A packed court awaited the judgement for ex-editors of Stand News, Chung Pui-Kuen and Patrick Lam, in anticipation more than an hour prior to the commencement of ruling. Overflow from overfilled court imposed a wait for some spectators of an additional hour. This court case is regarded as a manifestation of media freedom and judicial self-rule in Hong Kong. Charged based on an age-old British law, these journalists were the first to be accused since the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China. The latest instance of this law’s use on the media was in defence of an article criticising the British government’s response to a fire, published by a pro-Beijing publication in 1952.
Many who stood with Lam and Chung forecasted a guilty verdict due to the observed trend of convictions for those accused of threats to national security in Hong Kong. Despite the odds, a few optimists clung onto the hope spurred by recent news of a jury acquitting six pro-democracy protesters indicted for terrorist crimes. However, the all-encompassing definition of the sedition articulated in Judge Kwok’s final verdict, crushed all remaining optimism. Chung, Lam and Stand News were found to be guilty of scheming to publish seditious articles.
According to the new definition of sedition formulated by Judge Kwok, even articles that have a negative tone towards the Hong Kong and Beijing governments that do not pose an actual threat to the nation’s security, can be deemed as seditious. Consequently, this could discourage all but a few independent news agencies still functioning in Hong Kong, due to the heightened punishment of seven years imprisonment for sedition. Nonetheless, some starting journalists in Hong Kong share Lam’s sentiment emphasised in his plea to the judge.
“He stated that journalists have an obligation not only towards their own writing, but also if they willfully neglect to cover news they are aware the public has the privilege to be informed about. Thus, the sole method for journalists to uphold the liberty of the press is to consistently report, akin to all the persevering workers of today. Moreover, he conveyed that he is merely one individual within this profession who finds himself in the position of being a defendant.”