In the case where 47 pro-democracy figures were charged with “conspiracy to subvert state power,” 9 candidates from Kowloon West, super district, and the health services functional constituency. Six of them completed their mitigation pleas yesterday, while the remaining Wong Pak-yu , Lester Shum, and Winnie Yu Wai-ming also finished on Thursday (11th) (see text for key points of the statements). The case is adjourned until July 30 to continue with the mitigation of another 8 people from New Territories West, expected to take three days.

During her statement, Winnie Yu Wai-ming mentioned her role as an intensive care nurse, motivated to enter politics due to the COVID-19 outbreak in 2019 and the authorities’ disregard for medical concerns, thus running for the Legislative Council to fight for a voice. After her sentence in this case, Yu may face a disciplinary hearing by the Nursing Council. A mitigation letter written by Yu was also read in court (see another article), but the judge interrupted, noting it was a political argument.

Lester Shum’s side mentioned that the prosecution witness, Au Nok-hin, wrote a letter of mitigation for him, stating that Shum played a decisive role in the Kowloon West coordination meetings, mainly opposing the indiscriminate vetoing of budget proposals, and was instrumental in the area not reaching a consensus to veto.

Nine people from Kowloon West Super District Health Services completed their mitigation pleas. Candidates from Kowloon West, including Claudia Mo, Kalvin Ho Kai-ming, Frankie Fung, Wong Bik-wan, and Nathan Lau, as well as Lester Shum from the Super District, finished their mitigation statements on Wednesday; Mo, Ho, and Shum were allowed to leave and did not need to return to court. The remaining three, Wong Bik-wan, Lester Shum, and Winnie Yu Wai-ming, completed their statements on Thursday.

Friends of Lester Shum and Winnie Yu Wai-ming queued to attend, and during an interview, they used lyrics to convey to “friends inside” that “I only wish you are still well” (see another article).

Before the court session, Wong Pak-yu met with his lawyer. He was dressed in black trousers and a white shirt, with three buttons undone, showing his chest, and he took off his jacket and rolled up his sleeves; he later reappeared in the dock, sitting down and then putting on a dark green jacket.

Wong Pik-wan wore a blue jacket with a royal blue base and a red shirt inside, waved to the audience as she entered the court, and did not notice when her lawyer called her until Lester Shum tapped her on the shoulder to remind her. Lester Shum wore a white mask, his hair parted on the side, waved to the audience as he entered, took off his mask after sitting down, smiled showing his teeth, and leaned forward to continue waving.

Frankie Fung looked down at his documents, at one point conversing with Wong Pak-yu. Lester Shum occasionally looked towards the correctional staff and the audience. Winnie Yu Wai-ming wore a brown jacket and a black top, her hair tied up in a bun, and she smiled at the audience after sitting down.

The key points of the statements from both days of mitigation are summarized in the table below:

