broadly to include non-criminal but unlawful acts, such as breaches of the Basic Law, in order to uphold the “One Country, Two Systems” principle and the legislative intent behind the NSL. The Court held that the broader term “unlawful” (非法) was intentionally used in the Chinese text of the NSL, and it encompassed unconstitutional acts, procedural breaches, or acts otherwise not in accordance with the law, beyond just criminal actions. Thus, “unlawful means” under NSL 22 includes non-criminal forms of disruption as long as they are aimed at subverting state power, the Court held.

The Court also clarified that while the prosecution must prove the use of unlawful means and a specific intent to subvert State power, it is not required to prove that the defendants knew the means were unlawful. Knowledge of unlawfulness is not part of the mens rea of the offence. The NSL offence is not one of strict liability; instead, it hinges on the double intent: to carry out the act and to subvert State power. A mistaken belief in the legality of the means is not a valid defence, as it would be inconsistent with the NSL’s purpose of safeguarding national security. Therefore, the Court concluded that under NSL 22, the term “unlawful means” is broad and includes acts beyond criminal offences. 

On the interpretation of subverting the State power

The Court interpreted the phrase “subverting the State power” under Article 22 of the NSL through a purposive and contextual approach, given the absence of a statutory definition for both “subverting” (顛覆) and “State power” (國家政權) in the NSL. The Court first turned to the ordinary meaning of the terms and referred to authoritative Chinese and English dictionaries. “State power” was understood to include the powers and functions of the President of the People’s Republic of China, the Central People’s Government, and the HKSAR, as per Section 3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. These powers include privileges, authority, and discretion in governance, and were understood to encompass both central and local government authorities acting under the Basic Law framework.

The Court further emphasized that the HKSAR exercises State power on behalf of the Central People’s Government, deriving its powers from the Constitution and the Basic Law. Therefore, “State power” included not only the Central People’s Government but also the performance of lawful duties by organs of the HKSAR Government. The Court thus affirmed that there was no inconsistency between the NSL and the definitions provided in the Interpretation Ordinance. Regarding “subvert,” the Court adopted its ordinary meaning, such as “overthrow,” “undermine,” or “disrupt” a system or authority. The Court interpreted “subverting the State power” to include a serious interference with, disruption of, or undermining of the lawful performance of governmental functions by the HKSAR institutions. This interpretation, the Court opined, was grounded in the legislative context and the social circumstances surrounding the enactment of the NSL, considering concerns over national security threats.

Importantly, the Court clarified that the offence under Article 22 required a specific intent, namely, the accused must act “with a view to subverting the State power.” This intent is established if the act is committed with the aim of achieving the consequences described in Article 22’s sub-paragraphs—that is: (1) overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the People’s Republic of China established by the Constitution; (2) overthrowing the body of central power of the PRC or the body of power of the HKSAR; or (3) seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions following the law by the body of power of the HKSAR. Thus, proof of an act committed to cause any of these outcomes would satisfy the mental element required for the offence of subversion under the NSL. The Court considered that all three sub-paragraphs of Article 22 are self-defining, i.e., if the prohibited acts are committed with the specified intent, they amount to subversion. Thus, the offence of “subverting State power” was found to be legally certain and clearly defined.

On Unlawfulness and Abuse of Power, and Conspiracy and Its Elements

The Court reiterated that “State power” under the NSL includes the powers and constitutional functions of the HKSAR government and its organs, such as the Chief Executive and Legislative Council. To the Court, LegCo members had a constitutional duty under Basic Law 73 to examine and approve budgets based on merit. A deliberate and indiscriminate refusal by a majority of LegCo members to approve budgets, with the intent of coercing the Government to accept a political agenda, would amount to an abuse of power and a breach of both BL 73 and NSL 3. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument based on parliamentary privilege, clarifying that such privileges do not extend to schemes of indiscriminate vetoes or conduct occurring outside legislative debate. It relied on past case law, such as Secretary for Justice v Leung Kwok Hung, to affirm that such privileges are not absolute and must not be abused to paralyze the constitutional order. 

