In case i’m getting it wrong a democratic legislative marjority is otherwise known as a “lethal constitutional weapon” acccording to the prosecution.
Which in one succinct sentence tells us that anything that HK Govt (read beijing) say in court is political rather than having anything to do with the law per se.
Read on for more mangled word saladry
Seizing a controlling majority in Hong Kong’s legislature was seen as a potential “lethal constitutional weapon” against the government, prosecutors argued in a high-profile national security case involving 47 pro-democracy figures.
The closely-watched trial of 16 Hong Kong democrats who denied the charge of conspiracy to commit subversion began on Monday, almost two years after the case was first brought to court. The offence, covered by the sweeping security law, is punishable by life imprisonment.
The defendants, including 31 others who pleaded guilty, were said to have conspired to plan, organise and participate in seriously interfering in, disrupting or undermining the performance of duties and functions of the HKSAR by unlawful means with a view to subverting the state power.
The accusation originally mentioned “by threat of force,” but it was dropped in the prosecution’s amended opening submission.
Former University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai initiated the scheme in December 2019, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (Special Duties) Anthony Chau told designated national security judges Andrew Chan, Johnny Chan and Alex Lee. Tai has pleaded guilty to the subversion charge.
The scholar later lobbied for support on social media, together with ex-lawmaker Au Nok-hin, one of the four defendants who will give testimony for the prosecution in the trial without a jury.
Jury trials have been a function of Hong Kong’s common law legal system for more than 150 years, however, the security legislation allows cases to be heard by national security judges.
The primary polls held in July 2020 aimed to maximise the chance of winning an upcoming Legislative Council election at the time to obtain a majority in the legislature, the prosecutor said, describing it as “one of the cardinal steps of the scheme.”
The unofficial elections saw more than people 600,000 casting their ballots at 251 polling stations just weeks after the national security law was implemented.
According to the prosecution, 33 democrats who ran in the primary polls had signed a joint online declaration titled “Resolute Resistance, Inked Without Regret,” in which they pledged to abide by the terms of the scheme, including using their power as lawmakers, if elected, to veto the government’s budgets. The move was aimed at compelling the chief executive to respond to the protesters’ five demands, the prosecution said.
During the hearing on Monday, Chau played a video of a press conference held in March 2020, in which legal scholar Tai described winning more than half of the seats in the legislature, as “the expectation of quite a lot of voters.” He also said the majority was a “destructive constitutional weapon.”
“But how to use this constitutional weapon, including our ability to veto the budget… it has to be discussed further,” Tai said at the press conference.
and so on and so forth at
