Behind the duo’s acquittal in 35+ subversion case

The two former district councilors were acquitted in 35+ subversion case since the court was unsure that Lawrence Lau Wai-chung had signed the Inked without Regret Declaration and that Lee Yue-shun was a party to the pro-democracy camp’s 35+ primary election.

The three national security judges – Andrew Chan Hing-wai, Alex Lee Wan-tang, and Johnny Chan Jong-herng – also wrote in their judgment released on Thursday that they cannot be sure that Lau and Lee had the intention to subvert state power.

Regarding Lau, the judges said although his name appeared as one of the signatories of the IWR declaration, “we are not sure if he signed the IWR declaration or that he authorized someone to sign it on his behalf.

“It is a fact that Lau did not post the IWR declaration on his Facebook page and he did not make use of the declaration in his electioneering work. In fact, the ideas of vetoing the budgets and the Five Demands did not feature in Lau’s election campaign.”

The judges also noted that there is reasonable doubt whether Lau subscribed to the idea of vetoing the budgets indiscriminately as stated in the first clause of the declaration.

Although the prosecution argued that Lau gave no believable explanation as to why his name appeared on the declaration, the judges ruled that if Lau did not know who put his name on the declaration without his consent then he could not provide an explanation.

The judges also acknowledged that it would amount to “political suicide” had Lau asked to have his name taken down or publish a clarification on social media.

As for Lee, the judges accepted that he had not taken part in and did not know anything about the preparation meeting held prior to a Civic Party press conference on March 25, 2020.

Up to late May 2020, Lee had no intention to run in the primary election and had not participated in any of the coordination meetings, the judges said, adding he only began to show an interest in running after the Civic Party had started the “conscription” in early June 2020.

“It is our finding that Lee was not yet a candidate when the Civic Party endorsed the IWR declaration. In view of the timing and the protracted history of how Lee eventually became a Civic Party candidate, we cannot be sure if Lee had agreed to the Civic Party endorsing the declaration on his behalf.”

The judges pointed out that Lee was a late comer to the Civic Party’s campaign in the primary election and therefore they had reservations as to whether Lee would have had much choice but to adopt the election platform template used by the others.

The judges also noted that Lee did not mention anything about using the majority’s vetoing power to force the government to accede to the Five Demands during an election forum on July 4, 2020.

The judges therefore came to the conclusion that they cannot be sure that Lee was a party to the primary election scheme.