Defendant	Key Points from Defense’s Mitigation	Remarks on Penalty
Lester Shum (Guilty)	Received a letter of mitigation from Au Nok-hin, indicating that Shum opposed indiscriminate vetoing at meetings, helping to prevent a consensus on vetoing. Has a prior unauthorized assembly record, from which he has learned. His culpability is different from others, belonging to the lighter side.	*His culpability differs from others, belonging to the lighter side.*
Claudia Mo (Guilty)	Received letters of mitigation from individuals like Dr. Tik Chi-yuen and Harmony House. Mo wrote her own letter of mitigation, sincerely apologizing for her participation. Mentioned in her letter a sincere wish to spend ‘remaining time’ with her husband. Suggested sentencing range of 5 to 6 years. Stated Mo was not an organizer; the judge questioned Benny Tai consulting Mo on the legality of the primaries.	*Suggested sentencing range is 5 to 6 years.* *Stated that Mo was not an organizer; the judge questioned whether Benny Tai had consulted Mo regarding the legality of the primaries.*
Kalvin Ho Kai-ming (Convicted after trial)	Continued to follow the King’s Hill historical site after arrest. Plans to focus on church service in the future, not politics. Received 9 letters of mitigation, including from Joseph Wong. A sentence of less than 3 years would suffice to reflect his culpability.	*A sentence of less than 3 years would suffice to reflect his culpability.*
Frankie Fung Tat-chun (Guilty)	Acted out of good motives, believes in serving the community peacefully. Fung is an idealist, an enthusiastic young man who strives to promote what he believes is right. Letters of mitigation apologizing for attacking the pan-democrats.	*The three-tier penalty system for subversion does not apply.* *The plan in the case had a high chance of failure; sentencing should not assume guaranteed success.* *There was no immediate national security risk, otherwise, arrests would not have occurred over half a year after the National Security Law was implemented.* *Unaware of the legal implications at the time of the incident.*
Wong Pik-wan (Convicted after trial)	Letter of mitigation from Zhang Bingliang, describing Wong as a victim of ‘confrontational politics’ in 2019. Zhang also mentioned Wong’s support for the 2010 political reform and follow-up on the lead water incident, proving Wong is gentle and pragmatic. Minor role, lowest level of culpability. Classified as ‘other participant’.	*Minor role, lowest level of culpability.* *Classified as ‘other participant’.*
Nathan Lau (Guilty)	Just graduated, nearly 24 years old at the time of the incident. Participated in the primaries to serve the community and Hong Kong, misled into believing it was legal. Letters from friends and pastors attest to his willingness to help and enthusiastic service. Participation in the case was short, concluded after the failure. Classified as ‘other participant’ or ‘active participant’ on the lower side.	*Participation in this case was brief, concluding after the failure.* *Classified as ‘other participant’ or on the lower side of ‘active participants’.*
Lester Shum Ngo-fai (Guilty)	Neighbors’ letters of mitigation state that when Shum engaged in politics, he was not just vocal but hands-on.  Shum wrote his own letter of mitigation, mentioning separation from his wife for over three years, his love remains strong, hoping to return home to spend years together.	No further remarks mentioned.
Wong Pak-yu (Guilty)	First in his family to attend university, coming from a working-class background. Suffered stress from work in the technology sector and community service, developed hypertension at a young age, requires medication. Detained for over three years, lost about 20 kilograms. Wrote his own letter of mitigation, grateful to his family for their unwavering support; wiped tears in court. Not an organizer, belongs to ‘active participants’, not high culpability. Unaware of legal implications.	*Not an organizer, classified as an ‘active participant’, with not high culpability. * *Indicated ignorance of the law.*
Winnie Yu Wai-ming (Convicted after trial)	Works as a nurse, committed to benefiting the public. Felt the need to speak out as the pandemic affected every Hongkonger. Wanted to bring public opinion on vetoing rights to the Legislative Council. Would not solve problems with violence, only advocated for ‘strike’ to exert pressure. Defense read out Yu’s personally written letter of mitigation, judge interrupted questioning it as a political discourse.	*Classified as ‘other participant’, at most on the lighter side of ‘active participants’.* *May face a disciplinary hearing by the Nursing Council.* *Government disqualification of candidates mitigates the actual harm planned; all defendants should receive a sentence reduction.*

Winnie Yu Wai-ming’s defense: a nurse trying to do good for the public 

Winnie Yu Wai-ming, a candidate from the health services sector during the primaries, is represented by barrister Randy Shek. 

Shek pointed out that Yu, 37 years old and married, was born and raised in Hong Kong and is a compassionate, young idealist. She aspired to join the medical service sector since her university days, later studying nursing and becoming a registered nurse.

Shek noted that nursing is a sacred job with immense pressure and responsibility for young women, and Yu continued to dedicate herself to serving those in greater need, thus completing courses in critical care and working in the intensive care unit.

Shek stated that he believes the judge still remembers that Yu had worked on the frontlines, personally caring for patients, but she felt her contributions were still limited and subsequently moved to logistical work, not for a more comfortable work environment but to benefit more people. Shek argued that many of the defendants in the case have dedicated their lives to public service, and Yu’s choices even more so helped those in need.

However, Shek mentioned that following her conviction in this case, Yu is likely to face a disciplinary hearing by the Nursing Council, meaning Yu will not only serve her sentence but also pay a professional price.

Randy Shek: Winnie Yu Wai-ming’s contributions could have been honored in other countries.

Shek also pointed out that Yu had not been involved in politics until 2019. Although aware of the social disorder and political disputes at the time, it could only be described as an “awakening,” with no actions taken until the COVID-19 pandemic impacted every Hongkonger, compelling her to speak out. The concerns she raised through the union (Hospital Authority Employees Alliance) were focused on public health and preventing deaths, with no political ties.

