HKSAR v Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China HKCFI 4794 is a Hong Kong national security case in which the Court of First Instance convicted the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance), Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung of incitement to subversion under Articles 22 and 23 of the Hong Kong national security law (NSL). Albert Ho, who had been jointly charged with them, pleaded guilty on the first day of trial.
The prosecution centred on one of the Alliance's Five Action Agendas, "end one-party dictatorship". It particularised the alleged "unlawful means" as ending the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in breach of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, particularly its Preamble and Article 1. The court held that CCP leadership was an integral element of the socialist system established by Article 1 as China's "fundamental system", and that overthrowing or undermining CCP leadership was therefore equivalent to overthrowing or undermining that fundamental system for the purposes of Article 22.
Applying HKSAR v Yeung Suet Ying Clarisse & Ors HKCA 284, the court held that "other unlawful means" were not confined to violence, threats of violence or independently criminal conduct. Conduct in breach of the Constitution, undertaken with a view to overthrowing or undermining the fundamental system, could fall within Article 22. The court found that "end one-party dictatorship" meant ending the CCP's constitutional leadership status and that Lee and Chow intended to incite others to pursue that objective by unlawful means. It nevertheless held that the prosecution had not proved its alternative allegation that ending CCP leadership would necessarily overthrow the "body of central power" of the People's Republic of China.
The case received substantial international attention because the Alliance had organised Hong Kong's annual candlelight vigils commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre for decades, and because the court expressly found that the Alliance had never used or advocated violence or the threat of violence. Sentencing remained outstanding, with mitigation adjourned to 28 August 2026.
Background The Alliance was established in May 1989 during the Tiananmen protests and was registered in Hong Kong as a company limited by guarantee the following month. It became best known for organising the annual 4 June vigil at Victoria Park.
The Alliance promoted five objectives which it called its Five Action Agendas: "release pro-democracy activists", "reverse verdict on 1989 pro-democracy movement", "investigate liability for massacre", "end one-party dictatorship", and "construct a democratic China". Lee testified that the five agendas had been maintained since their adoption and had to be read together. The Alliance used rallies, marches, talks, exhibitions, street booths, its website and social-media accounts, and the physical and online June 4th Museum to promote its activities and agendas.
In March 2018, Article 1 of the Constitution was amended to state that "[l]eadership by the Communist Party of China is the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics". The effect of that amendment became central to the prosecution.
On 25 September 2021, Alliance members voted 41–4 at a special members' meeting to disband the organisation. On 26 October 2021, the Chief Executive in Council ordered the Registrar of Companies to strike the Alliance off the Companies Register under section 360C of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance. The corporate defendant was nevertheless prosecuted in HCCC 155/2022 and was represented at trial by senior counsel instructed by the Official Receiver.
Charge and trial arrangements The Alliance, Lee, Ho and Chow were jointly charged with one count of incitement to subversion contrary to Articles 22 and 23 of the NSL.
The indictment alleged that between 1 July 2020 and 8 September 2021, in Hong Kong, they incited others to organise, plan, commit or participate in acts by unlawful means with a view to subverting State power, namely:
overthrowing or undermining the fundamental system of the People's Republic of China established by the Constitution ("Prohibited Act (1)"); or overthrowing the body of central power of the People's Republic of China ("Prohibited Act (2)").
In December 2022, the South China Morning Post reported that Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok had issued a certificate under Article 46 of the NSL directing that the case be tried without a jury. According to a letter disclosed by Chow, the stated grounds included the involvement of foreign factors, protection of jurors and their families, and a real risk that the due administration of justice could otherwise be impaired. Article 46 provides for such a case to be tried by a panel of three judges rather than a jury; Article 44 provides for the designation of judges to handle national-security cases.
Pre-trial proceedings
Recusal application Chow applied for Anna Lai J to recuse herself because Lai had previously heard an appeal arising from a separate prosecution of Chow and other Alliance office-bearers for failing to comply with a police information notice. Lai had been given access in that appeal to material over which public-interest immunity had been claimed. Chow argued that the earlier proceedings overlapped with the subversion case and that Lai's access to undisclosed material gave rise to apparent bias.
In HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung HKCFI 1735, the panel applied the test of whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. It unanimously dismissed the application. The court relied among other matters on the different offences involved, disclosure of edited public-interest-immunity material, reasons given in the earlier judgments and the fact that the present trial would be determined by three professional judges. It found no real possibility of apparent, including subconscious, bias.
Overseas witnesses Chow sought permission under section 79I of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance for five witnesses outside Hong Kong to testify by live television link. After she had indicated her intention to make the application, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance came into force in March 2024. Section 144 amended section 79I so that overseas live-link evidence could not be permitted in proceedings involving national security.
Chow challenged the amendment on equality and fair-trial grounds. In HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung HKCFI 629, the court held that the appropriate equality comparison was between prosecution and defence within the same national-security proceeding, rather than between litigants in national-security and ordinary criminal cases. Because the statutory bar applied equally to prosecution and defence, it found no differential treatment or inequality of arms.
The court further held that the amendment pursued the legitimate aims of safeguarding national security and the administration of justice, was rationally connected to those aims, went no further than reasonably necessary, and struck a reasonable balance between the social interest and the right to a fair trial. It rejected as speculation Chow's contention that the amendment had been enacted specifically to defeat her application. The application to call the overseas witnesses by live link was refused.
Application to quash indictment Chow later sought to quash the indictment on four grounds: insufficient particulars; failure to disclose an offence known to law; duplicity; and abuse of process and double jeopardy.
In HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung HKCFI 398, the court held that the indictment, further particulars and prosecution opening gave the defendants sufficient information to know the case they had to meet. The prosecution had sufficiently identified the alleged unlawful means as ending CCP leadership in breach of the Constitution. It held that the prosecution did not have to plead the mens rea of incitement expressly in the particulars, and that whether the alleged objective could constitute the required criminal conduct was a matter for trial.
The court also rejected the duplicity argument, finding sufficient continuity for the alleged conduct to be charged as a single offence, and rejected the abuse-of-process and double-jeopardy arguments. All four grounds were dismissed, as was the alternative request for a permanent stay.
Expert evidence Chow sought to call National Taiwan University sociologist Ho Ming-sho as an expert witness. The prosecution objected on grounds of relevance, expertise and alleged lack of independence or impartiality.
In HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung HKCFI 1341, the court held that several matters could be determined from the evidence, common sense and ordinary reasoning without expert assistance, and that an expert could not give evidence about the defendants' state of mind or intention. It held in particular that how an ordinary Hong Kong person would understand "end one-party dictatorship" in the relevant social context did not require expert evidence.
The court recognised Ho's academic standing but held that he was not an expert in Chinese constitutional law or Chinese law and that his expertise would not assist on the relevant legal issues. It rejected, however, the prosecution's submission that his previous criticism of the CCP was sufficient to demonstrate a lack of independence or objectivity. His evidence was excluded on relevance and expertise grounds.
Trial The trial was heard by three designated national-security judges, Alex Lee Wan-tang, Johnny Chan Jong-herng and Anna Lai Yuen-kee, at the West Kowloon Law Courts Building, sitting as the Court of First Instance. The hearing began on 22 January and concluded on 19 May 2026; the judgment lists 24 hearing days, and The Guardian likewise reported that the trial took place over 24 days. Ho pleaded guilty on the first day, while the Alliance, Lee and Chow pleaded not guilty. Lee and Chow had been detained since 2021.
The prosecution evidence included two sets of agreed facts and one live witness, Superintendent Chow Wing-yee, who was tendered for cross-examination by Lee. Lee and Chow both gave evidence in their own cases, and Chow called three additional defence witnesses.
Prosecution and defence cases The prosecution argued that, following the 2018 constitutional amendment, the socialist system was expressly identified as China's fundamental system and CCP leadership as the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It submitted that the natural and reasonable effect of "end one-party dictatorship" was to encourage an end to CCP leadership in breach of the Constitution. It also alleged that the defendants used subjects including the 4 June crackdown and democracy movements in mainland China to generate hostility towards State power and strengthen the effect of their incitement.
Lee and Chow maintained that the Alliance sought democratic change and popular sovereignty rather than simply the removal of the CCP. They argued that ending one-party dictatorship did not necessarily require unlawful means because the National People's Congress had power to amend the Constitution, that their activities were protected political expression, and that the Alliance had never advocated violence. They also maintained that they genuinely and honestly believed their words and conduct were lawful.