2024.09.02

The last group of 9 candidates from New Territories East in the case of the 47 pro-democracy figures charged with ‘conspiracy to subvert state power’ began their plea on Monday (2nd). Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam, Ventus Lau Wing-hong, Owen Chow Ka-shing, Alvin Yeung, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, Lam Cheuk-ting, and Gary Fan Kwok-wai finished their statements. The case continued on Tuesday, addressing the pleas of Hendrick Lui Chi-hang and Mike Lam King-nam.

After confirming Gwyneth Ho’s criminal record, her side stated, ‘Apart from this, there is no plea.’ Owen Chow in his plea mentioned he could not have imagined that participating in the election could endanger national security, and he also referred to his years of detention. Alvin Yeung’s plea mentioned that as a lawyer, admitting to a criminal offense is embarrassing, and he expressed deep apologies to the members of the Civic Party.

Ventus Lau made his own statement, claiming he should be considered ‘actively involved’ and cited cases for potential sentence reduction. He also read out a plea from his girlfriend. Gary Fan’s side argued that the Basic Law allows for the veto of budgets, and the constitution is not so fragile, citing a plea from his daughter calling him the best dad. The representatives for Raymond Chan and Lam Cheuk-ting noted that both had minimal involvement in the case.

Alvin Yeung has noticeably lost weight, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen and Lam Cheuk-ting were seen smiling. 

Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam, Raymond Chan, Owen Chow Ka-shing, Lam Cheuk-ting, Ventus Lau Wing-hong, Alvin Yeung, Gary Fan Kwok-wai, Hendrick Lui Chi-hang, and Mike Lam King-nam started their pleas on Monday, September 2nd, seated in the defendants’ dock, separated by several correctional officers.

From the court observations, Alvin Yeung appeared much thinner, his short hair less dyed on the sides, making casual gestures and scratching his hand, appearing relaxed. Raymond Chan’s hair was slightly disheveled as he nodded and smiled at the attendees. Lam Cheuk-ting also waved and smiled.

The two who were granted bail. Hendrick Lui in a white tank top and blue cardigan, was seen closing his eyes while waiting for the session to start. Mike Lam, with short cropped hair, wore a dark blue mask and round glasses, dressed in a suit and a checkered dark blue tie, and was seen talking to Lui, who was seated in front of him.

Outside the court, by 8 AM, about 70 people had lined up to attend, including Lee Yu-tin who was acquitted in the same case. Attendees also included Lam Cheuk-ting’s mother, Ventus Lau’s girlfriend Emilia Wong, singer Anthony Wong, League of Social Democrats’ chair Chan Po-ying, former legislator Shao Ka Chun, and travel writer Pazu the Potato, who were there to observe the proceedings (see separate article for details).

Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam forgoes mitigation plea

Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam’s representative, barrister Trevor Beel, confirmed her criminal record but then stated, “other than that, no plea in mitigation put forward to the Court.” Ho, who was in the dock, looked down at her computer and showed no particular reaction.

According to records, Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam was convicted in the 2020 June 4th evening gathering case for participating in an unauthorized assembly.

Ventus Lau Wing-hong, unrepresented by a lawyer, spoke for himself at the dock with a clear voice, documents in hand. He faced the judges directly during his speech, occasionally gesturing and referencing his documents.

Lau argued his case along four main lines: his level of involvement, the impossibility of the plans, overall sentencing considerations, and his personal background. He classified himself as “actively involved” but with involvement being moderate to low. He noted that the judge had ruled the primaries were not inherently illegal; the illegality in this case stemmed solely from the agreement to indiscriminately veto the budget, thus his culpability should be assessed based on his approach to the veto, not his participation in the primaries.

Lau presented two pieces of evidence to support his claims. First, although he signed the “Ink Dries, Regrets None” declaration, he did not repost or share it on social media nor mention it in forums; if he were more actively involved, he would have used forums to question why others did not sign, emphasizing his commitment to vetoing the budget, hence his actual involvement in this aspect was less than others.

Second, he acknowledged his attendance at the July 15, 2020, resistance press conference and agreed he did not object to others’ statements there. However, unlike other attendees, he did not speak; he mostly stood as if merely part of the backdrop. Had he been more actively involved, he would have prepared his own speech and responded to journalists’ questions, but he only posed for a group photo at the end, arm in arm with others.

