A Hong Kong court has found a prominent 78-year-old media founder and British national guilty on charges of conspiracy to publish seditious material and conspiracy to collude with foreign forces. The verdict, delivered under the territory’s national security legislation, has drawn sharp criticism from multiple Western governments and human rights organizations.
The defendant, who founded a now-defunct newspaper, was accused of using his publication and overseas connections to lobby for sanctions against China following the 2019 protests. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. The lengthy trial saw several delays, during which the defendant has been detained for over five years.
In response to the ruling, the United Kingdom’s top diplomat condemned the prosecution as “politically motivated,” calling for the individual’s immediate release and expressing concern over his health. Similar statements of deep concern were issued by the European Union and Australia, with the EU describing the outcome as indicative of a broader erosion of democratic freedoms in the city.
Critics of the case argue that evidence predating the enactment of the national security law was improperly considered. The defendant himself stated in court that he ceased any calls for sanctions after the law came into force. The presiding judges, however, stated the evidence against him was clear.
Human rights groups have framed the conviction as a severe blow to press freedom. A director for a major rights organization stated the verdict signals that the security laws are designed to silence dissent rather than protect citizens, serving as a stark warning to the international business community in Hong Kong.
The defendant’s family and international legal team have appealed for concrete diplomatic pressure, urging the UK government to link his release to bilateral relations with Beijing. They report a serious decline in his health during his detention, including significant weight loss and other medical issues, despite assertions from Hong Kong authorities that his care is adequate.
China’s foreign ministry has rebuked the international comments, urging foreign nations to respect judicial proceedings and refrain from interfering in China’s internal affairs. The Chinese embassy in London accused the UK’s criticism of violating international norms and the rule of law.
The case continues to highlight the profound legal and political shifts in Hong Kong since the implementation of its national security framework.