Furthermore, the Court stated that participants in the Primary Election were informed early on that the objective of vetoing budgets was to force the Government to meet political demands, thereby demonstrating their specific intent. Even though these individuals never became LegCo members due to the election’s postponement, their conduct still reflected an intention to undermine the authority of the Government and the Chief Executive, which, if carried out, would have seriously disrupted lawful governance. On this point, the Court emphasized that acts intended to obstruct government functions through unconstitutional means violated Article 104 (Oath of Office of Public Servants and Allegiance) of the Basic Law and the duty to uphold the Basic Law. The 2021 amendment to the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, though not retroactive, supported the interpretation that such conduct constituted unlawful means that endangered national security. 

On the Alleged ‘Scheme’ and the Defendants’ defence of impossibility

The Court concluded that the alleged “Scheme”, whereby the defendants agreed to indiscriminately veto government budgets to force compliance with the Five Demands, would, if carried out, constitute a serious interference with the lawful functions of the HKSAR Government. Relying on Articles 50–52 of the Basic Law, the Court emphasized that repeated rejections of the budget could trigger the dissolution of the Legislative Council and even the resignation of the Chief Executive. Even though provisional appropriations are allowed under Article 51, the Court held that the intended blanket rejection, regardless of merit, would make such appropriations unfeasible, rendering governance impossible.

The Court further held that even if provisional short-term appropriations were approved after LegCo’s dissolution, they would only permit government operations at previous expenditure levels, thereby preventing the introduction of new policies or expansion of existing programs. This would seriously impair the government’s ability to function effectively. Ultimately, the Court found that the Scheme’s objective to engineer a “constitutional crisis” in order to pressure the government was incompatible with lawful political engagement, and would undeniably amount to “seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining” the functions of the HKSAR’s governing institutions under NSL Article 22(3). [para. 100]

Ng Gordon Ching-Hang and the other defendants argued that the offence in question (i.e., the alleged scheme) was “impossible” to commit because they believed the “Project 35+/Scheme” could not realistically succeed. They reasoned that the HKSAR government would likely disqualify pro-democracy candidates, or that not enough seats could be secured in the functional constituencies, where some members, due to business interests, might refuse to cast vetoing votes against the budget. As such, they contended, there was no real possibility of obtaining a majority in the Legislative Council, and thus the alleged conspiracy could not be materialized. 

However, the Court rejected this line of argument, finding that the alleged impossibility was a matter of factual impossibility, not legal impossibility. It held that under Section 159A(1)(b) of the Crimes Ordinance, factual impossibility does not provide a defence to a charge of conspiracy. Even if it was objectively impossible to bring about the underlying offence under Article 22(3) of the NSL, the conspiracy itself could still be punishable under Section 159C, so long as there was the requisite of criminal intent. Therefore, the prosecution had to prove not just that the defendants intended to do the prohibited act, but also that they did so with the specific intent of subverting the State power.

On the Application of the Law to the Factual Circumstances

After considering the above proposition of law, the Court identified the major factual issues that needed to be determined in the case. These included: (1) whether there existed, at the relevant time, an agreement as alleged by the prosecution; (2) whether the defendants had knowledge of the Scheme; (3) whether the defendants were parties to that Scheme; and (4) whether the defendants had the intention to subvert State power and, with that intention, participated in or continued to participate in the Scheme. 

