1. At the material time, D1 was the vice-chairperson of the “Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China” [香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會] (“HKA”) while D2 and D5 were its committee members. 2. The Commissioner of Police (“the Commissioner”), having reasonable grounds to believe that HKA was a “foreign agent” under Schedule 5 of the Implementation Rules and Article 43 of the National Security Law (“Schedule 5”), issued a Notice under Schedule 5 s.3(1) requiring HKA to provide within 14 days some specified information with supporting documents reasonably believed to be necessarily required for the prevention and investigation of an offence endangering national security. 3. By virtue of Schedule 5 s.3(3)(a), the office-bearer of the organization has the obligation to provide such information. The Notice was served on D1, D2 and D5. 4. Before the deadline, HKA held a press conference criticising such requirement, and subsequently sent an open letter to the Commissioner with D1, D2, D5 and others as cosignatories raising questions on some legal issues, and clearly stating that they would not provide any information. They had never provided any information, not even up to the expiration date. 5. At the initial stage, the prosecution made a claim for Public Interest Immunity to redact some information from the defence for case preparation on the grounds that a full disclosure would jeopardize the ongoing investigation on national security cases. The Court agrees that it was a large-scale ongoing investigation which involved subjects other than HKA. Since HKA was only one of the targets, a redaction of all the ongoing investigation information unrelated to HKA and the Defendants was necessary, and on the other hand, when partial redaction was required, the principle of a fair trial must be upheld. 6. Upon due consideration with paramount concern for the defendants’ rights to a fair trial, the Court ordered partial redaction, and yet, that was not final but subject to review at any time when necessary. 7. And indeed, there had been some reviews throughout the trial upon which more information was disclosed as ordered by the Court. The Court is satisfied that in general, the Defendants’ rights to a fair trial was not undermined at all. 8. At the early stage of the trial, the Court made a preliminary ruling on two material issues: (1) It was not necessary to prove that the subject organization, as a matter of fact, was a foreign agent; (2) The defence was entitled to challenge the legality of the Notice at the trial. The trial proper then proceeded based on the above ruling. 9. The prosecution case mainly relied on the police superintendent who worked on the investigation information with his own analysis of HKA’s background, nature and the nexus of interactions as well as the monetary flows to and from other local and non-local organizations and people, upon which he made recommendations to the Commissioner on measures to be taken under Schedule 5. The Commissioner endorsed the recommendations in full and with the approval given by the Secretary for Security, the Notice was finally issued and served on the Defendants. The Court accepted the superintendent’s evidence. 10. The defence contended that HKA was not a foreign agent and challenged the legality of the Notice on numerous aspects and also questioned the analysis concerned. They asserted that since the legality of the Notice was faulty, they had no obligations to comply with the purported notice. 11. There was little for the prosecution to dispute as far as the facts raised by the defence was concerned, for the prosecution did not have any participation and hence not in any position to dispute them, on that basis the Court accepted the defence factual evidence be the factual basis for this trial; but rejected the speculative observations for lack of factual foundation. The Court is satisfied the information required had struck a balance between the necessity for the prevention and investigation of an offence endangering national security and protection of rights. The Court finds that the material time relevant to the issue of legality of the Notice was the time when the Notice was served. Any additional information subsequent to that were information in hindsight and not helpful at all. 12. Upon due consideration, having made the analysis and taken a balance of all factors of this case, the Court finds that: (1) The Notice was legal at the time of service and there was no basis for the Court to exercise any discretion to reject it; (2) The Defendants had the obligation to answer the Notice; (3) They had no intention to provide any information at all; (4) They had never provided any information; (5) The statutory defence was not applicable to this case. 13. The Court therefore convict all Defendants accordingly.