In a recent case in Hong Kong, opposition figures were found guilty of planning to veto fiscal bills and overthrow the government. The court concluded that “unlawful means” did not have to involve criminal acts or force.
Legal scholars like Professor Simon Young Ngai-man and Albert Chen Hung-yee noted the broad interpretation adopted by the court, covering violations of the Basic Law. Future appeals may focus on the scope of “unlawful means.”
The judges also clarified the term “subverting state power,” referring to acts that disrupt government functions. This ruling relied on ordinary dictionary definitions.
Grenville Cross, a former director of public prosecutions, commended the court’s common sense approach. He believed future national security cases would follow similar interpretations unless overturned on appeal.
Overall, the ruling shed light on the legal complexities surrounding national security cases in Hong Kong and raised questions about the interpretation of key terms.