Hong Kong's top court upholds sedition conviction for ‘Fast Beat' Tam Tak-chi
Hong Kong's top court has upheld the sedition conviction of an opposition activist jailed under a colonial-era law, ruling that a person can be held liable for the crime even if he has no intention to incite violence or public disorder.
Advertisement
In a written ruling handed down on Thursday, the Court of Final Appeal also rejected Tam Tak-chi's contention that the now-repealed offence must be tried before a judge and jury.
Tam, better known as 'Fast Beat' from his days as an online radio host, was
jailed for 40 months at the District Court in 2022 on 11 charges over a raft of offensive conduct during public gatherings in the aftermath of the 2019 anti-government protests.
The 53-year-old appellant was previously granted one last chance to appeal, but only on technical grounds, after the top court ruled the 1938 sedition law
struck a fair balance between restricting free speech and protecting national security and public order.
Tam's legal counsel argued that prosecutors were required to show that a defendant intended to incite violence or public disorder to secure a conviction for a sedition offence under Sections 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance.
Advertisement
But the top court said it was only one of seven forms of seditious intentions stipulated by the law. The forms also included intentions to incite hatred towards authorities and counsel disobedience to any lawful order.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong's top court dismisses domestic helper's forced labour challenge
Hong Kong's top court has dismissed a judicial review of a foreign domestic helper who argued police had failed to properly investigate her complaint against her employer due to the absence of specific legislation against forced labour. The Court of Final Appeal on Wednesday, in upholding a ruling last year by the Court of Appeal, found that the city's lack of bespoke legislation for forced labour was not necessary to provide 'practical and effective' protection of the Filipina helper's rights. The helper, identified as CB, had initially succeeded in a bid for a judicial review, claiming that police inadequately investigated her complaint against her employer, an elderly doctor from Britain, due to the absence of specific legislation against forced labour. She alleged that the doctor, identified as Z, had repeatedly molested her and coerced her into sexual acts over an eight-month period between September 2018 and April 2019. But the Court of First Instance's ruling in 2022 was partially overturned by the Court of Appeal last year, with three judges of the appellate court finding insufficient grounds to conclude that enacting a dedicated offence for forced labour was 'the only effective solution' to what CB described as a systemic failure. A subsequent investigation, ordered by the lower court, also concluded that the helper was not a victim of forced labour. The doctor was initially jailed for two-and-a-half years on two counts of indecent assault, but the conviction was quashed on appeal, and he was acquitted of all charges in a retrial. The worker also lost a subsequent civil claim against him.
HKFP
6 days ago
- HKFP
Same-sex couples should have ‘right to found family,' lawyer tells Hong Kong court in reciprocal IVF case
Same-sex couples should have 'the right to found a family,' a lawyer has told a Hong Kong court after lesbian parents who had a child via reciprocal in vitro fertilisation (RIVF) were barred from including both their names on their son's birth certificate. Hong Kong's High Court heard arguments in a judicial review related to the legal parental rights of same-sex couples with children born via RIVF on Wednesday and Thursday. The case relates to a lesbian couple, R and B, who underwent RIVF – a procedure allowing two women to take part in pregnancy – in South Africa in 2020. The egg was extracted from R, and B carried and gave birth to the baby, K, in Hong Kong in 2021. Hong Kong, which does not recognise same-sex marriage, views only a child's birth mother and her husband as legal parents. In R and B's case, only the birth mother, B, is the legal parent of their son. The couple went to court in 2023 to seek a declaration under the Parent and Child Ordinance that R is also a legal parent. The judge declined but, in her ruling, stated that R was a 'parent at common law' – a first in the common law world. Representing K, barrister Nigel Kat said on Wednesday that the 'parent at common law' status is not recognised in the Parent and Child Ordinance, and the child does not have a birth certificate showing that R is a legal parent. 'Therefore, R can walk around and tell everybody, 'I'm a parent,' [but] she can't prove it,' he said, adding that gay people 'are not excluded from the right to found a family.' Kat argued that the birth certificates of children born via RIVF should reflect both parents' names, and that references to parents in the Parent and Child Ordinance should be amended to include 'parents at common law' where their children were born via RIVF. 'Demeaning' discrimination During the hearing on Wednesday, barrister Isabel Tam – who is representing the birth mother, B, as an interested party in the case – said her client faced discrimination because of her sexual orientation. If B and R were a heterosexual couple who had undergone IVF, they would 'not be in this position,' Tam said. 'This has quite a disproportionate impact on the development of her family life as well as how she presents herself to the outside world.' The discrimination was 'particularly demeaning' because it was based on personal characteristics that could not be changed, the barrister said. 'B and R cannot change their… sexual orientation,' Tam said. 'K cannot change the manner of his birth.' Stewart Wong, representing the Department of Justice, said on Thursday that while he accepted that the easiest way to prove parental status was a birth certificate, the suggestion that K's family would encounter embarrassing situations was 'exaggerated.' One would not have to prove to the school that you are the parent every day, Wong said, adding that it would only need to be done when applying. For 'regular check-ups' at the hospital, the nurse would just require proof at registration, he said. It is 'not as if you need to prove or bring… [the child's] birth certificate every day of your life when the child is a minor,' Wong said. Guardianship order There is already an existing framework – a guardianship order from the court – if one is seeking parental rights and status, he said. 'The guardianship order offers clear and absolute proof on occasions that legal rights and obligations… [are] necessary,' Wong said. In response, Judge Russell Coleman said having to apply for a guardianship order may make the parents feel 'like less of a parent or a second-class parent.' Barrister Azan Marwah, representing K, raised other issues that may not be addressed by guardianship orders. In the event of a separation, B would not be able to demand maintenance payments from R, who can 'simply get away,' he said on Thursday. K would also have the 'lifelong disability' of not being able to inherit from R under the city's intestate ordinance, Marwah said, referring to the set of laws that regulate inheritance arrangements when one dies without a will. On Thursday, Coleman challenged Wong's view that those seeking parental rights could simply apply for a court guardianship order. The judge said 'what bristles with people' was the assumption that 'people like R and B… can't be perfectly good parents,' and questioned why a 'licence' was required. Wong said such same-sex relationships could be 'too variable' as the parties may not be stable. Coleman replied that the same could be said for heterosexual relationships. The judge said he would hand down a decision by August 22. The hearing comes ahead of the government's October deadline to provide a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships, per a top court ruling in 2023. No public consultations, however, are known to have taken place yet.
HKFP
7 days ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong lawmakers endorse New Zealand judge for top court
A New Zealand judge has been appointed as a justice of Hong Kong's top court, after a years-long exodus of overseas jurists following Beijing's imposition of a sweeping security law on the finance hub. Hong Kong's lawmakers on Wednesday approved the appointment of William Young, 73, to join five other overseas non-permanent justices from the UK and Australia. Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction separate from mainland China and invites overseas judges to hear cases at its Court of Final Appeal. Their presence has been seen as a bellwether for the rule of law since the former British colony was handed back to China in 1997. Beijing passed a national security law on Hong Kong in 2020, following huge and often violent pro-democracy protests in the Chinese city the year before. Since then, several overseas judges have quit the Court of Final Appeal without finishing their terms, while others have not renewed their appointments. The lineup of overseas judges has gone from 15 at its peak down to five, not including Young. The newly appointed justice, who retired from his role as a New Zealand Supreme Court judge in April 2022, is expected to start in Hong Kong this month. Hong Kong leader John Lee accepted a recommendation to appoint Young in May and praised him as 'a judge of eminent standing and reputation'. Cases at the top court in Hong Kong are typically heard by a panel of four local judges and a fifth ad hoc member, who may be a foreign judge. In January, Hong Kong's chief justice said recruiting suitable overseas judges 'may be less straightforward than it once was', given geopolitical headwinds. The government has defended the security law as necessary to restore order after the 2019 protests and said the city remains a well-respected legal hub.