First, the Court turned to determine the key factual issues in the case, beginning with the origins, development, and intent behind “Project 35+. (a.k.a. Scheme)”.¹

The Court found that the Scheme was conceived by Benny Tai, who first publicized the idea of obtaining a majority in the LegCo in December 2019 in his article titled “Capturing a LegCo majority as an important step toward genuine universal suffrage.” His objective evolved from merely electoral coordination to explicitly advocating for vetoing government budgets as a strategic tool to compel the Chief Executive to respond to the Five Demands and ultimately destabilize the existing political system. The Court observed that from early 2020 onwards, Tai and his collaborators actively organized and promoted the Project across all five geographical constituencies. Through articles, coordination meetings, and planning documents, Tai articulated the use of LegCo’s constitutional powers, particularly budget vetoes, as a “constitutional weapon of mass destruction.” [para. 121] The Court found that coordination agreements were drafted, circulated, and discussed, and most candidates who joined the Primary Election were fully aware that the use of veto power formed the project’s political goal.

The Court reviewed the engagement of Power for Democracy, a Hong Kong-based political coordination platform aimed at assisting and coordinating electoral activities within the pro-democracy camp, which played a key operational role. Au Nok-hin (a Pro-Democracy Politician), who helped coordinate the Primary Election, was found to have early and deep knowledge of Project 35+. The Court considered his active participation in coordination meetings and his awareness of the Scheme’s objectives. Project 35+ documents, drafted and circulated widely, made it clear that the plan included vetoing budgets to induce a constitutional crisis. The Court considered that these documents formed the backbone of the conspiracy, communicating the goals to participants and reinforcing group commitment.

The Court noted that, as per the prosecution’s evidence, most defendants endorsed these goals through nomination forms, deposit receipts, and in some cases, the “Inked Without Regret” (IWR) declaration. The “Inked Without Regret” declaration was an unofficial document initiated by three defendants, Chow Ka-shing (Defendant No. 37; Pro-Democracy Activist), Leung Fong-wai Fergus (Defendant No. 7; Hong Kong Politician), and Cheung Ho-sum Sam (Defendant No. 26; Former member of the Tuen Mun District Council), on 10 June 2020, one day after the Project 35+ press conference. It was created in response to Benny Tai’s decision not to require participants in the Primary Election to sign the formal coordination agreement. The organizers feared that signing such a document might increase the risk of disqualification for candidates. 

The Court concluded that, although some participants initially hesitated or had differing views, by June 2020, the consensus on using budget vetoes had been widely accepted within the group. The organizers, especially Benny Tai, consistently emphasized this purpose during meetings and press conferences, and no significant objection was raised by participants. The Court found that the plan was not merely an electoral strategy but a coordinated effort to seriously interfere with the performance of lawful government functions. The defendants sought to provoke a constitutional crisis by repeatedly vetoing budgets, potentially leading to the Chief Executive’s resignation or the dissolution of the LegCo. 

The Court held that the Scheme, if carried out as intended, would amount to seriously interfering in or undermining the lawful functions of the HKSAR Government, especially through paralyzing the budgetary process. The plan was not just an electoral strategy but a deliberate attempt to subvert the existing political structure under the Basic Law and the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. Given that the participants entered the Scheme with this specific intent, the Court concluded that the offence of conspiracy to commit subversion under Article 22(3) of the National Security Law was carried out by those who were parties to the Scheme. 

The Court examined the conduct of each defendant separately.  Hereinbelow is the Court’s analysis of all 16 defendants. 

