HKSAR v. LAN FEI

WKCC 3742/2025

[2025] HKMagC 6

IN THE WEST KOWLOON MAGISTRATES’ COURTS OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 3742 OF 2025

----------------------------

----------------------------

---------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---------------------------------------

Overview

1.  The defendant is convicted on her own plea for an offence of “Doing with a seditious intention an act or acts that had a seditious intention”. [1]

Admitted Facts

2.  On 27 July 2022, Male Yuan Gong-yi (“Gong”) and Male Ho Leung-mau (“Ho”) founded an organisation named the “Hong Kong Parliament Electoral Organizing Committee” (“HKPEOC”) in Canada, with the stated objective of establishing a political body known as the “Hong Kong Parliament” (“HKP”). The purpose of the HKP is to advocate for the establishment of Hong Kong people “parliament”, the independence of Hong Kong, the overthrow of the Communist Party of China (“CPC”), and the designation of the CPC as a “transnational criminal organisation”. [2]

3.  Between 4 February 2025 and 30 May 2025, the HKPEOC conducted an election for members of the HKP (“the Election”). As a result, 15 persons were elected. On 21 July 2025, those elected members took oath during a live broadcast on an online platform. [3]

4.  Male Keung Ka-wai (“Keung”) established a party known as the “Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union” (“HKDIU”). Keung and 7 members of the HKDIU participated in the Election.

5.  To incite Hong Kong residents to vote for him, Keung campaigned for the Election on his publicly accessible Facebook account. The defendant appeared in two photographs therein: [4]

(a)  A photograph posted on 20 January 2025 depicted the defendant, Keung, and Male Tony Lam (one of the elected HKP members) (“Lam”) holding a banner bearing the slogan “Hong Kong Independence”.

(b)  A photograph posted on 7 February 2025 depicted the defendant participating in an event at which the CPC was accused of persecuting the people in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Mainland.

6.  On 9 April and 10 May 2025, Yuan’s YouTube channel published two videos promoting the Election, entitled “HKP Election voting promotion- elect real voices to represent Hong Kong people by vote” and “HKP Election voting guide- elect real voices to represent Hong Kong by vote” respectively. In these videos, the defendant not only explained the voting method, but also incited and encouraged Hong Kong residents to vote by stating the following contents: [5]

First video

(a)  “Fight for Hongkongers for the rights we have.”

(b)  “This is the first time Hongkongers organised a parliament. As a Hongkonger, I will support and vote.”

(c)  “Hong Kong Parliament can help the comrades who are in prison in Hong Kong. It can also be a voice for Hongkongers in Hong Kong, and fight for their rights.”

(d)  “Voting by mobile phone is a creative well of voting for Hongkongers globally.”

Second video

(a)  “From 5^th to 30^th May, all Hongkongers can vote via the mobile phone application.”

(b)  “Would you vote?”

7.  Both videos were published and remained available on YouTube for public viewing. As of 18 July 2025, they have attracted 914,592 views, 1,376 “likes” and 392 comments in total.

8.  On 19 July 2025, the defendant was arrested. Examination of the mobile phone seized from her revealed that, on 4 April 2025, she had sent messages to a contact known as @CHING, inciting and encouraging @CHING to vote in the Election for establishing the HKP. She also described the HKP as an “oversea regime… helping comrades who were in prison in Hong Kong.” [6]

9.  The mobile phone seized also contained the defendant’s communication with Lam and photographs depicted them holding a “black bauhinia flag” and a “colonial flag”, as well as Lam wearing a t-shirt with the slogan “Glory to Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times.” [7]

10.  Upon arrest, she stated under caution that she had filmed the videos in question under the instruction of her ex-boyfriend Lam; that Lam had assured her the conduct was not unlawful, and that she had received CAD 100 for her participation in each video.

11.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, she admitted, under caution, filming the videos in March 2025 in Canada under the instruction of Lam. She also stated that Lam, Keung and Ho were present during the filming; that the scripts were prepared by Ho; that she had been paid CAD 100 by Ho and that she had sent the message to @CHING under the instruction of Lam. She however averred that she had neither voted in the Election nor joined the HKP.

12.  The movement records show that she departed Hong Kong on 19 December 2024 and returned to Hong Kong on 21 June 2025.

Mitigation

13.  The defendant, now aged 19, received education in Hong Kong up to Form 3 level. Her parents divorced in 2022, with her custody granted to the mother, who earns a modest living operating a grocery shop. The defendant currently resides with her younger sister.

14.  Mr McGuinniety, counsel for the defence, pleaded for leniency, submitting that the offence was committed out of youthful naivety and under the undue influence of her then boyfriend Lam, a man of significantly greater maturity, aged 37. It was emphasised that the defendant’s role was limited to the filming of the videos for financial gain. She did not cast a vote in the Election, nor did she become a member of the political party in question. She is now genuinely remorseful, having learnt a grave lesson and come to appreciate the serious consequences of her actions.

15.  According to the two mitigation letters submitted by the defendant’s father and her half-elder sister, it is asserted that she is a supportive member of the family and of kind character. The defendant also submitted a letter expressing her determination to make a fresh start and her wish to take care her grandmother.

