On Wednesday, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, former secretary-general of the now-dissolved political group Demosisto, pleaded guilty in the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to the charge of “conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security”. At the legal level, this signifies that the defense has fully and unconditionally admitted to all the criminal facts enumerated in the indictment.

The court will therefore skip the lengthy trial process and proceed directly to the mitigation plea and sentencing stages, with the judgment reserved for a later date. The adjudication of this case is not only another important practice of the SAR Judiciary in safeguarding national security in accordance with the law, but also a powerful deterrent to all those who harbor intentions to collude with external forces and undermine national interests.

A review of Wong’s past political trajectory reveals a catalog of egregious misconduct. He has long served as a political agent for external forces, playing a facilitating role in every major anti-establishment campaign preceding the implementation of national security laws in the SAR, including the illegal “Occupy Central” movement and the black-clad riots in 2019-20.

The charge sheet in this case specifically states that his criminal acts occurred between July 1, 2020 and Nov 23, 2020. This time frame is legally highly significant, as it fell immediately after the promulgation and implementation of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL), when the central authorities and the SAR government were fully committed to restoring peace and order in Hong Kong.

However, Wong blatantly defied the law, openly committing offenses and conspiring with Nathan Law Kwun-chung and other individuals to persistently solicit foreign or external entities to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile actions against the SAR and the country.

Within the national security legal framework, such conduct by using their so-called “international front” to beg for external interference in domestic affairs constitutes an extremely serious crime of endangering national security. Even after the NSL came into effect, Wong showed no sign of repentance, stubbornly resisting the constitutional order of the SAR and attempting to undermine it by leveraging external pressure and interference.

Such actions not only displayed contempt for national sovereignty and dignity but also directly jeopardized the interests of Hong Kong’s general public and the city’s stability. There could be no room for leniency.

Under the principles of common law, a defendant’s voluntary and on-the-record guilty plea in court is typically considered a key mitigating factor. In judicial practice, this often signifies that the defendant has saved court time and public funds, and generally may receive a sentence reduction of up to one-third. However, it must be emphasized that the NSL is a special statute that incorporates features of both civil law and common law systems, and it contains a complete and independent statutory penalty ladder.

Article 29 of the NSL stipulates that anyone who colludes with foreign or external forces to endanger national security shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than 10 years; when the offense is “grave”, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment.

When determining the final sentence, the court must strictly adhere to the statutory penalty ladder established by the NSL:

First, for ringleaders and those whose offenses are grave: The starting point for sentencing must be determined within the range of “not less than 10 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment” as required by law.

Second, the legal limitations on sentence reduction for a guilty plea. If the court ultimately determines that the defendant’s specific role in the offense, the severity of the circumstances involved, and the actual harm caused to national security fall under the category of “grave offense”, then even if a sentence reduction is granted for the guilty plea, the final sentence in principle cannot be lower than the statutory minimum prescribed by law (i.e., 10 years’ imprisonment), unless the specific mitigating or leniency circumstances stipulated in Article 33 of the NSL (such as voluntary surrender or exposure of others’ crimes) are satisfied.

In this case, as a core organizer and lobbyist, Wong’s actions have caused substantial and tangible harm to national security. The court could not, based merely on his “formalistic guilty plea”, deviate from the NSL’s original intent of punishing severe crimes.

The judicial pronouncement in this case carries significance far beyond the case itself. The judgment in this case will establish clearer legal boundaries core and sentencing starting points under the NSL for acts involving overseas lobbying and solicitation of foreign sanctions. Blatantly, some black-clad rioters and their sympathizers, who condoned foreign interference, harbored the illusion that they could evade legal accountability by cloaking themselves in the guise of “international advocacy”. The trial of this case has thoroughly shattered this political illusion.

Any form of collusion with external forces or solicitation of foreign sanctions against the nation or the SAR — whether operating locally or through internal-external collusion — constitutes a serious crime that violates the law.

Through the trial and sentencing of Wong, the SAR courts will further refine the case law system under the NSL and unequivocally demonstrate Hong Kong’s firm resolve to safeguard national security to the international community. “There must be laws to follow, laws must be strictly enforced, and violators must be prosecuted” is the essence of the rule of law.

Only by rigorously implementing the NSL’s punitive mechanisms, comprehensively assessing and severely punishing substantive crimes that endanger national security, can the SAR effectively consolidate the rule-of-law bulwark preventing external interference in Hong Kong’s affairs, and ensure the smooth and enduring implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy.

The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and vice-president of the Hong Kong Basic Law Education Association.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.