In the “conspiracy to publish seditious publications” case against Stand News, Judge Kwok Wai-kin found former Stand News Editor-in-Chief Chung Pui-kuen, Acting Editor-in-Chief Patrick Lam Shiu-tung, and the Stand News company guilty. The judge ruled that 11 of the 17 articles involved had seditious intent, including an interview with Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam, blog articles by Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Chan Pui-man, Allan Au, and Sunny Cheung Kwan-yang, as well as an interview marking two years since the conflict at CUHK.

This case, the first media sedition charge since 1997, is scheduled for sentencing on Thursday (26th). According to judicial institution data, there will be 54 seats available in the courtroom for the public and an additional 170 seats in an overflow area. The media is allocated 32 seats in the courtroom with an additional 33 in the overflow area. All court admission tickets will be distributed one hour before the hearing, starting at 1:30 PM.

Judge Rules 11 Articles as Seditious

This case marks the first media sedition trial since 1997. Judge Kwok Wai-kin ruled that 11 of the 17 articles involved were seditious. He determined that these articles lacked an objective basis, accusing the Department of Justice of absurd and abusive prosecution in the primary election cases, spreading hatred and anti-government sentiment through false news, and attacking police enforcement. The remaining six articles, including five interviews with Owen Chow, Fergus Leung, Nathan Law, Ted Hui, and Baggio Leung, and an award-winning report with Chow Hang-tung, were ruled not to be seditious, as they merely covered the political views of the candidates and did not incite action; the report by Kwong was deemed just news reporting.

Additionally, the judge referenced Stand News’ mission statement and editorials, viewing its media line as localist, supportive, and promoting Hong Kong’s autonomy. During the anti-extradition bill period, it became a tool for smearing and defaming the central and SAR governments. He believed that the two defendants approved the publication of the articles, knowing and agreeing with their seditious intent, using Stand News as a platform to incite hatred against the central or Hong Kong government, “regardless, at least disregarding the consequences of incitement.”

Defense Pleads on Behalf of Defendants as Journalists, Distinguishing from Other Sedition Cases

Both defendants discussed their journalistic principles during their plea. Chung stressed that accurate recording and reporting are “inescapable responsibilities”; Lam noted that journalists’ only loyalty is to “the public, and the public alone.”

Senior defense barrister Audrey Eu added that both are journalists aware of their duty to report on societal conditions and diverse opinions, distinguishing their case from other sedition cases involving personal views or venting. Eu also mentioned that Lam suffers from a rare disease with severe renal impairment requiring chemotherapy, making imprisonment challenging for receiving treatment.

Regarding sentencing, the defense noted that Chung and Lam had been remanded for 349 and 313 days, respectively. Considering good behavior in custody could equate to a reduction of one-third, equating to about 16.5 months for Chung and 15 months for Lam. Given the maximum sentence for the charge is two years, Eu argued that “they have already served most of it and should not be given the maximum punishment of two years,” hoping the judge would use discretion to not exceed the time they have already been remanded.

Charged with Conspiracy to Publish Seditious Publications

The defendants are sequentially Best Pencil (Hong Kong) Limited, Chung Pui-kuen (charged at age 52, unemployed), and Patrick Lam Siu-tong (charged at age 34, editor). They are jointly charged with one count of “conspiracy to publish or reproduce seditious publications.”

The charge states that between July 7, 2020, and December 29, 2021, in Hong Kong, they conspired together and with others to publish and/or reproduce seditious publications, with the intent to incite hatred or contempt of the Central Government or the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government or to incite others to rebel against them; incite residents of Hong Kong to seek to alter legally established matters in Hong Kong by unlawful means; incite hatred or contempt of, or to incite rebellion against, the Hong Kong judiciary; incite dissatisfaction or rebellion among the residents of Hong Kong; incite others to use violence; and/or encourage others to disobey the law or lawful orders.