1. The 5 defendants (“D1 to D5”) herein were the executives of the Executive Council of the General Union of the Hong Kong Speech Therapists [香港言語治療師總工會] (“GUHKST”). They face one charge of conspiracy to print, publish, distribute, display and/or reproduce seditious publications, contrary to sections 10(1)(c), 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 (“the Charge”). 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that D1 to D5 among themselves and together with Wong Hoi-ching and other persons had embarked upon an agreement to cause the three picture books particularized in the Charge, i.e. “羊村守衛者” (“Book 1”), “羊村十二勇士” (“Book 2”) and “羊村清道夫” (“Book 3”), to be printed, published, distributed, displayed and/or reproduced in the name of GUHKST from 4 June 2020 (ie the day when Book 1 was published) until 22 July 2021 when they were arrested, and that these three books had the seditious intention as particularized in the Charge. 3. All defendants argue that the offence charged is unconstitutional on the ground that it is inconsistent with their freedom of expression, speech and publication, and/or freedom to engage in literary and artistic creation and other cultural activities guaranteed by the Basic Law (“BL”), and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”), and that the offence charged should therefore be struck down outright, or it should be given a remedial interpretation in the way suggested by counsel for some defendants to render it constitutionally compliant. It is also argued that the Charge should not cover “Central Authorities”, and that the facts proved by the prosecution are insufficient to prove the Charge beyond reasonable doubt against each of the defendants. 4. Nearly the whole of the prosecution evidence is admitted by the defendants. There is no submission of no case to answer, and the defendants elect not to give evidence and call no witnesses. On the other hand, certain facts have been agreed between D4 and the prosecution. 5. The following issues fall for consideration: - (1) Does the offence charged cover the “Central Authorities”? (2) What are the elements of the offence, in particular whether it requires proof of “the common law intention”? (3) Is the offence charged unconstitutional? (4) Were the three picture books or any of them seditious publication? (5) Was there the alleged conspiracy, and if so, did D1 to D5 or any of them take part in it? (6) Is prosecution of the offence time-barred? 6. On Issue (1), the court rules that the Central Authorities have been properly included in the Charge against the defendants. 7. Section 9(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance shall now read: “A seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Central Authorities, or against the Government of Hong Kong”. The other parts of the written section 9(1)(a) are to be disregarded as the types of colonial governments referred to therein do not exist now. 8. Sections 9(1)(c), 9(1)(f) and 9(1)(g) shall remain unchanged, but section 9(1)(d) shall read: “A seditious intention is an intention to raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Hong Kong.” 9. On Issue (2), from the plain reading of the statutory provision in question, a person will not commit an offence contrary to section 10(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance unless: (a) he prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes, displays or reproduces any publication (“the prescribed act”); (b) the publication is having a seditious intention; and (c) at the time when he performs the prescribed act, (i) he intends to perform the prescribed act, (ii) he knows that the publication is having a seditious intention, and (iii) he has a seditious intention. 10. The court holds that “seditious intention” as defined in section 9 of the Crimes Ordinance has never included “an intention to incite persons to violence or to create public disturbance or disorder for the purpose of disturbing constituted authority” formulated by case law in various common law jurisdiction (“the Common Law Intention”) as its necessary ingredient, and that there is no basis today to interpret seditious intention to include the Common Law Intention. 11. As to Issue (3), since this prosecution is based on what the defendants had allegedly said and published, it raises the question whether the offence charged has infringed upon their rights to freedoms of expression, of speech, of publication, and of literary and artistic creation and other cultural activities. 12. It is accepted by all parties that these freedoms are fundamental rights guaranteed and protected by Articles 27 and 34 of the BL, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (“ICCPR”) which is implemented by Article 39 of the BL, as well as Article 16 of the HKBOR. It is also accepted that these are not absolute rights and may be subject to restrictions. However, such restrictions must be “prescribed by law” and must not contravene the provisions of ICCPR. 13. In its deliberation, the court must give a generous interpretation to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, and that any restriction must be narrowly interpreted. In the context of this particular case, it is particularly important to remember that: “This freedom [of expression] includes the freedom to express ideas which the majority may find disagreeable or offensive and the freedom to criticize governmental institutions and the conduct of public officials.” 14. After due consideration, the court is satisfied that despite the use of words like “hatred”, “contempt”, “disaffection”, and “discontent” in section 9 of the Crimes Ordinance, these concepts are not so vague or imprecise. The court is of the view that the degree of legal certainty satisfies the “prescribed by law” requirement stipulated in Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 16 of HKBOR. 15. Applying the 4-step analysis as set out in Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board, (a) The court is satisfied that criminalization of seditious acts clearly pursues a legitimate aim. (b) It is beyond argument that criminalization of seditious acts by sections 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance is rationally connected with that legitimate aim. (c) The court finds that the restrictions imposed by sections 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance on the right to freedoms of expression and publication are necessary for the protection of national security and protection of public order (ordre public), and they do not impose restriction more than necessary to limit the right to freedom of expression, publication, etc for the protection of national security and of public order (ordre public). (d) There is also nothing to suggest that a reasonable balance had not been struck between the restrictions and the societal benefits obtained as a result. 16. The court therefore rules that the constitutional challenge fails. 17. On Issue (4), upon the court’s analysis, each of Books 1, 2 and 3 is a publication having seditious intention. The seditious intention stems not merely from the words, but from the words with the proscribed effects intended to result in the mind of children as stated in section 9(1)(a), (c), (d), (f) and (g). 18. As to Issue (5), there is no dispute that Book 1, Book 2 and Book 3 are the publications of GUHKST. This per se provides direct evidence that all executives of the Executive Council of GUHKST had participated in this agreement to print, publish, distribute, display and reproduce the three picture books unless there is evidence that may prevent the inference to be drawn. As to who were the executives at the material times, the evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt that D1 to D5 and Wong Hoi-ching were the executives of the 1st Executive Council of GUHKST from 12 December 2019 until the date of arrest on 22 July 2021. 19. In addition, there are other evidence linking each of the defendants to the agreement for the printing, publication, distribution, display, etc of Books 1, 2 and 3. The court finds that each one of them had a seditious intention to publish the books. 20. Based on the evidence, the court finds that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, from the roles played by each of the defendants, each of them had between 4 June 2020 and 22 July 2021 entered into an agreement amongst themselves and with Wong Hoi-ching and others to print, publish, distribute, display, and/or reproduce Books 1, 2 and 3, knowing that the books printed or to be printed are publications with seditious intention. The court finds that they intended to have this agreement carried out, and in the course of carrying out the agreement, Books 1, 2 and 3 had already been published, and Book 4 was being prepared. 21. As to Issue (6), it is beyond any shadow of doubt that the conspiracy entered into between the defendants had not come to an end before their arrest, and that the conspiracy was not just for printing of the books, but also for publishing, distributing and displaying the books as well. 22. As there is no time bar, each of D1 to D5 is convicted as charged.