Lau Claims Vetoing the Budget was Not Important to Him

Lau explained that he didn’t put much effort into vetoing the budget because he didn’t consider it important. He had his own agenda, which was to ensure representation for defendants of the July 1 Legislative Council riot case in the Legislative Council, having already been sentenced in that case.

Judge Andrew Chan Hing-wai interrupted, noting that the “five demands” include the withdrawal of the riot characterization and asked if Lau aimed to achieve this. Lau agreed. Chan then stated that to achieve this, indiscriminate vetoing of the budget was necessary. Lau argued that he believed such indiscriminate vetoing to be unrealistic. Chan suggested that whether for self-benefit or for aiding other defendants, Lau would desire to change the riot characterization. Lau agreed. Chan continued, stating that, therefore, the indiscriminate veto power must be used to threaten the government to achieve this goal.

Later, Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also questioned, stating that Lau’s guilty plea was based on agreeing to indiscriminately veto the budget. Lau confirmed, also citing a forum statement he made, saying that if voters expect someone in the council to vote against or believe in “35+” and thus should not vote for him, as he did not believe it would come to fruition. He added that, with a riot case to his name, it was impossible for him to serve in the Legislative Council.

Lau Cites Case for Potential Sentence Reduction, Pointed Out Unusual Openness of Conspiracy

Lau referenced cases where unfeasible plans might lead to some degree of sentence reduction. In this case, he suggested the government could disqualify one or two candidates, causing the “35+” plan to fail. Judge Andrew Chan interrupted to ask why only one or two would be disqualified, querying whether they were targeting 35 or 36 seats. Lau responded that he disagreed with Benny Tai’s assertion on this point.

Lau continued, describing Tai as an “interesting person,” commenting that Tai often turned seemingly impossible things into threatening scenarios, causing Lam Cheuk-ting to laugh. Chan questioned, but you decided to follow Tai’s plan. Lau argued that joining was beneficial to push his own agenda and reiterated the example he mentioned. Chan interrupted again, comparing the conspiracy to a hypothetical scenario where someone is stopped by customs while transporting drugs, asking if failure to complete the drug trafficking plan should also lead to a reduced sentence. Lau countered that in his case, the conspiracy was unusually public.

Lau also confirmed his criminal record involved a case from the July 1 Legislative Council riot, committed during his bail period for that case. He insisted that since he was on bail, he made efforts to fulfill his court obligations, avoiding illegal assemblies and violent protests, which led him to commit the current offense. He believed that participating in the primary elections was the safest and most legal method to strive for the “five demands,” influenced by Benny Tai’s assurances of legality as a law professor.

Lau further explained that both the July 1 riot and the current case involved similar contexts and backgrounds, but with different approaches to influencing the Legislative Council—one through violent means and the other through constitutional efforts. He noted that violence isn’t the core issue for the judge but believed that if the National Security Law had been in effect in 2019, he might have faced another subversion charge. He urged the judge to consider the overall context in sentencing.

Lau Reads Girlfriend’s Plea Letter, Says She Visits Rain or Shine

Regarding his personal background, Lau mentioned that his girlfriend, Emilia Wong, former employers, and friends wrote plea letters for him. He read from Wong’s letter, which stated, “All the guys I’ve dated before were from traditional prestigious schools, middle-class, and very conventional. But Lau is different: I hadn’t heard of his high school, he comes from a humble background, and he’s not very handsome, but there is a different kind of light about him.” When Lau read the part about not being very handsome, the gallery laughed.

Wong also wrote about meeting Lau when she was 19 and now, at 29, they’ve been together for 10 years, “with more than three years separated by the high walls of the prison, meeting through glass in the visitation room, and talking through a time-limited phone. Throughout these over three years of his detention, I’ve visited him daily, rain or shine, because I believe he is not a criminal involved in dishonest deeds but someone worth my continued care and effort.”

Legal news sources also obtained a plea letter personally written by Lau, which he did not read in court, mentioning that if he had known participating in the primary elections would lead to prison, “I would definitely not have participated and would have chosen other ways to contribute to society.” (Detailed contents of Lau and his girlfriend’s plea letters available in another article)

Owen Chow Ka-shing’s defense attorney, Kevin Chan, read parts of Chow’s plea for leniency during his plea. 

In the letter, Chow explained why he was involved in this case, what he learned, and his future intentions. The letter mentions two pivotal events when he was 15 years old: the death of his father, which nurtured his empathy and concern for the vulnerable, and his first participation in the July 1st march, which made him believe that he could change society and promote justice.

Chan continued to quote from the plea letter, stating, “The person I am today, compared to when I was 15, has gone through more experiences, and my understanding of myself and the world has changed significantly. However, my initial resolve remains unchanged. I still believe in democracy and justice, I still care about the weak, and I still hope that Hong Kong can become a better place where everyone can live with more dignity.” (Full text of the plea letter can be found in another article.)

Kevin Chan: Chow already sentenced to 5 years in prison in July 1st case

Kevin Chan continued to argue that Owen Chow was “actively involved” but not a key figure, suggesting his contribution to the planning was negligible and his involvement in initiating the “Ink Dries, Regrets None” statement was superfluous. Chan also mentioned that the “Hong Kong national concept” promoted by Chow was not anti-China but targeted at unjust systems. He emphasized that Chow, being in his early twenties, was easily influenced by the complex emotions of the social movements in 2019.

Chan noted that Chow was also involved in the July 1st Legislative Council riot case, where he participated in tearing up the Basic Law, driven by dissatisfaction with it. Having already paid a significant price, being sentenced to over 5 years in prison, Chan pointed out that Chow had no prior record at the time of this offense and requested that the court consider the totality of the sentences when determining his punishment.

Kevin Chan: Hopes the Court Considers with Mercy

Kevin Chan concluded his observations by stating that after over 100 days of trial and numerous pleas, the defendants are all good people who unfortunately were “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” He noted that the defendants come from various backgrounds such as doctors, lawyers, and social workers, who participated in the primary elections for the sake of others, not themselves.

Chan continued that with the implementation of the National Security Law, everything turned illegal, and they all “fell from a high-speed train.” He reiterated that only the primary election organizers could have stopped the elections, and none of the defendants could have prevented it.

Judge Alex Lee mentioned that they could have chosen to “jump off the train.” Chan agreed, noting that some did opt out, like Au Nok-hin’s case. Chan urged the court to consider the case with compassion, stating, “Mercy is key in this case.”

Alvin Yeung’s Defense: He Once Met with Police and Provided Assistance

During the plea hearing for Alvin Yeung, his senior counsel, Edwin Choy Wai-bond, read out a letter of mitigation written by Yeung’s mother, detailing his educational journey. After graduating from a university in Canada, he pursued further studies in Beijing, demonstrating his courage to step out of his comfort zone and his interest in Chinese culture and history.

Yeung began engaging in politics in 2012 and was elected as a legislator in 2015. Choy noted from records that Yeung supported government policies when it was in the interest of Hong Kong citizens and was not an impediment to governance. Choy mentioned that Yeung had visited Facebook headquarters and urged Facebook and other American tech companies to invest in Hong Kong, seeking foreign investors. Additionally, Yeung dedicated his spare time to assisting the community and citizens.

Choy stated that Yeung expressed an intent to plead guilty in September 2021, showing remorse and had met with the police to provide assistance. Following his arrest in February 2021, Yeung left the Civic Party in March and communicated with former party members, advising that the party should be dissolved as soon as possible, hence indicating a zero chance of reoffending.

Alvin Yeung’s Personal Letter: Deeply Apologizes to Civic Party Members

Edwin Choy Wai-bond, representing Alvin Yeung, read out a personal letter of mitigation. Yeung, a lawyer, described the difficulty in admitting his own criminal offenses. Initially driven to improve Hong Kong for its residents, he acknowledged that his naive and blind enthusiasm led him astray. He also expressed profound apologies to the members of the Civic Party.

Alvin Yeung’s Role Described as Moderately ‘Active Participation’: Judges Express Disagreement

Edwin Choy Wai-bond argued that Alvin Yeung was “actively involved,” suggesting that the sentencing benchmark should be in the middle of a 3 to 10-year range. Judge Andrew Chan Hing-wai questioned why Yeung was not considered among the “highest level” of active participants. Choy mentioned that Yeung’s actions during the Civic Party press conference on March 25, 2020, were not yet illegal.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also inquired what evidence there was that Yeung reduced his active involvement after the implementation of the National Security Law. Choy pointed out that Yeung’s level of participation, including attending street stations and submitting nomination forms, was similar to other primary election participants.

