It is often said, for good reason, that the punishment should fit the crime. It is always serious when people deliberately flout the law, and there must be consequences. If they offend because they believe they can get away with it, they have only themselves to blame if the courts respond appropriately.

After the now-disbanded "Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China", and its former leaders, Lee Cheuk-yan, Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung, had earlier been convicted of one count of "incitement to subversion" (Ho pleaded guilty), contrary to the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL Arts 22 and 23), they were sentenced last Friday. The three-judge panel set a starting point of seven years and six months' imprisonment (the maximum being 10 years' imprisonment), and sentenced Lee to seven years' imprisonment, Ho to five years and two months' imprisonment, and Chow to seven years and three months' imprisonment. As a body corporate, the alliance was fined HK$1.5 million ($191,200).

Although severe, the actual sentences to be served could be shorter once pre-trial custody is taken into account. The defendants may, moreover, qualify for remission because of good behavior and industry (which, although not automatic, could be as much as one-third of the total sentence).

Once the judges concluded that the circumstances showed that the three individuals had, as principals, committed an offense of what the NSL calls "a serious nature", they were legally required to impose sentences of imprisonment of between five and ten years. The offense, not surprisingly, fell into the serious category for several reasons. They included its duration (14 months), the "turbulent and unsettled social atmosphere at the time", the means of commission (including social media platforms), the impact on different age groups, and the degree of premeditation.      

The court reiterated that the NSL had no retrospective effect, and that the defendants were not convicted because of their political ideology, or their words and deeds before the enactment of the NSL (June 30, 2020). They were convicted solely based on their acts in violation of the NSL between July 1, 2020 and Sept 8, 2021. They had insisted on pursuing their "five action agenda", which sought to subvert State power through their demands for an end to the Communist Party of China’s constitutional leadership in the nation (their objective for many years), coupled with an intention to use unlawful means to achieve that objective.

In other words, the defendants envisaged overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the People's Republic of China established by the PRC Constitution, and overthrowing the PRC's central organs of power. The "unlawful means" involved ending the leadership status of the CPC, in breach of the PRC Constitution (in particular, its Preamble and Art. 1). The judges concluded that any attempt to overthrow or undermine the CPC could constitute subversion, and that a Western-style system was impermissible under the Constitution.

Although an organization may publicize historical matters and express its views, the alliance's activities went far beyond exercising freedom of speech. It sought to provoke hatred and disgust of State power among the people, and, as the court found, it was bent on embracing its "resistance line to the very end". The defendants knew exactly what they were doing (Chow being a UK-trained barrister), and they understood their words and deeds were "in breach of the national security law".

The Western powers were so supportive precisely because the group wanted to destabilize China. If it had succeeded, the country's resurgence would have been derailed, and political turmoil would have ensued. Only China's antagonists would have welcomed that scenario, and it would have had devastating economic, political, and social consequences for the Chinese people.

It was unforgivable that the group not only aligned itself with the policy objectives of foreign powers seeking the CPC's downfall, but did so on Chinese soil.

Indeed, the CPC has always been the ultimate guarantor of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and its overthrow or undermining would also have dire consequences for the "one country, two systems" policy — for which the alliance cared not one iota.

As the chief executive, John Lee Ka-chiu, explained, "The law never allows anyone to blatantly harm their country and compatriots under the guise of human rights, democracy and freedom", which was incontrovertible. Nobody can now be under any illusions as to where the line is drawn, and the country is safer in consequence.  

If, as appears likely, the defendants imagined they were above the law, or that their foreign allies would protect them, they have had a rude awakening. It is only through the sentences they impose that the courts can express their abhorrence of particular types of criminality, and the judges were duty-bound to take this offense seriously (not least in the interests of deterrence). As the country's very survival was challenged, condign punishment was inevitable.

Even then, as in all common law jurisdictions, the judges gave such weight as they could to the mitigating factors. Ho received a 22-month sentencing discount for pleading guilty and showing remorse, and both he and Lee received a three-month discount for their public service (which spanned 21 years). Moreover, because Lee, Ho, and Chow saved court time and public funds by substantially admitting the prosecution case, and had undergone "a degree of psychological stress" because of repeated postponements of the trial due to unforeseen circumstances, they all qualified for another three-month discount.  

In other words, the judges, while keenly aware of the gravity of the offense, bent over backward to be as fair as possible to the defendants.

If they are dissatisfied with their sentences, the defendants can challenge them in the Court of Appeal (together with their convictions). If so, they will need to show that the trial judges erred in their approach to sentencing, which may not be easy. However, they are assured of a fair hearing before impartial judges, and justice will be done.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.