Hong Kong court to rule on ex-Stand News editor’s appeal bid against sedition conviction in 6 months

A Hong Kong appellate court will rule within six months on a bid by a former Stand News editor to overturn his sedition conviction, following intense debate over whether an article published by the now-defunct media outlet stoked hatred against the authorities.

Former Stand News acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam has sought to overturn his conviction of conspiracy to publish and reproduce seditious publications, of which he was found guilty alongside his predecessor Chung Pui-kuen in August 2024 – a case widely seen as a blow to press freedom in Hong Kong.

The case revolved around 17 articles published by Stand News in 2020 and 2021 that authorities deemed seditious. Trial judge Kwok Wai-kin ruled that 11 of those articles were proven to be offensive as they stoked hatred against the government in the wake of the 2019 protests and unrest.

David Ma, representing Lam, told three Court of Appeal judges on Tuesday that only one of the 11 problematic articles was published under Lam’s watch as acting editor-in-chief.

That article – a feature report marking the second anniversary of clashes between police and students on the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) campus in November 2019 – was wrongly ruled as seditious by the trial judge, Ma argued.

‘Obviously wrong’

He said the article featured interviews with two former CUHK students who were granted anonymity and recalled their “subjective feelings” during the November 2019 clashes. One interviewee was quoted as saying they felt “despair” after overhearing a police officer comment: “Let it burn down.”

“Subjectively, the two students had felt as if their home [CUHK] was invaded… It was hard to blame them,” he told the court in Cantonese. However, the trial judge relied on “hindsight” when ruling the article problematic, he said.

But the bench appeared unconvinced by Ma’s argument, with the judges questioning whether news outlets should publish claims that were “obviously wrong.”

“The news media should be aware of what happened in CUHK,” Judge William Tam said in Cantonese. “Is it right to publish when the interviewees are in the wrong?”

Judge Derek Pang questioned whether a media outlet should depict events using one-sided comments that were “wrong” and “biased,” adding that the report could have included the police’s account before publication.

In response, Ma argued that there was no right and wrong when it came to the interviewees’ subjective feelings, saying that the report did not seek to lay the blame on the police.

However, High Court Chief Judge Jeremy Poon said the central issue was whether media outlets could publish subjective comments that carried the “objective effect” of being seditious.

Prosecutor Derek Lau told the court that subjective feelings must not violate the law’s boundary and that freedom of expression is not absolute.

‘Borderline’ articles

Ma on Tuesday also argued that the prosecution needed to prove that Lam carried a “specific intent” to publish seditious publications, while the former editor did not harbour such an intention.

Calling some articles “borderline,” Ma said a publisher may not be aware of their seditious effect. “Casting a web too wide… could’ve convicted people who should not have been convicted,” he said.

The bench again appeared unpersuaded about Ma’s submission, challenging the lawyer’s interpretation of landmark Court of Final Appeal rulings regarding the need to prove a specific intent.

The sedition law prohibited the circulation of seditious publications in society, and publishing such materials would have constituted an offence, Judge Poon said.

Lam and Chung were originally charged under the colonial-era sedition law, which was repealed and replaced by the city’s homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance – known locally as Article 23 – in 2024.

The pair were sentenced in September 2024, but Lam walked free after the judge determined that he would not have to serve extra time in jail owing to time already served and his poor health.

Chung, who was sentenced to one year and nine months in jail, did not launch an appeal.

Separate from the 2020 Beijing-enacted security law, the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets and espionage. It allows for pre-charge detention of up to 16 days, and suspects’ access to lawyers may be restricted, with penalties involving up to life in prison. Article 23 was shelved in 2003 amid mass protests, remaining taboo for years. But, on March 23, 2024, it was enacted having been fast-tracked and unanimously approved at the city’s opposition-free legislature.

The law has been criticised by rights NGOs, Western states and the UN as vague, broad and “regressive.” Authorities, however, cited perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to “close loopholes” after the 2019 protests and unrest.

Safeguard press freedom; keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps