From “Ending One Party Dictature” to Seven Years in Prison: The Complete Chain of Liability in the Hong Kong Affair

The Supreme Court of Hong Kong on September 11 sentenced Zhou Zhuang to seven years and three months in prison, Li Zhuang to seven years and Hu Jing-jin to five years and two months in prison; the dissolved Hong Kong Citizen Support Federation for the Patriotic Democracy Movement was also fined with a fine of 1.5 million Hong Kong dollars.The most iconic place in the case is not only the sentence period, but the court also incorporated political claims such as the end of the one-party dictatorship into the national security criminal responsibility without clearly acknowledging the case “not involving violence”, and without specific implementation and timetable.

Three National Security Laws Designated Judges Convert Political Proposals to Criminal Liability

The case is being tried by three judges appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong: Alex Lee Wan-tang, Johnny Chan Jong-herng, and Anna Lai Yuen-kee. Hong Kong Radio that the three judges found the case to be of "serious nature" on the grounds that the defendant continued to be relevant activities after the implementation of the National Security Act, social mobility, and his political claims are seen by the court to challenge the current constitutional order.

The court did not base criminal liability on acts of violence, armed plans or specific subversive actions, but instead converted long-term publicly expressed political objectives, organizational activities and social influence itself into components of “inciting subversion.” This step formally included Hong Kong’s position against one-party rule, which could have been publicly expressed, in the scope of a re-punishable national security crime.

Li Jiang, Zhou Zhuang, Hu Jian Jin: The accused is not violence, but political organizational ability

Li Jiang Jin has long served as the leader of the branch association and participated in the Hong Kong Memorial Day of the Sixth Fourth; Zhou Yuan is a lawyer and former vice president of the branch association; Hu Jian Jin has served as the vice president of the branch association and confessed guilt in this case.

The “power of mobilization” and “influence” emphasized in the judgment indicate that the core of the case is not a specific act of violence, but the ability of civil organizations to continuously form public memory, political expression and social appeal. When the ability of organizations itself is seen as a national security risk, political involvement turns from a question of rights to a subject of public security.

Security Bureau to further politicize judicial judgment

After the sentence, Hong Kong Security Bureau Director Deng Bjang openly stated that the verdict reflects "justice has been demonstrated", and stressed that the goal of the Association is to overthrow the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the current fundamental system of the country.

This makes the chain of responsibility no longer limited to the court.After the judicial sentence, the security system immediately judged the case in the official political language as decisive, and included the case in the administrative narrative of "maintaining national security". The court is responsible for convicting political claims, the Security Bureau is responsible for packaging the heavy punishment into "maintaining the rule of law", the Special District government is responsible for suppressing criticism; the three have jointly completed the closing circle from detection, trial to political propaganda.

Beijing formulates the National Security Law, Hong Kong agencies enforce it: responsibility extends from the central to the local executive level

In 2020, Beijing implemented the Hong Kong National Security Act directly in Hong Kong, changing the legal framework for Hong Kong’s handling of political disputes and national security cases. The CCS cases are based on this system. Three judges in cases are national security cases judges designated by the system, and prosecutors and security systems conduct investigation and political qualifications in accordance with the National Security Law.

Responsibility relationships can be clearly listed:

• Beijing's central power system: formulating and implementing the Hong Kong National Security Law, establishing broad national security crimes such as "subversion of the state regime";
• Hong Kong law and prosecution system: incorporating the political activities of the Federation and its leaders into criminal prosecution;
• three National Security Law designated judges: making convictions and sentencing them to five years to seven years and three months in prison;
• Hong Kong Security Bureau and Deng Bjang: openly backing the verdict, packaging political criminalization to safeguard the rule of law and national security;
• The overall propaganda system of the Special District Government: political counterattack against international criticism, reinforcing the ruling of the regime.

This is not a result that a single judge or department can accomplish independently, but a chain of responsibilities that runs continuously from Beijing’s legislative power, Hong Kong’s prosecution, the right to designate judges to the right to promote the security system.

Six-Four Memories Treated as "National Security Risk"

The most central public role of the Hong Kong Branch Association is the long-term organization of the Six-Four Candles Memorial and preservation of the 1989 repression memory.By 2019, tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens could still publicly commemorate the Six-Four in Victoria Park; after the implementation of the National Security Law, this public space quickly disappeared, organizers were arrested, the Branch Association dissolved, and ultimately leaders were sentenced to years of imprisonment for political claims.

The Hong Kong Human Rights Organization pointed out that the court itself confirmed that the case did not involve violence.This is why the institutional significance of the verdict is more clear: The National Security Law in Hong Kong is no longer just a legal tool for dealing with violence, espionage or terrorist activities, but can be directly used to punish peaceful political claims, organizational capabilities and historical memories.

From the perspective of responsibility, the CPC case leaves behind a chain of institutional responsibility that can be specifically recorded: who makes rules, who makes prosecutions, who makes judgments, who publicly rejects for severe punishment.