Pui-yin Lo: The Revival of the Sedition Intention Offences in Hong Kong Continues: The Tam Tak-chi Appeal and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance 煽动意图罪行在香港的复苏仍在继续：《谭得志上诉案》及《维护国家安全条例》

 

Pix credit here

 

"Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal upheld a 40-month sentence for pro-democracy activist Tam Tak-chi, the first person tried under the city’s sedition law since Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Tam’s lawyers had argued his conviction should be overturned because the prosecution did not show he meant to incite violence."(Hong Kong court affirms landmark sedition conviction for pro-democracy activist).

Tam stood accused of chanting the controversial slogan “liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” a phrase ruled as capable of inciting others to commit secession in the city’s first national security trial. He was also accused of insulting the police by describing them as “damned black cops.” The Court of Appeal on Thursday ruled that Tam did not need to have an intention to incite violence to be found guilty of sedition, and that sedition offences must be interpreted with respect to the “specific legal and social landscape” to which they pertain. During the appeal hearing last July, Tam’s barrister Philip Dykes argued that Hong Kong’s sedition law fell short of international standards as it failed to include a defendant’s intent to incite violence as an essential element of the offence. (Pro-democracy DJ Tam Tak-chi loses bid to appeal ‘seditious’ speech conviction and jail term; here on the signification of the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”)

The decision, HKSAR v. Tam Tak Chi (譚得志) CACC 62/2022, [2024] HKCA 231; On appeal from [2022] HKDC 208 and [2022] HKDC 343, is itself quite interesting. Especially worthy of careful study are Section C2 (Whether intention to incite violence a necessary ingredient of the statutory offence of sedition, ¶¶ 90-102; C3 (Constitutional challenges, C3.1 (General Approach ¶¶ 103-112); C3.2 (Prescribed by law ¶¶ 113-131); C3.3 (Proportionality ¶¶132-145); and C4. (Whether the Slogan is seditious ¶¶ 146-156). The discussion of the Siracusa principles is particularly important, both for the way in which its application was rejected and because of the arguments made suggesting that it no longer reflects the times or current expectations. 

My friend and colleague, Dr. Pui-yin Lo, a barrister in private practice in Hong Kong, who teaches constitutional law at the Faculty of Law of The University of Hong Kong, has written a short but quite important and astute essay about the decision, "The Revival of the Sedition Intention Offences in Hong Kong Continues: The Tam Tak-chi Appeal and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance"  煽动意图罪行在香港的复苏仍在继续：《谭得志上诉案》及《维护国家安全条例》. The essay was originally published 4 April 2024  in Mong Pao Daily (明報).  Dr. Lo has graciously given me permission to repost the essay. The essay in English, Simplified and Traditional Chinese follows.

About Pui-yin Lo. Dr. Pui-yin Lo is a barrister in private practice in Hong Kong. He also teaches constitutional law at the Faculty of Law of The University of Hong Kong. Dr. Lo has written extensively in English and Chinese on the Hong Kong Basic Law, the protection of human rights and immigration. His recent contributions include the Hong Kong chapters in the Asian Comparative Constitutional Law anthology (Hart Publishing) and the Hong Kong chapter in the 2022 Global Review of Constitutional Law.

 

 

The Revival of the Sedition Intention Offences in Hong Kong Continues: The Tam Tak-chi Appeal and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance

by Pui-yin Lo | Apr 30, 2024

Tam Tak-chi was a loud-mouthed Hong Kong (HK) politician. His 2020 election campaign attracted attention through public addresses that identified with the 2019 Anti-ELAB Protests and were perceived by some as demeaning the Chinese Communist Party, the HK Government, the HK police force and the Hong Kong National Security Law that the Chinese Central Authorities decided to enact for its Special Administrative Region (SAR). The election was eventually cancelled. Tam was prosecuted of 14 charges which included 7 charges of ‘uttering seditious words’. A judge convicted Tam, having found that his spoken words had the ‘seditious intentions’ of bringing the Chinese Central Authorities or the HKSAR Government into hatred or contempt, exciting others to alter HK’s system unlawfully, bringing into hatred the police, and counselling disobedience of the law [paras 82, 99, 117, 120, 123, 127, 129]. The judge also rejected Tam’s challenge that the charges unconstitutionally restricted his freedom of expression guaranteed under the Hong Kong Basic Law, which enables the domestic application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

‘Uttering seditious words’ was one of several offences in the Crimes Ordinance that were based on the British concept of ‘seditious intention’.  Since 2020, these offences have been revived from slumber to prosecute social network services administrators and users, book publishers, online media editors, and Jimmy Lai, the proprietor of Apple Daily.