Shek continued, stating that at the time, the public had limited knowledge about the coronavirus, and in hindsight, the union’s ideas might seem “radical,” but they simply wanted those in power who could make decisions to respond to their concerns, yet authorities ignored calls such as “closing borders.”

Shek noted that this was the starting point of Yu’s political journey, after which she decided to run for the Legislative Council, only to end up imprisoned. Shek remarked that for Yu’s contributions to public health as a labor movement activist, she might have been honored with awards in other countries, but the situation is unique in Hong Kong.

Judge Johnny Chan Jong-herng interrupted, noting that Yu’s conviction was unrelated to her public service. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also directed Shek to focus on Yu’s level of involvement in this case.

Shek: Under the three-tier penalty system, Yu would be an “other participant.”

Shek explained that the health services sector is different from other districts; there were no coordination meetings or primary forums. Health services did have primaries, and Yu knew other districts would, too, but her intent was unrelated to the scheme outlined in the case; she merely wanted to coordinate without any evidence that she discussed post-“35+” actions with the organizers of the primaries.

Shek continued, saying that the idea of vetoing the budget came from the internet or news, which was a hot topic among the public. Yu merely wanted to reflect public opinion in the Legislative Council. Throughout the case, Yu mostly acted alone without consultation, and Shek described her as unfortunately violating the law.

Shek added that Yu had made many statements related to vetoing the budget and took this stance during debates, but none of these actions were illegal or intended to subvert the government before the National Security Law came into effect on July 1, 2020. Yu and others at the time were unclear whether the planning and primaries were legal. Organizers like Benny Tai mentioned the legality of the primaries at various press conferences, even after the implementation of the National Security Law.

Shek stated that what Yu wanted was a “Big Three Strikes,” where even civil servants would join the strike, indicating that legal strikes to exert pressure are a non-violent means. The reason for this non-violence, Shek noted, is because Yu works in healthcare; in 2019, tear gas occasionally reached hospitals, and she was concerned about affecting patients; by nature, Yu would not resolve issues through violence. More importantly, Yu believes in “universal suffrage,” as promised by the Basic Law.

Shek argued that even if the content of the “No Regrets” statement was unrelated to the health services sector, Yu signed it thinking it was a standard for primary candidates. Regarding the opposition faction’s press conference, Shek said Yu’s stance was more moderate than others; she did not advocate for vetoing the budget. Even if she was aware of others speaking, it does not mean she agreed with them. Shek noted that although the judge applied the “conspirators’ principle” in the judgment, the defendant’s own words and actions are more relevant during sentencing.

Ultimately, Shek stated that if the three-tier penalty system under Article 22 of the National Security Law is applied, Yu should be considered an “other participant” or at most a lighter side of “active participants.” Shek also agreed, upon the judge’s questioning, that some defendants being disqualified made the alleged plan less feasible, reducing potential harm, which is a mitigating factor applicable to all defendants.

Yu states in her mitigation letter that perhaps her only crime is loving Hong Kong too much

Shek cited a mitigation letter personally written by Yu, stating that she believes everything started with the anti-extradition bill movement in 2019, and one of the “Five Demands” was the realization of “universal suffrage” promised by the Basic Law. She questioned if the government considers implementing “Article 23” a constitutional duty, isn’t realizing “universal suffrage” also? She mentioned that perhaps her only mistake was “loving Hong Kong too much.” (See another article)

Upon hearing this, Judge Andrew Chan Hing-wai immediately interrupted, saying, “This is not a mitigation letter, it’s a political statement… do not make such statements in my court.” Shek argued that this reflects why Yu participated in this case.

Judge Johnny Chan Jong-herng questioned how it reflects; Andrew Chan reiterated that this is not a mitigation letter; Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that he could not see how this letter could help reduce Yu’s sentence. As Shek attempted to respond, Andrew Chan waved his right hand dismissively as if to shoo away, saying, “You may speak it outside the court, shout it on the streets if you like, but it must be outside.”

Shek later argued that if a person expresses regret for their actions, others naturally question their motives or sincerity. Andrew Chan raised his voice, “Then don’t ask for mitigation! You don’t have to ask for mitigation. You see? That’s fine.” Yu, mostly looking down at her documents, was watching the judge throughout this exchange.