16.  She has no previous convictions.

Sentencing

17.  The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance came into force on 23 March 2024. Pursuant to its enactment, the legislature has increased the maximum penalty for the offence of sedition. Prior to the amendment, a first-time offender was liable to a maximum fine of HK$5,000 and imprisonment for 2 years, with a repeat offender subject to imprisonment for 3 years. Following the amendment, the maximum penalty is increased to 7 years’ imprisonment.

18.  In determining the appropriate sentence, the court must consider the overall circumstances of the case, including but not limited to: the context in which the offence was committed, the modus operandi, the number of times and duration and the scale of the offending conduct, the target audience, the degree of risk posed, and the actual or potential consequences. Furthermore, the court must take into account the preventive purpose underlying this offence, namely, to forestall the offender from inciting, arousing, persuading, or influencing others to adopt or endorse the offender’s beliefs, thereby seeking to achieve their aims through unlawful means. In order to protect the national security, deterrence is the paramount sentencing consideration, with a view to curbing the dissemination and infiltration of seditious ideologies within society at an early stage, and to mitigating the attendant risks and consequences of disruption to public order.

19.  In sentencing, I am mindful that the defendant is now 19 years of age. However, by virtue of section 148 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which makes the offence in question an excepted offence, section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance is not applicable.

20.  In the present case, the seditious conduct pertains to the defendant’s involvement in the production of two videos and the transmission of messages to @CHING, undertaken with the intent to promote the Election for members of the HKP during the period between March and May 2025. Even though there was a description of a young female, whose characteristics closely resemble the defendant, suggesting that she would join as a member and councillor’s assistant of the HKP on the Facebook post of Keung, the author, as rightly observed by Mr McGuinniety, was unknown and the content could not be verified. [8] Accordingly, no adverse inference shall be drawn against the defendant. In evaluating her degree of culpability, it is necessary to consider the underlying agenda of the political entity associated with the Election.

21.  The principal aims of the HKPEOC, the organising committee of the Election, were to incite residents of Hong Kong to oppose the legitimate sovereign authority of the CPC and to repudiate the foundational policy of “One Country, Two Systems”, with the ultimate objective of overthrowing the CPC. The HKP was intended to inherit these aims and pursue the replacement of the HKSAR government by asserting independence and secession from the rule of the People’s Republic of China. In furtherance of this agenda, efforts were made to cultivate sustained animosity or aversion towards the CPC, including defamatory characterisation such as branding it a “transnational criminal organisation”, and to mount challenges to the sovereignty, unification, and territorial integrity of the state, thereby posing a threat to national security.

22.  The defendant, by actively encouraging others to participate in the Election, must be taken to have endorsed and aligned herself with the radical and ill-conceived ideology underpinning it. Her association with Keung, the founder of the HKDIU, and other candidates standing for the Election is indicative of her ideological alignment, as evidenced by her presence in photographs displaying slogans such as “Hong Kong Independence” and by her endorsement of unfounded allegations of persecution in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. While these photographs do not form the subject matter of the present charge, they are nonetheless relevant as contextual material, reflective of the defendant’s disposition and ideological alignment with the objectives of the HKP.

23.  Within the videos and in her communications with @CHING, the defendant made repeated references to so-called “comrades” currently serving custodial sentences in Hong Kong.[9] Such references, by implication, cast doubt upon the legitimacy of their convictions and suggest that they were victims of persecution. This narrative serves to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system in Hong Kong.

24.  As to dissemination, the videos in question were published in the public domain and, within a matter of months, had garnered 914,592 views, 1,376 “likes” and 392 comments. These metrics are indicative of the extensive reach and overt propagation of the seditious content. Through her promotion of the Election, the defendant contributed materially to the dissemination of the HKP’s objectives among Chinese audiences.

25.  On the other hand, as pleaded by Mr McGuinniety on her behalf, I am prepared to accept that the defendant was, to some extent, influenced, if not manipulated, by Lam, who was her boyfriend at the material time and markedly older and more emotionally mature. The disparity in age and experience between them may reasonably be taken to place her conduct within a broader context of vulnerability and undue influence, which may help to explain her behaviour. In my view, it is a relevant factor to be weighed in the assessment of her culpability in the present case.

26.  Having taken into account the role of the defendant, her overall culpability, the pre-emptive nature of the offence, and her plea in mitigation, I adopt a starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment.

International element

27.  The presence of an international element, which is fact specific and case sensitive, constitutes an aggravating feature of the offence and warrants an enhancement of the sentence to be imposed on the offender.

28.  In the present case, the entities concerned were established as foreign bases with the purposes of propagating hostile sentiments and opposition to the People’s Republic of China on a global scale. The founders, through postings on Facebook, stated that the entity would convene briefing sessions worldwide to advance their objectives. [10] The defendant, in her communication with @CHING, expressly endorsed the HKP as an overseas regime. [11] The entire operation was designed to disseminate distorted portrayals of the Chinese sovereignty and of the HKSAR within international communities, to malign the Chinese authority and to mislead foreign states and their citizens into accepting extremist ideology. The scheme of setting up overseas organisations was plainly designed to evade the reach of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

29.  Having considered the circumstances, and as Mr McGuinniety sensibly conceded, there is in this case an international element which must properly be regarded as an aggravating feature. I therefore enhance the starting point of sentence by 2 months.

Conclusion

30.  By reasons of the foregoing, I take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. The sentence is reduced by one-third to reflect her timely plea. There are no other valid mitigation factors which warrant any further reduction. In the result, the defendant is sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.