Choy further noted that despite Yeung’s relatively short career, he had risen to become the leader of the Civic Party and thus a main spokesperson at press conferences, emphasizing that he was not the prime mover within the party.

Upon hearing this, Judge Andrew Chan Hing-wai expressed his disagreement, stating clearly, “I must inform you that I do not accept this argument.” Choy then ceased further argument but noted that Yeung’s early guilty plea should result in a one-third reduction in his sentence, citing his clean record, good character, and community service as factors warranting a lighter sentence.

Gary Fan Kwok-wai’s side: Planning was impossible to achieve, may consider sentence reduction

Gary Fan Kwok-wai’s representative, senior counsel Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, initially discussed legal principles. Ng stated she does not believe that sentencing is constrained by Article 22 of the National Security Law, and the difference between substantive crimes and conspiracy offenses had already been addressed by senior counsel Stewart K. M. Wong and Nigel Louis Ian Kat, so she would not repeat those. Additionally, she acknowledged Lee’s point that this case is not the most severe of its kind and noted that the plans in this case were factually impossible to execute. While this is not a valid defense, it qualifies as a special circumstance that could justify a discretionary sentence reduction.

Ng pointed out that the first hurdle for conspirators is to be elected, and if disqualified (DQ), the plan could not succeed. Benny Tai described it as a “highly destructive constitutional weapon,” under Hong Kong’s “mini-constitution,” the executive also possesses such “highly destructive constitutional weapons,” such as DQ.

Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee: Re-election of the Legislative Council was a hurdle

Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee continued, stating that returning officers have the power to disqualify (DQ) candidates. She referenced the cases of Andy Chan Ho-tin and Agnes Chow, noting that if returning officers do not believe or have reasonable grounds to suspect a candidate’s sincerity, they can DQ them. According to the agreed facts, some primary candidates were DQ’d. The judge might think they had a “Plan B,” but some of those with a “Plan B” also participated in the primaries and were equally at risk of being DQ’d.

Andrew Chan Hing-wai interrupted, asking why they would still discuss a backup mechanism if what Ng said was true. Ng admitted she found it hard to answer because, legally, it seemed obvious to her unless “Plan B” involved completely unknown individuals whom returning officers couldn’t DQ. Even a “Plan C” would face the same risk.

Ng also mentioned that vetoing the budget to force the government to respond to the “Five Demands,” ultimately leading to the Chief Executive’s resignation, is permitted by the Basic Law, asserting that the constitution is not that fragile. She argued that between the election of “Plan B, C” and the forced resignation of the Chief Executive, there is the hurdle of re-electing the Legislative Council. Whether the same or ideologically similar candidates would be re-elected remains uncertain.

Ng continued, stating that if the government were to reintroduce the same budget in the new Legislative Council, it would be quite strange. Just adding a clause, such as giving HK$6,000 to permanent residents during tough times, would make it a different budget. Whether elected members would still insist on vetoing it is also unknown. In other words, fulfilling Article 52 of the Basic Law is impossible, and if the judge cannot be certain that the conspiracy would definitely succeed, a sentence reduction should be considered.

Andrew Chan Hing-wai questioned whether over 610,000 people who queued to vote were deceived? Ng responded that voting could be for many reasons, such as not wanting another person to win. She also mentioned that the government, having the power to DQ them, would surprise her if it chose to “lay back” and let this happen.

Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee: Actions before the National Security Law should not be considered, judges disagree

Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee later shifted to discussing retroactivity, arguing that actions before the implementation of the National Security Law should not be considered since they were not part of the charge period. Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned this, suggesting that if assessing a defendant’s level of involvement, their behavior before the National Security Law could be indicative, as a person does not change their attitudes and beliefs overnight. Thus, if someone was active before the law and there is no evidence of change, it could be inferred that they remained active afterward.

