Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sedition

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2025

HKSAR v. LEUNG KAI LOK

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP539/2025

The court found that, on the evidence and having regard to the applicant's age, clear record, family ties, psychiatric treatment appointment and explicit parental supervision undertakings, there were sufficient grounds under NSL Article 42(2) to believe the applicant would not continue to commit acts endangering national security; having passed that threshold, applying the CPO considerations the court concluded there were no substantial grounds to believe the applicant would abscond, commit further offences or require remand for his protection, and therefore granted bail subject to stringent…
6 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI (譚得志)

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 4
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC12/2024

The Court held the Magistrate's transfers were valid: pre-NSL CO s10(1)(b) could be piggyback-transferred under MO s88(1)(b) with indictable POO charges; post-NSL NSL41(3) must be read contextually and purposively so as not to import an unintended non-transferability restriction, and magistrates retain power under MO s92 to deal summarily in appropriate cases; statutory scheme in CO and thereafter SNSO displaces common law sedition and does not require proof of an intention to incite violence or public disorder as an essential element. Accordingly the District Court and Court of Appeal had ju…
14 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI (譚得志)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 25
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC15/2024

Leave to appeal was granted on Question 1 (indictability/jury trial issue, amended to Part III) and Question 2 (requirement of intent to incite third parties). Leave was refused on Question 3 (constitutional challenge) because the offences, read as a whole (section 9(1) read with section 9(2) and section 10), are sufficiently certain and are rationally connected and no more than reasonably necessary to protect legitimately conceived national security and public order interests; the proportionality and prescribed-by-law challenges were not reasonably arguable.
10 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 649
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC62/2022

The Court granted the certificate because Question 1 involves statutory interpretation and the interplay between the PRC national security law and local law, constituting points of law of great and general importance; Questions 2 and 3 also merit CFA determination because the repealed provisions are predecessors of the new sedition offences under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance and raise arguable issues about mens rea and constitutional validity.
7 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 231
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC62/2022

The Court held that sedition as now constituted in the Crimes Ordinance (ss.9–10) is a statutory offence which displaced the old common law formulation; an intention to incite violence is not a necessary element of the statutory offence except where expressly stated (s.9(1)(f)). Section 10 offences are statutory summary offences triable according to the classification regime (CPO s.14A) and may be transferred to the District Court under the Magistrates Ordinance s.88(1)(b). The National Security Law does not convert section 10 offences into indictable offences or otherwise upset the statutory…
2 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 58
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC51/2022

The application is dismissed because it impermissibly seeks to re‑open a point already decided; the court found no ambiguity in the prior Ruling and held Count 1 alleges a single continuing conspiracy so the six‑month limitation under ss 11 and 159D runs from cessation of the conspiracy; the application therefore lacks merit and is an abuse of process.
22 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC51/2022

The court held the alleged conspiracy was a continuing offence whose limitation period ran from the last date pleaded (24 June 2021); a prosecution for limitation purposes is 'begun' when the information is laid at the magistracy (received 14 December 2021), and because the information was so laid within six months of 24 June 2021 the sedition count was not time‑barred; defence application dismissed.
28 Jul 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PERSONS CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(a), (b), (c) OR (d) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1950
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA855/2023

The application was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the interlocutory injunction would be of real utility beyond the existing criminal law regime and there was a real risk the civil injunction would conflict with or undermine statutory criminal procedures under the NSL and other ordinances, while posing unacceptable uncertainty and chilling effects on freedom of expression; therefore it was not just and convenient to grant the exceptional contra mundum relief.
19 Oct 2022

RE AN APPLICATION BY MR TIMOTHY WYNN OWEN KC

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3233
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1402/2022

The application is allowed because the issues to be tried (construction of NSL 29(4) and constitutionality of Crimes Ordinance ss 9 and 10) are of great public and jurisprudential importance and unusually difficult; Mr Owen's specialist expertise would materially assist the court; there was no prejudicial delay and local senior counsel's unavailability for the entire trial justified admission in the public interest.
1 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN TAI SUM

Citation

[2022] HKDC 815
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC354/2022

The sedition offence under s10(1)(a) Crimes Ordinance is a summary offence under s14A Criminal Procedure Ordinance and remains summary after the NSL; however, a magistrate properly exercising the discretion in s88(1)(b) Magistrates Ordinance may transfer summary sedition charges to the District Court together with a properly transferable indictable charge, so the District Court has jurisdiction to hear Charges 2–5.