Appeal Hearing Concludes Early in Landmark Hong Kong National Security Case

 Hong Kong, July 17 — An appeal hearing for 12 pro-democracy activists convicted of subversion under Hong Kong's sweeping national security law concluded earlier than expected on Thursday, as defence lawyers argued that their clients had not received a fair trial.

The appeal is part of the high-profile "47 democrats" case — named after the 47 opposition figures charged in 2021 with conspiracy to commit subversion. The charges stemmed from their involvement in an unofficial primary election held in July 2020, shortly after Beijing implemented the controversial security law in response to widespread pro-democracy protests.

Of the original 47 defendants, 45 were convicted last year, receiving prison terms ranging from four to ten years. Two were acquitted, while 11 have appealed their convictions and sentencing. Among them, activist Prince Wong, who had earlier pleaded guilty, is appealing her sentence.

On Thursday, Court of Appeal Judge Jeremy Poon stated that a verdict on the appeals would be delivered within nine months due to the complexity of the case. He also noted that a further appeal to Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal would remain possible thereafter.

Government prosecutor Andy Lo described the case as involving "an unprecedented conspiracy" designed to undermine the administration by gaining control of the legislature and blocking budget approvals to pressure the city’s Chief Executive into resignation.

Defence lawyers, however, strongly challenged the fairness of the original proceedings. Erik Shum, representing former lawmakers Helena Wong and Lam Cheuk-ting, contended that the sentencing process was flawed and urged for a reduction in their prison terms. Wong is currently serving six years and six months, while Lam is serving six years and nine months.

During the four-day appeal hearing, defence counsel Robert Pang argued that trial judges had been overly interventionist, frequently interrupting defendants and dismissing lines of questioning. Pang, representing unionist Winnie Yu, said this interference compromised the integrity of the trial.

Lawyer Steven Kwan, appearing for activist Owen Chow, claimed his client had been prejudged by the court, which he said asked nearly half of the total questions directed at Chow during cross-examination. Chow was sentenced to seven years and nine months.

Prosecutors dismissed the claims, with Derek Lau asserting that judges were within their rights to question defendants in a non-jury trial format. “There is no evidence of prejudice or unfairness,” he stated.

Another key argument revolved around the defendants’ legislative goals. Prosecutors had previously argued that the group’s intent was to paralyse governance through repeated budget vetoes — a move that could trigger the resignation of the Chief Executive under Article 52 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law.

However, Trevor Beel, representing journalist-turned-activist Gwyneth Ho, countered that using legislative procedures to push for reform, including universal suffrage, was both legitimate and in line with the Basic Law. “To seek meaningful democratic participation is not radical, nor does it violate the 'one country, two systems' principle,” Beel argued.

The case continues to draw international attention amid concerns over the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong since the imposition of the national security law in mid-2020. The final judgment in the appeal is expected by mid-2025.