 

Tam’s appeal against the convictions was therefore much awaited.  The ‘seditious speech’ offence has been regarded as ‘extreme’, ‘colonial’, ‘vague’ and ‘disproportionate’ [para 163]. Many common law jurisdictions have repealed, invalidated or restricted this type of offence. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has expressed serious concerns about HK’s ‘seditious intention’ offences [paras 15,16]. Moreover, the Privy Council’s advice in Vijay Maharaj v A-G of Trinidad and Tobago (October 2023) was that the principle of legality would limit ‘seditious intention’ offences with ‘a requirement that there must be an intention to incite violence or disorder’ [para 47].

 

The HK Court of Appeal’s unanimous judgment of 7 March 2024 dismissed Tam’s appeal. The Court reviewed HK legislative history and 1950s HK case law and held that the HK colonial legislature decided ‘consciously’ back in 1938 against including an intention to incite violence as a necessary ingredient of the statutory ‘seditious intention’ offences [paras 81, 82].  Therefore, Vijay Maharaj was not applicable. Further, the Court considered that the definition of ‘seditious intention’ was legally certain: ‘seditious intention’ had to be ‘broadly framed’ to safeguard national security in a timely and effective manner [para 121]. The ‘ordinary language’ used to delineate the offences had ‘a sufficiently and clearly formulated core’ (on which the Court expounded its own understanding) that enabled their application to be foreseeable [paras 122-126].  Furthermore, the Court held that the offences satisfied a four-step proportionality test similar to that currently used in the English courts. In the Court’s view, the delineation of the seditious intention offences did not inhibit open, frank, and full dialogue and debate on social issues. Coupled with the Secretary for Justice’s role in authorizing prosecutions, the Court concluded that the offences were ‘no more than necessary to accomplish [their] legitimate aim’ of safeguarding national security and public order [paras 138-142].

 

The Court of Appeal judgment is troubling. It not only omitted the critical piece of legislative history, spotted by Professor Johannes Chan, that the 1938 statutory ‘seditious intention’ offences were ‘based upon a model Ordinance compiled by direction of the [British] Secretary of State’ (which tended to explain the drafting similarities across common law jurisdictions [pp 930-931]), but also discounted both the Siracusa Principles as ‘plainly outdated’ [para 136], and the comparative jurisprudence and law reform reports presented as ‘overseas materials … quite different from [our setting]’ [para 130].

Although Tam has appealed the Court of Appeal judgment, this offers little comfort. The offences in the Crimes Ordinance have been replaced by provisions in the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, enacted in March 2024. The new Ordinance makes clear that the new ‘seditious intention’ offences serve to safeguard Chinese national sovereignty, security and development interests, using the same ‘ordinary language’, without having to prove intention to incite another person to cause public disorder or act violently.

In the circumstances, caution is key. Take the case of a HK legislator who passed the new Ordinance. Soon after the new Ordinance was passed, he closed down his Facebook page to scrutinize the posts and upon restoring it, he appended a statement disclaiming that it was not his intention at all if anyone reading the posts felt hatred, contempt or disaffection against the system and institutions of the State, the constitutional order, the executive authorities, the legislature or the judiciary of HK. Thus, in the current legal context, political advocacy or commentary has to be fact-based and very moderate.