Name (D)	Alleged Act	Court’s Observations (Para)	Conclusion
NG Gordon Ching-hang (吳政亨) | D5 Pro-Democracy Activist	Participated in Project 35+, ran in Primary Election with intent to veto budget and force CE to yield.	He knowingly participated with intent to subvert the government through institutional paralysis [Para. 594-606]	Guilty
CHENG Tat-hung (鄭達鴻) | D8  Civic Party member, District Council Member (since 2016)	Civic Party candidate, supported Project 35+, held placards, gave speeches endorsing veto.	Found to be fully aware, an active promoter of the veto plan, intent to subvert [Para. 192–224]	Guilty
YEUNG Suet-ying Clarisse (楊雪盈) | D10 Art consultant, District Council Chairlady (since 2020)	Participated in coordination, had campaign materials affirming veto plan.	Found knowingly involved and committed to the Scheme; had the intent to subvert. [Para 225–245]	Guilty
PANG Cheuk-kei (彭卓棋) | D11 CEO of Hong Kong Basic Law Foundation, former District Council Member	Openly promoted Project 35+, aligned with Civic Party strategy.	The court found his stance consistent with the subversion objective. [Para. 246–264]	Guilty
HO Kai-ming Kalvin (何啟明) | D14  District Councillor	ADPL candidate; participated in the Scheme, public statements showed intent.	Participated with intent to force Government change via veto [Para. 265–341]	Guilty
LAU Wai-chung (劉偉聰) | D16 Former Chairman, HKFS	Had name on IWR, but claimed no support; did not campaign on veto platform.	The court found insufficient evidence of intent or agreement to the Scheme [Para. 342–369]	Not Guilty
WONG Pik-wan (黃碧雲) | D17 Founder and Secretary-General of the pro-democracy party Demosisto	Democratic Party candidate, endorsed veto, ran post-NSL.	The Court found she supported the Scheme pre/post NSL with subversive intent [Para. 370–418]	Guilty
SZE Tak-loy (施德來) | D24 Chairman of ADPL, District Councillor	ADPL Chairman reversed party stance, promoted mutual destruction strategy.	Actively supported the Scheme and intended subversion. [Para. 419–457]	Guilty
HO Kwai-lam (何桂藍) | D33  Former Journalist	Journalist-turned-candidate; promoted “resistance” ideology, coordinated with D1.	Her rhetoric and conduct showed a strong commitment to subversion. [Para. 458–483]	Guilty
CHAN Chi-chuen Raymond (陳志全) | D36  Former LegCo Councillor	People Power leader advocated a budget veto and a constitutional crisis.	The Court rejected the denial; held he had full knowledge and intent [Para. 484–500]	Guilty
CHOW Ka-shing (鄒家成) | D37  Student (Nursing)	Young activist, endorsed IWR, promoted “fight by all means”.	Radical conduct and statements established intent to subvert [Para. 505–521]	Guilty
LAM Cheuk-ting (林卓廷) | D38 Former Democratic Party Lawmaker	Moderate image, but endorsed veto plans via campaign and Debate Notes.	The Court found overwhelming circumstantial evidence of agreement and intent. [Para. 522–537]	Guilty
LEUNG Kwok-hung (梁國雄) | D41 Co-founder of the League of Social Democrats	Veteran activist, ran under LSD platform of veto and protest.	Statements and materials showed deep involvement and intent [Para. 538–548]	Guilty
OR Yiu-lam Ricky (柯耀林) | D43  Former Member of the Sai Kung District Council and former Chairman of the Concern Group for Tseung Kwan O People’s Livelihood.	Joined coordination meetings, signed IWR, promoted anti-Govt strategy.	The Court found he knowingly joined and intended to advance the Scheme [Para. 549–570]	Guilty
LEE Yue-shun (李予信) | D46 Former District Councillor for the Kam Ping constituency	New Civic Party member, declined IWR, campaign shifted post-NSL.	The Court accepted he did not intend or agree to the Scheme; acquitted [Paras. 571–584]	Not Guilty
YU Wai-ming Winnie (余慧明) | D47 Hong Kong Activist and Nurse	Publicly described LegCo as a resistance platform.	Found to be a conscious actor aiming to disrupt Govt functions [Para. 585–593]	Guilty

In conclusion, the Court found Ng Gordon Ching-hang, Cheng Tat-hung, Yeung Suet-ying Clarisse, Pang Cheuk-kei, Ho Kai-ming Kalvin, Wong Pik-wan, Sze Tak-loy, Ho Kwai-lam, Chan Chi-chuen Raymond, Chow Ka-shing, Lam Cheuk-ting, Leung Kwok-hung, Or Yiu-lam Ricky, and Yu Wai-ming Winnie guilty of the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Subversion. The Court acquitted Law Wai-chung and Lee Yue-shun. 

