- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 9,721
- 0
- 6
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal unanimously upheld Thursday the convictions of the opposition activist Tam Tak Chi of uttering seditious words under now-repealed section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes Ordinance.
The case concerns whether the prosecution must prove the defendant’s intention to incite third parties to violence or public order for a sedition offense. The court’s analysis began with the British colonial Sedition Ordinance 1938, which included the offense of uttering any seditious words. The 1970 amendment defined “seditious intention” to include “counsel[ing] disobedience to the law or to any lawful order.” The court found that the statutory law has displaced any common law requirement of proving an intention to incite third parties to violence or public disorder.
Another question before the court is whether the sedition offense was an indictable offense that must be tried by a judge and jury. The court held that the magistrate had properly assumed jurisdiction because the maximum sentence upon conviction of the offense is two years and three years for repeat offenders. Giving sentences of short imprisonment is entirely within a magistrate’s jurisdiction under the Magistrates Ordinance. The court further held that Article 41(3) of the 2020 China-imposed National Security Law did not intend to make the offense indictable because it would “involve an unnecessary drain on judicial resources and introduce unwelcome procedural complications associated with a trial on indictment.”
This judgment affirmed the lower court’s ruling, which was the legal basis a District Court relied on to convict Stand News and its editors for publishing seditious publications in August 2024. The judge in that case held that to establish mens rea, the prosecution only needs to establish that the defendant, aware of the seditious intent within a publication, disregarded the consequence of publishing it.
Following the enactment of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance in 2024, the offenses are now substituted by offenses under Division 4. In particular, section 25 of the ordinance has explicitly removed the requirement to prove the defendant’s intention to incite public disorder or violence. The section intends to address the situation where the community will be overrun by violence and unlawful acts if publications with a seditious effect, though not directly inciting the use of violence or the disruption of public order, are left unchecked.
Tam was the first individual to stand full trial for sedition since Hong Kong’s 1997 Handover. The District Court sentenced Tam to 40 months on 11 convictions, including seven counts of uttering seditious words.
The post Hong Kong top court affirms opposition activist now-repealed sedition convictions appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
The case concerns whether the prosecution must prove the defendant’s intention to incite third parties to violence or public order for a sedition offense. The court’s analysis began with the British colonial Sedition Ordinance 1938, which included the offense of uttering any seditious words. The 1970 amendment defined “seditious intention” to include “counsel[ing] disobedience to the law or to any lawful order.” The court found that the statutory law has displaced any common law requirement of proving an intention to incite third parties to violence or public disorder.
Another question before the court is whether the sedition offense was an indictable offense that must be tried by a judge and jury. The court held that the magistrate had properly assumed jurisdiction because the maximum sentence upon conviction of the offense is two years and three years for repeat offenders. Giving sentences of short imprisonment is entirely within a magistrate’s jurisdiction under the Magistrates Ordinance. The court further held that Article 41(3) of the 2020 China-imposed National Security Law did not intend to make the offense indictable because it would “involve an unnecessary drain on judicial resources and introduce unwelcome procedural complications associated with a trial on indictment.”
This judgment affirmed the lower court’s ruling, which was the legal basis a District Court relied on to convict Stand News and its editors for publishing seditious publications in August 2024. The judge in that case held that to establish mens rea, the prosecution only needs to establish that the defendant, aware of the seditious intent within a publication, disregarded the consequence of publishing it.
Following the enactment of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance in 2024, the offenses are now substituted by offenses under Division 4. In particular, section 25 of the ordinance has explicitly removed the requirement to prove the defendant’s intention to incite public disorder or violence. The section intends to address the situation where the community will be overrun by violence and unlawful acts if publications with a seditious effect, though not directly inciting the use of violence or the disruption of public order, are left unchecked.
Tam was the first individual to stand full trial for sedition since Hong Kong’s 1997 Handover. The District Court sentenced Tam to 40 months on 11 convictions, including seven counts of uttering seditious words.
The post Hong Kong top court affirms opposition activist now-repealed sedition convictions appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.