HKSAR v. Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China and Others

On 21 August 2026, the Court of First Instance (Alex Lee, Johnny Chan and Anna Lai JJ) handed down its verdict in HKSAR v Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HCCC 155/2022, [2026] HKCFI 4794), acquitting the Alliance, Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung of incitement to subvert state power under NSL 22/23. Mr Shum appeared for Lee Cheuk-yan.

The prosecution's theory was straightforward. The Alliance's longstanding 'end one-party dictatorship' slogan necessarily implied ending CCP leadership, which the 2018 Constitutional Amendment (now embedded in Article 1 of the PRC Constitution) entrenches as part of the 'fundamental system'. Any means to that end therefore had to be unlawful within NSL 22, because no lawful means exists to dismantle party leadership.

The court was unconvinced. While accepting that constitutional breaches can amount to 'unlawful means' under NSL 22 (§15-17, 70), it gave meaningful weight to the defendants' 'genuine and honest belief' in the lawfulness of their advocacy, treating that belief as evidence going to specific intent (§35). The court accepted the prosecution's concession that Prohibited Act (2) (overthrowing the body of central power) was not independent of Act (1), but refused the prosecution's invitation to infer that Act (1) automatically dragged Act (2) in its wake, pointing to the absence of expert evidence bridging the relationship between CCP leadership and central organs of power (§88-89).

Five Propositions That Matter

(1) The PRC Constitution and the Basic Law jointly establish Hong Kong's constitutional order; the Constitution applies here without Annex III promulgation (§44-47).

(2) 'Leadership by the CCP' forms part of the 'fundamental/basic system' in Article 1 of the Constitution. Overthrowing or undermining it engages NSL 22(1) (§71-76).

(3) Breach of constitutional obligations can constitute 'other unlawful means' under NSL 22, even absent violence or criminal conduct (§17, 70).

(4) Hong Kong courts may construe clear constitutional provisions by their literal meaning without expert assistance, though the NPCSC retains the overriding interpretative function under Article 67 (§56-58).

(5) 'Other unlawful means' under NSL 22 extends to breaches of constitutional duty, not just criminal acts (§15-17).

Implications For Practitioners

Prosecutors building NSL 22 cases on constitutional breach cannot rely on shortcut theories. A slogan tied to the Constitution still requires proof of specific intent beyond reasonable doubt. 'Genuine and honest belief' in lawfulness, though not a defence, is live defence evidence negating mens rea. Expect expert evidence on the Constitution to become standard in future prosecutions, or expect similar results. Defence counsel should challenge the inferential chain from political speech to specific intent, and press the prosecution to produce bridging evidence on the relationship between CCP leadership and the State's central organs, since the court will not draw that inference for them.