High court judges presiding over Hong Kong’s first national security case said on Thursday that the offense of inciting secession did not need to involve any violence.

The defendant, Tong Ying-kit, allegedly incited secession and participated in terrorist activities by riding a motorcycle into a group of police officers during a protest on July 1, 2020. The motorcycle was attached with a flag that displayed a popular protest slogan, “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.”

Tong, 24, will be the first to be tried under national security laws imposed by Beijing last June. His trial is scheduled to begin on June 23. Government authorities earlier announced, by invoking national security provisions, that the trial would go ahead without a jury, drawing heavy criticism from activists of undermining impartiality.

At a pretrial hearing, Madam Justice Esther Toh, Madam Justice Anthea Pang and Mr Justice Wilson Chan deliberated upon the elements of offense related to the charges brought against Tong to determine what would constitute a guilty verdict.

The three national security judges responded to an argument by Tong’s lawyer, Clive Grossman SC, that violence must exist during the course of action by the defendant to warrant a secession offense. Grossman had said that realistically, no one could separate Hong Kong from China without the use of force.

The judges felt that separation could be attempted via non-violent means, such as a referendum. They referred to the part in the national security law which stipulated that an act could constitute secession “whether or not by force or threat of force.”

On the terrorism charge, Anthony Chau of the prosecution earlier suggested in court that violent acts mentioned in the national security legislation could automatically be deemed terrorist acts. These included causing “serious violence against a person or persons” and “explosion, arson, or dissemination of poisonous or radioactive substances.”

The proposition was denounced by the presiding panel, for an act that was violent might not necessarily “cause great harm to society,” a criterion included in the national security text. Chan said that, for example, causing widespread power failure in the city by sabotaging facilities could fit the criteria of causing great harm to society while cutting electricity supply in just one building might not have the same effect, although both acts might have been conducted with malicious motives.

Click here for Chinese version

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play