-9-
commit the offence but on the incitor who seeks to influence another to commit an offence.
22. In the present case, the Defendant was not a lone protester quietly carrying a flag bearing the Slogan amongst a sea of protesters, he deliberately challenged a number of police checklines in order to attract as much attention to the secessionist message on the flag as possible and to leave a great impact and a strong impression on people. In our Reasons for Verdict, we also made the point that it was the Defendant who set the context for the display of the flag. The date, the time, the place and the manner were deliberately picked for attracting public attention.
23. The date of 1 July 2020 was of particular importance as it was the first day of implementation of the NSL, a law which was promulgated in light of the “increasingly notable national security risks in the HKSAR . . . [in] particular, since the onset of Hong Kong’s ‘legislative amendment turmoil’ in 2019, anti-China forces seeking to disrupt Hong Kong have blatantly advocated such notions as ‘Hong Kong independence’, ‘self-determination’ and ‘referendum’, and engaged in activities to undermine national unity and split the country”[1].
24. Having taken into account all the above, we find that the circumstances of the offence of incitement to secession committed by the Defendant are of a “serious nature” under
- ↑ HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying [2021] HKCFA 3, [12].
