Published by Global Banking & Finance Review®
Posted on July 17, 2025
3 min readLast updated: January 22, 2026
Add as preferred source on GoogleHong Kong activists' appeal on subversion charges ends; judgement expected in nine months amid claims of unfair trial and political tension.
By Jessie Pang and James Pomfret
HONG KONG (Reuters) -A hearing for 12 pro-democracy activists appealing their conviction and sentencing for subversion in Chinese-ruled Hong Kong ended on Thursday with a judgement due within nine months.
The case stems from the "47 democrats", dubbed by Hong Kong media for the number of activists arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in 2021.
Forty-five of the defendants were jailed last year for holding an unofficial primary election in 2020, soon after Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in response to pro-democracy protests.
Eleven are appealing their conviction and sentences, while one who pleaded guilty is challenging her sentence.
Government prosecutor Andy Lo told the hearing on Thursday that the case involved "an unprecedented conspiracy", while defence lawyers said on Wednesday their clients had been denied a fair trial.
Judge Jeremy Poon said a decision would be made within nine months. After that, it would still be possible to seek an appeal to Hong Kong's highest court.
The 45 received prison terms of between four and 10 years after prosecutors said they sought to paralyse government and force the city's leader to resign by securing a legislative majority to indiscriminately veto budget proposals.
'INTERVENTIONIST' TRIAL
During this week's appeal hearing, defence lawyers argued on Wednesday that the three judges who presided over the original trial had frequently interrupted defendants during cross-examination.
"The trial court was interventionist from very early on," said Robert Pang, a lawyer for unionist Winnie Yu. He said the court repeatedly disallowed questions on grounds of irrelevance.
Lawyer Steven Kwan said his client, activist Owen Chow, did not receive a fair trial as "his evidence was disbelieved very early on" and judges posed 45% of all the questions to him.
But prosecutor Derek Lau said judges had that right, noting it was not a jury trial.
"There is no unfairness that can be observed that is to the prejudice of the defender in these questions," he said.
Lawyer Trevor Beel, representing activist Gwyneth Ho, said on Wednesday that legislators had a duty to use whatever legitimate means to negotiate with the government and that Hong Kong's mini-constitution or Basic Law allows for a budget not to be passed.
Under Article 52 of the Basic Law, the chief executive must step down if the legislature twice rejects the government’s budget.
Hong Kong was handed back to China by Britain in 1997 with a promise of freedom and autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework and an eventual democratic vote for the chief executive and the legislature.
If Ho wanted to achieve dual universal suffrage and an effective legislature, then it "was not radical, and this is not against the principle of one country, two systems," Beel said.
(Reporting by Jessie Pang and James Pomfret; Editing by Greg Torode, Tomasz Janowski and Andrew Cawthorne)
The activists are appealing their conviction and sentencing for subversion, claiming they were denied a fair trial during the original proceedings.
Forty-five of the defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from four to ten years for their involvement in an unofficial primary election.
Judge Jeremy Poon stated that a decision on the appeal would be made within nine months.
Defence lawyers argued that the original trial was interventionist and that their clients were denied a fair trial due to the judges' conduct during cross-examination.
The case is framed within the context of the Basic Law, which outlines the governance structure and rights in Hong Kong under the 'one country, two systems' principle.
Explore more articles in the Headlines category
