In the latest update on the democratic camp’s primary election case, out of the 47 defendants, 16 individuals who were accused of “conspiring to subvert state power” have been acquitted, with only Liu Wai-chung and Li Yu-yan being cleared of charges.
The judgment issued by High Court designated judges Li Yun-teng, Chan Hing-wai, and Chan Chung-hang spans 337 pages and consists of 87,000 English words.
The section concerning Liu Wai-chung in the judgment extends over nearly 7 pages, where the judge confirmed that Liu Wai-chung’s name appeared in the “Taking One’s Stand” statement, but it was highlighted that there was uncertainty regarding whether he personally signed it.
The judgment also noted that although Liu Wai-chung’s name appeared in the “Taking One’s Stand” statement, he never advocated against budget bills on Facebook or election forums. Even though debate drafts were found in Liu’s district council office, his stance on the content of these notes was not definitive, leading to his acquittal.
Additionally, the judge accepted Liu Wai-chung’s claim that he is not a user of Facebook, explaining that he has a dedicated Facebook page solely for district council work, which is managed by his staff.
Regarding the prosecution’s argument that Liu Wai-chung failed to provide a credible explanation for his name being listed in the “Taking One’s Stand” statement, the judge deemed that Liu’s name was included by one or more of his staff members familiar with his intention to participate in the primary election. The judge further acknowledged that in the charged political atmosphere at the time, requesting the removal of his name or clarification on social media would have been detrimental to Liu.
The judge also considered Liu Wai-chung’s defense concerning the primary election forum. Liu had inquired with Democratic Party member Hei Ming why he used the term “we” when signing the “Taking One’s Stand” statement, with Liu stating it was a slip of the tongue and he meant to say “you” rather than “we”.
Furthermore, Liu claimed that he does not use the messaging app WhatsApp but prefers iMessage. The judge accepted this as Liu’s personal preference and dismissed the prosecution’s argument that Liu’s avoidance of WhatsApp in favor of iMessage was unjustified. It was revealed that a core volunteer, Victoria Wong, managed the primary election WhatsApp group on Liu’s behalf.
The judgment also noted that following Liu’s attendance at the first coordination meeting for the Kowloon West primary election, he did not stay updated on most of the operational aspects of the election. Liu also did not read posts or articles on Facebook by pro-democracy activists like Jimmy Lai, Nathan Law, or other primary election candidates, as he had no strong reason to be concerned with these matters before deciding to participate in the primary.
However, the judge did not accept Liu’s explanation regarding the “Taking One’s Stand” statement, stating that even if elected as a Legislative Council member, the statement would bind him to exercise his veto power. In the end, the judge concluded that there was no evidence of Liu Wai-chung’s intent to subvert state power at any stage, leading to his acquittal.
Moving on to Li Yu-yan’s section in the judgment, which consisted of 11 pages, the judge expressed uncertainty about Li’s involvement in the “35+” plan, as it was revealed that Li began participating in the primary only on June 13, 2020, after the coordination meeting on May 13 of the same year. Due to this timeline, the judge could not draw conclusions regarding his awareness of the coordination agreement.
Similarly, based on analogous reasoning, the judge accepted that Li Yu-yan’s involvement with the Democratic Party’s acceptance of the “Taking One’s Stand” statement on June 11 in 2020 was unrelated to his actions, as he was unaware of it at the time.
Despite this, the judge noted that the Democratic Party had pledged in March of the same year to veto budget bills to push for the “Five Demands”, and Li had forwarded the Democratic Party’s vision statement “Parliamentary Majority Counters Government” even though he was not a primary election candidate at that point. The judge acknowledged Li as a new party member at the lowest rung within the party, highlighting his lack of involvement in the party’s internal discussions on the “Taking One’s Stand” statement.
Moreover, the judge pointed out that Li Yu-yan did not mention “veto” or the “Five Demands” on his Facebook page.
Regarding Li’s filming of a Democratic Party promotional video on June 20, 2020, the judge accepted that Li was late on set and focused on his own script, not paying attention to other aspects involving his colleagues.
Additionally, the judge endorsed Li Yu-yan’s statement that upon reading the text of the National Security Law, he promptly instructed his team to cease distributing old campaign leaflets based on the Democratic Party template and to design a new version that omitted any mention of the “Five Demands”. During an election forum on July 4, Li deliberately refrained from discussing anything related to the use of veto power to compel the government to address the “Five Demands”.