Lester Shum received a mitigation letter written by Au Nok-hin

In the Kowloon West district, Lester Shum’s representative barrister, Douglas Kwok King-hin, adopted the written statements, adding two points, mentioning that the prosecution witness Au Nok-hin wrote a letter of mitigation for Shum, which was read aloud in court (translated into Chinese by the reporters, followed by the original English text read in court):

I would also like to invite your Lordship to consider any mercy on account of his political orientation. As what I have mentioned in my testimony, representing the League of Social Democrats, he was the key person who objected to the advocacy of voting against the budget indiscriminately in the Kowloon West coordination meeting at the material time.

Despite any of his offence afterwards, I would like to emphasize his objection was decisive in preventing the advocacy to be the consensus in the Kowloon West meeting. Apart from that, complying non-violence principle and being negotiable with police in organizing public events are also characters that Mr. Shum believes.

Douglas Kwok King-hin stated that he hopes the court will consider that Lester Shum’s commitment and culpability in this case are different, believing that he is on the lighter side of the scale. Kwok also mentioned that Shum served as the convener of the Civil Human Rights Front from 2018 to 2020 and voluntarily brought up a past case from 2012 where Shum was involved in organizing and participating in an unauthorized assembly, for which he was fined HK$5,000. Upon hearing this, Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang mentioned that this case was 10 years ago and suggested that the defense did not need to bring it up.

Kwok reiterated that Shum had learned from that case, noting that he organized several marches and assemblies in 2019, all of which received a letter of no objection from the police, as mentioned in Au’s letter of mitigation. He emphasized that Shum adheres to non-violent principles and is willing to cooperate with the police.

Wong Pak-yu’s side cited statements from the opposition’s press conference to demonstrate that Wong held mistaken beliefs at the time.

During the mitigation plea on Wednesday, Wong Pak-yu’s representative barrister, Esmond Wong, was asked by the judge if the defense could provide examples of Wong’s actions and statements reflecting his belief that the primaries were legal, or his reliance on advice given by Benny Tai. Wong continued on Thursday to address the issue of ignorance of the law.

Wong stated that Wong Pak-yu attended a super-district coordination meeting on May 8, 2020. The transcript shows that attendees explained that the power to veto was granted by the Basic Law, marking Wong’s first encounter with the concept of veto power.

Wong further stated that Wong Pak-yu had signed the “No Regrets” declaration, which mentioned “I will use the powers granted to the Legislative Council by the Basic Law, including vetoing the financial budget.”

Additionally, Wong Pak-yu attended a press conference held by the opposition faction in July 2020. Esmond Wong quoted from the transcript where a reporter asked if the commitment to veto violated the National Security Law. Wong Pak-yu responded, and subsequently, Prince Wong Ji-yuet stated, “… actually vetoing a motion is a legitimate right given to a legislator, a member of the parliament, so there has never been any situation of coercion or illegality.” Wong Pak-yu agreed, saying, “Yes.” Esmond Wong claimed this response reflects Wong Pak-yu’s confirmation of the statement.

Judge Johnny Chan Jong-herng questioned, noting that the discussion at the time did not specifically concern indiscriminate vetoing of the budget. Esmond Wong stated that this shows Wong Pak-yu’s mistaken belief, pointing out that when asked about indiscriminate vetoing, his immediate response was that it was not illegal and was a power granted by the Basic Law.

Eight candidates from the New Territories West will have their mitigation hearings at the end of July. 

On Thursday, defendants from the same case, including Prince Wong Ji-yuet, Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam, Tiffany Yuen Ka-wai, and Carol Ng Man-yee, attended the hearing from an extension court.

To date, 26 convicted defendants, including those alleged as organizers, from the Hong Kong Island, Eastern Kowloon, Western Kowloon, super-districts, and health services sectors, have completed their mitigation statements.

The eight candidates from New Territories West, including Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, Sam Cheung Ho-sum, Wong Tsz-yuet, Ng Kin-wai, Andrew Wan Siu-kin, Kwok Ka-ki, Carol Ng Man-yee, and Roy Tam Hoi-pong, will start their mitigation hearings on July 30, expected to last three days.

The Witness