On the Sentencing Order

On 19 November 2024, the HKSAR Court of First Instance adjudicated convictions against those who were found guilty. The Court, while addressing the legal issues raised during the mitigation hearing, adjudicated on the sentence period of 45 defendants (14 defendants who didn’t plead guilty but were found guilty and 31 defendants who pleaded guilty).  A central legal issue was whether the sentencing framework under Article 22 of the NSL, which sets out penalty bands (i.e., a tiered structure of fines and potential imprisonment for various offenses) for principal offenders, active participants, and other participants, applied to conspiracy charges. The Court held that although Article 22 of the NSL did not explicitly mention conspiracy, it could serve as a reference when determining individual sentences. However, it did not strictly apply to conspiracy offences, which were governed instead by Section 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, prescribing only a maximum penalty. 

To support this interpretation, the Court referred to R v Sajid Khan, where the English Court of Appeal held that courts should not apply minimum sentences from substantive offences to conspiracy charges unless expressly stated. Similarly, in Attorney General’s Reference Nos. 48 and 49 of 2010, the Court acknowledged the indicative value of minimum sentences in related offences but rejected automatic application of such minimums to conspiracies. The Court found these principles applicable and held that the strict wording of Article 22 of the NSL, which made no reference to conspiracy, precluded mandatory minimums for such charges.

The Court rejected the argument that the alleged ‘Scheme’ was bound to fail and thus deserved leniency. It noted that the Scheme was carefully planned and promoted. Organizers conducted press conferences, strategy meetings, fundraising campaigns, and election forums, the Court opined. Participants paid deposits, gathered nominations, and launched campaign materials, too. To the Court, the defendants made a determined attempt to paralyse the government through the Primary Election scheme, and it dismissed the “impossibility” defence. It emphasized that efforts to subvert or paralyse government functions typically encounter obstacles, which do not diminish the seriousness of the offence.

In addressing the “ignorance of the law” argument, the Court found that some defendants may have been misled by others, particularly Benny Tai, into believing the Scheme was lawful. However, it refused to grant leniency to key figures like Tai and Yeung Alvin Ngok-kiu, both of whom were lawyers and vocal advocates of the plan. The Court also clarified that although the conspiracy charge only applied to conducts committed after 1 July 2020, it could consider pre-NSL conduct to assess the extent and seriousness of the conspiracy. Drawing from HKSAR v Lui Sai Yu and HKSAR v Ma Chun Man, the Court reaffirmed that local sentencing principles continued to apply in NSL cases, and that seriousness must be determined holistically based on factors such as planning, impact, and intent, rather than by ranking limbs of Article 22 of the NSL. Accordingly, the Court imposed sentences guided by each defendant’s role and the gravity of their participation.

The full list of defendants and their sentences is available here.

---

1. The ‘Project 35+’, as contended by the defendants, emerged in the wake of the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests, which later broadened into a city-wide demand for structural democratic reforms, encapsulated in the widely adopted slogan “Five Demands, Not One Less.” Amid the government’s refusal to respond to protesters’ demands, the arrest and prosecution of activists, and growing disillusionment with traditional forms of political participation, segments of the pro-democracy camp sought new institutional strategies to express opposition. The enactment of the NSL on 30 June 2020 further intensified concerns about the narrowing of civic space and the criminalization of dissent. Within this context, Project 35+ was conceived by the defendants not as a means of unlawful subversion but as a constitutional response to achieve a majority in the Legislative Council and lawfully exercise budgetary veto powers under Article 73(2) of the Basic Law to compel political negotiation or concessions from the executive. The use of institutional mechanisms, including legislative checks, was thus perceived by defendants as one of the final remaining legal avenues for exerting democratic pressure. ↩

---