Ng responded, describing it as perhaps a novel point, but reiterated that the conspiracies before the National Security Law were not illegal, and current cases only involve defendants where the penalty had not yet been enhanced at the time of the offense, but did not include cases where behavior legally transitioned from legal to illegal.

Andrew Chan Hing-wai questioned, for example, if someone wrote down their intention to kidnap, not knowing if they would actually go through with it, and then acted on it, whether that note should be considered during sentencing? Ng argued that the note was unnecessary for sentencing. Chan questioned why not, citing careful planning. Ng countered, saying kidnapping was a crime from the beginning.

When Chan was about to speak again, he was interrupted by Lee Wan-tang, who brought up cannabidiol (CBD), previously not classified as a dangerous drug. He asked if someone had planned to import CBD before the law changed, should their prior behavior be considered at sentencing? Ng responded that if the activity stopped before the law change, there was no crime; however, if it continued after the amendment, by then the judge would have sufficient information to convict and sentence. Ultimately, Chan stated he could not accept this part of her argument.

Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee: Daughter praises Gary Fan as “the best father”

Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee continued discussing Gary Fan Kwok-wai’s personal background, noting that after completing his Bachelor’s degree in Art in the United States, Fan returned to Hong Kong and became interested in politics, serving on the district council for 21 years and as a Legislative Council member for six years. Praise letters were written by DAB party member and former Sai Kung District Council chairman, George Ng Sze-fuk, and by the last chairman of the Legislative Council before the handover of Hong Kong, Andrew Wong Wang-fat. 

Ng Ngoi-yee quoted from the letters, mentioning that George Ng Sze-fuk noted Fan’s high attendance rate at the district council and his introduction of over 300 motions for Sai Kung; Andrew Wong Wang-fat reflected on his own time as a representative for New Territories East, highlighting Fan’s sincere and selfless contributions to Sai Kung and Tseung Kwan O.

She added that Fan Kwok-wai’s mother, sister, and daughter also wrote letters of mitigation, describing him as a family-oriented man and a good husband; his recently graduated daughter called him the best father any girl could ask for.

Additionally, several community letters praised Fan for improving the quality of life in the district. Ng also displayed a New Year painting of the Year of the Ox that Fan had made for an elderly woman, detailing in the mitigation letter that despite the cold weather, Fan continued to paint, even as his hands froze, not wanting to disappoint others.

Ng further stated that Fan was not an organizer, had no criminal record, was legally uninformed at the time of the offense, believed his actions were legal, and deeply regrets his actions. She hoped the court would classify him as a lower-degree active participant and grant him a one-third reduction for pleading guilty.

Lam Cheuk-ting’s representative: Sentence should be less than 3 years

Representing Lam Cheuk-ting, barrister Erik Shum argued that Lam, like Wong Bik-wan, is a traditional democrat, noting that the Democratic Party cooperates with the government and supports the return to China and “one country, two systems.”

Erik Shum continued, stating that Lam served as a district councilor and was elected as a Legislative Council member in 2016, consistently focusing on and promoting “anti-collusion” measures. He mentioned that citizens who had been helped by Lam wrote letters of mitigation; additional letters were written by former Democratic Party chairpersons Emily Lau and Albert Ho Chun-yan, former Legislative Council member Cheung Man-kwong, Lam’s mother, and his son who is studying abroad.

Erik Shum believed that Lam’s involvement in the case was the least among the defendants, pointing out that he did not participate in coordination meetings, did not support the “Ink Dries, Regrets None” statement, and did not advocate for the rejection of the budget. Erik Shum also mentioned that Lam was convicted based on forum notes and statements made by party chairman Wu Chi-wai, reflecting his very minimal role and extent of involvement. He argued that Lam’s sentence should be less than 3 years.

Raymond Chan Chi-chuen’s representative claims he was ‘actively involved’

Representing Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, barrister David W. K. Ma stated that Chan was ‘actively involved’ but argued that his level of participation was low. He noted that Chan did not participate in press conferences organized by the coordinators, nor did he participate in coordination meetings for New Territories East, describing him as a ‘silent reader’ in the New Territories East WhatsApp group. Additionally, he mentioned that Chan’s partner, sister, and officials had written letters of mitigation on his behalf. His efforts to promote minority interests during his tenure as a Legislative Council member were evident.

The Witness