 

煽動意圖罪行在香港的復甦仍在繼續：《譚得志上訴案》及《維護國家安全條例》

by Pui-yin Lo | Apr 30, 2024

譚得志是一位嘈吵的香港政治人物。 他在 2020 年的競選活動以公開演講引起人們關注，這些演講認同2019年的「反修例抗議」，並令某些人認為其貶低中國共產黨、香港政府、香港警隊和中國中央當局決定為其香港特別行政區制定的《港區國安法》。 選舉最終被取消。譚被控14項控罪，其中包括7項“發表煽動文字”控罪。法官裁定譚被控的這些罪名成立，認為他的言論具有“煽動意圖”，即是引起對中國中央當局或香港特區政府的憎恨或蔑視，激起他人非法地改變香港的制度，引起對警察的憎恨，並慫使他人不守法[第82、99、107、120、123、127及129段]。法官還駁回譚說這些指控是對他受《香港基本法》保障的言論自由的違憲限制的質疑。《香港基本法》的規定讓《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》在香港特區適用。

“發表煽動文字”是《刑事罪行條例》中建基於英國“煽動意圖”概念的幾項罪行之一。 自 2020 年以來，這些罪行已從沉睡甦醒，用以起訴社交網路服務的管理員和用戶、圖書出版商、網路媒體編輯及《蘋果日報》的東主黎智英。

因此，譚對定罪的上訴備受期待。 “煽動言論”這控罪被不同人士認定是“極端”、“殖民地”、“模糊”和“不相稱”[第163段]。許多普通法司法管轄區已經廢除或宣佈此類罪行無效，或者對之加以限制。聯合國人權事務委員會對香港的“煽動意圖”罪行表示嚴重關切[第15及16段]。再者，英國樞密院在Vijay Maharaj v A-G of Trinidad and Tobago （2023年10月）案中的建議是，合法性原則將限制“煽動意圖”罪行，“要求它必須有煽動暴力或騷亂的意圖”[第47段]。

香港特區上訴法庭於2024年3月7日作出一致判決，駁回譚的上訴。法庭檢視了香港立法歷史和來自1950年代的香港判例，認為香港殖民地立法機關早在1938年就“有意識地”決定不將煽動暴力的意圖列為成文法“煽動意圖”罪行的必要元素[第81及82段]。 因此，Vijay Maharaj 案不適用。此外，法庭認為，“煽動意圖”的定義在法律上是確定的：“煽動意圖”必須“寬泛地”制定，以便及時有效地維護國家安全[第121段]。它所使用的“普通語言”具有“充分和明確表述的核心”（而法庭對此闡述自己的理解），於是屬可以預見[第122至126段]。 另外，法庭裁定，這些罪行符合與英國法院目前使用的相稱性測試類似的四步相稱性測試。法庭認為，對何謂煽動的界定並不妨礙就社會問題進行公開、坦率和充分的對話和辯論。加上律政司司長在授權檢控方面所扮演的角色，法庭的結論是這些罪行“只不過是實現維護國家安全和公共秩序的合法目的所必需的”[第138至142段]。

上訴法庭的判決令人不安。它不僅忽略了陳文敏教授所指出的法律史上的關鍵部分，即1938年的成文法“煽動意圖”罪行是“基於[英國]國務大臣指示編製的示範條例”（而此觀察看來對普通法司法管轄區之間就此類成文法罪行的相似行文[第930至931頁]提供解釋），而且貶低了錫拉庫扎原則 （指它“明顯過時”[第136段]）和在其席前提供的比較案例和法律改革報告（指“海外材料……與[我們的環境]甚為不同”[第130段]）。

儘管譚已對上訴法庭的判決提出上訴，但這並沒有帶來多少安慰。《刑事罪行條例》中的罪行已被  2024年3月制訂的《維護國家安全條例》的條文所取代。 新條例明確規定，新的“煽動意圖”罪行旨在維護中國的國家主權、安全和發展利益，使用相同的“普通語言” ，不必證明被告人意圖煽惑他人擾亂公共秩序或採用暴力。

在這等情況下，應謹慎行事。可參考的例子是一位參與通過新條例的立法會議員關閉了其Facebook頁面，以便審查裡面的帖子的行為。之後，該議員在重啟頁面時加入聲明，說明如果有人因閱讀帖子而引起對國家制度、機構，或特區憲制秩序、行政、立法或司法機關產生憎恨、藐視或離叛，則這絕非該議員本人所抱持的意圖。於是，在現今的法律背景下，政治主張或評論是要基於事實和十分平和。

 

 

煽动意图罪行在香港的复苏仍在继续：《谭得志上诉案》及《维护国家安全条例》

by Pui-yin Lo | Apr 30, 2024

谭得志是一位嘈吵的香港政治人物。 他在2020年的竞选活动以公开演讲引起人们关注，这些演讲认同2019年的「反修例抗议」，并令某些人认为其贬低中国共产党、香港政府、香港警队和中国中央当局决定为其香港特别行政区制定的《港区国安法》。 选举最终被取消。 谭被控14项控罪，其中包括7项“发表煽动文字”控罪。 法官裁定谭被控的这些罪名成立，认为他的言论具有“煽动意图”，即是引起对中国中央当局或香港特区政府的憎恨或蔑视，激起他人非法地改变香港的制度，引起对警察的憎恨，并怂使他人不守法[第82、99、107、120、123、127及129段]。法官还驳回谭说这些指控是对他受《香港基本法》保障的言论自由的违宪限制的质疑。《香港基本法》的规定让《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》在香港特区适用。

“发表煽动文字”是《刑事罪行条例》中建基于英国“煽动意图”概念的几项罪行之一。 自2020年以来，这些罪行已从沉睡甦醒，用以起诉社交网络服务的管理员和用户、图书出版商、网络媒体编辑及《苹果日报》的东主黎智英。

因此，谭对定罪的上诉备受期待。 “煽动言论”这控罪被不同人士认定是“极端”、“殖民地”、“模糊”和“不相称” [第163段]。 许多普通法司法管辖区已经废除或宣布此类罪行无效，或者对之加以限制。联合国人权事务委员会对香港的“煽动意图”罪行表示严重关切”[第15及16段]。再者，英国枢密院在Vijay Maharaj v A-G of Trinidad and Tobago （2023年10月）案中的建议是，合法性原则将限制“煽动意图”罪行，“要求它必须有煽动暴力或骚乱的意图” [第47段]。

香港特区上诉法庭于2024年3月7日作出一致判决，驳回谭的上诉。 法庭检视了香港立法历史和来自1950年代的香港判例，认为香港殖民地立法机关早在1938年就“有意识地”决定不将煽动暴力的意图列为成文法“煽动意图”罪行的必要元素”[第81及82段]。 因此，Vijay Maharaj案不适用。 此外，法庭认为，“煽动意图”的定义在法律上是确定的：“煽动意图”必须“宽泛地”制定，以便及时有效地维护国家安全[第121段]。 它所使用的“普通语言”具有“充分和明確表述的核心”（而法庭对此阐述自己的理解），于是属可以预见[第122至126段]。 另外，法庭裁定，这些罪行符合与英国法院目前使用的相称性测试类似的四步相称性测试。法庭认为，对何谓煽动的界定并不妨碍就社会问题进行公开、坦率和充分的对话和辩论。加上律政司司长在授权检控方面所扮演的角色，法庭的结论是这些罪行“只不过是实现维护国家安全和公共秩序的合法目的所必需的” [第138至142段]。

上訴法庭的判決令人不安。 它不僅忽略了陳文敏教授所指出的法律史上的關鍵部分，即1938年的成文法“煽動意圖”罪行是“基于[英国]国务大臣指示编制的示范条例“（而此观察倾向对普通法司法管辖区之间就此类成文法罪行的相似行文[第930至931页]提供解释），而且贬低了锡拉库扎原则 （指它“明显过时” [第136段]）和在其席前提供的比较案例和法律改革报告（指“海外材料……与[我们的环境]甚为不同”[第130段]）。

尽管谭已对上诉法庭的判决提出上诉，但这并没有带来多少安慰。 《刑事罪行条例》中的罪行已被 2024年3月制订的《维护国家安全条例》的条文所取代。 新条例明确规定，新的“煽动意图”罪行旨在维护中国的国家主权、安全和发展利益，使用相同的“普通语言” ，不必证明被告人意图煽惑他人扰乱公共秩序或采用暴力。

在这等情况下，应谨慎行事。 可参考的例子是一位参与通过新条例的立法会议员关闭了其Facebook頁面，以便审查里面的帖子的行为。之后，该议员在重启页面时加入声明，说明如果有人因阅读帖子而引起对国家制度、机构，或特区宪制秩序、行政、立法或司法机关产生憎恨、藐视或离叛，则这绝非该议员本人所抱持的意图。 于是，在现今的法律背景下，政治主张或评论是要基于事实和十分平和。