Hong Kong government

Secretary for Security John Lee speaking after the arrests

On the day of the arrests, Secretary for Security John Lee said at the Legislative Council that the ten-step lam chau timeline that Benny Tai, one of the arrestees, had proposed would "result in serious damage to society as a whole, that is why police action today is necessary."^[26]

The government issued a press release stating that the arrested persons are "active elements who organize, plan, implement, or participate in the subversion of the regime" with the intent to paralyze the government, severely interfere with, obstruct, and undermine the performance of its functions, and coerce the Chinese government and the SAR government.^[29]

Ronny Tong, a member of the Executive Council, said that for the time being, he did not see that the democrats violated the national security law in the primary elections. However, he also pointed out that members' veto of all government funding to prevent the government from functioning may be "seriously interfering with the performance of government agencies' duties," and that they may violate the law.^[30]

DAB lawmakers (from left to right) Leung Che-cheung, Holden Chow, Elizabeth Quat respond to the arrests

Pro-Beijing camp

Holden Chow, member of the Legislative Council for the largest pro-Beijing party, DAB, said in a tweet that those arrested had violated the national security law because they had a "clear aim to paralyze" the local government and were threatening to "remove the Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong."^[31]

In an interview with the public broadcaster RTHK, Roundtable lawmaker Michael Tien said the authorities should explain what unlawful means were involved in the cases, saying that "on the surface", neither holding a primary election nor casting a vote was unlawful. He further said that he saw no way of how the arrestees could be convicted without the court interpreting the "ultimate motive as part of the [national security] bill", and opined that the national security law might need to be redrafted to more clearly reflect this interpretation.^[32]

Pro-democracy camp

Pro-democracy camp responding to the arrests

Democratic Party chairman Lo Kin-hei sharply criticised the arrests at a news conference, suggesting that the national security law was poised to become a "universal key" for the government which would lead to "white terror", adding that this was "exactly what the Hong Kong government wants to create".^[33]

Civic Party chairman Alan Leong criticised the mass arrests as he could not see why those who promised to exercise their power to veto budgets – as outlined in the Basic Law – would be considered subversive. "We know that many in Hong Kong are very disappointed. But we appeal to the people of Hong Kong not to despair," Leong said. "We should insist on speaking the truth and living in truth. There will be light in the end of the dark tunnel, and every dark night will see the dawn. So, let us stand and fight."^[34]

Three candidates for the pro-democracy primaries in exile, Nathan Law, Ted Hui, and Sunny Cheung issued a statement in the evening of 6 January, describing the mass arrest as another proof that the one country, two systems principle was lost under the authority of the Chinese Communist Party, and saw the wide spectrum of those arrested, covering almost the complete democratic camp, as clear indication that the goal of the action was to uproot it in its entirety.^[35]

Day 1

Supporters queueing outside court for a bail hearing with banner saying "release political prisoners"

Foreign representatives waiting in line for the court hearing

The trial began on 1 March at the West Kowloon Magistrates' Court. About 1,000 supporters gathered at the court, most wearing black to express solidarity with the detainees, and some holding banners calling for the release of the "political prisoners" and chanting "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times", "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong" and "Five demands, not one less", slogans which were deemed illegal under the national security law, making it one of the largest rallies since the COVID-19 outbreak. Foreign diplomats joined the crowds queuing for one of the about 100 seats inside the courtroom. The police set up security lines around the court in the afternoon and forced demonstrators to disperse.^[52]

The prosecution applied to postpone the hearing until 31 May as its investigations had not finished. Alan Leong, representing the defence, questioned the police for "rushing" to press charges without finishing the investigations, some five weeks earlier than originally scheduled. Traditionally, Hong Kong's common law system put the onus on the prosecution to prove its case for objecting bail, but under the national security law the defendants instead needed to prove to the court that they would not be a national security threat if released on bail.^[53] Due to the large number of defendants being trialed at the same time, the trial dragged on for close to 14 hours until almost 3 a.m., resulted in four defendants being hospitalised due to exhaustion. Leo Yau, one of the defence solicitors for nine of the defendants, was arrested by the police when he attempted to pass a police cordon to get into the courtroom.^[54]

• 
  Pro-Beijing group rally outside court
• 
  Police showed banners warning the public of violating the security law
• 
  Leo Yau, a defence lawyer, was arrested by the police

Day 2

Supporters waving mobile phone flashlights to support the activists

Grandma Wong expressing solidarity outside the court

The second day of the trial resumed late on the next morning, giving defendants little time to rest.^[54] Defense lawyers voiced criticism of the court over defendants not being given the opportunity to shower or change clothes for four days since they were detained on 28 February.^[55][56] One of the defendants, Lawrence Lau, 53, also a practicing barrister, apologized for not bathing for three days before addressing the court. He added: "When someone is stripped of their freedom, they are also stripped of their personal hygiene and appearance, which makes them lose confidence. I do not understand why I ended up in custody when I have been law-abiding my whole life." A defence counsel also told the court that his defendants had not been sent back to the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre until nearly 7 a.m. on 2 March. "The defendants have to attend court hearings that started at 8 this morning [yesterday], which means they could only rest for at most two hours, causing them to be physically tormented," he said.^[57] Amnesty International Hong Kong program manager Lam Cho Ming warned that an extended hearing "along with insufficient time to rest could potentially violate the right to a fair trial."^[58] Chief magistrate Victor So called a halt to the second day of hearings at 10:36 p.m. on 2 March.^[57]

Another defendant, Winnie Yu, 33, a nurse and chairwoman of the Hospital Authority Employees Alliance, was suspended from her duties by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority after she was prosecuted.^[57]

Day 3

Defendants Lam Cheuk-ting, Leung Kwok-hung and Raymond Chan at the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre before being sent to the court

Eight defendants had not addressed the court regarding their bail applications in the more than 24-hour marathon hearing. On the third day on 3 March 47 pro-democracy defendants have yet to submit their statements on bail. Before the trial started at 12 pm, the live broadcast system showed the problem of not being able to hear the conversation or voice in the court again, causing the family members to question the "secret interrogation." On the other hand, the live broadcasts in the press room and the auditorium both had problems with pictures and no sound, which caused the reporters on the spot to clamor. Barrister Margaret Ng said that the court has no way to control its own procedures, as she questioned the judicial independence. However, Kit Hung, the senior news director of the Judiciary, stated that no in-court voices will be played before the court session. This statement caused dissatisfaction with Figo Chan, the convener of Civil Human Rights Front.^[59]

At the same time, four Civic Party defendants Alvin Yeung, Kwok Ka-ki, Jeremy Tam and Lee Yue-shun announced their resignations from the party, with Yeung resigning from the party. Barrister Alan Leong, chairman of the party, terminated his legal representation of the four.^[60] Lam Cheuk-ting, Clarisse Yeung and Gwyneth Ho also told the court they had terminated the services of their legal representatives. Alvin Yeung said before addressing the court: "As a barrister, I would never have imagined that I would have to address the court in the docks. On March 2 five years ago, I was sworn in as a legislative councillor, fighting for Hongkongers, but five years later, I am fighting for my own freedom."^[61] Chief Magistrate Victor So adjourned the third day proceedings at 8:30 pm.^[58]

Day 4

Hendrick Lui's foster mother ran to the basement hall of the court and knelt down and wept bitterly

Clarisse Yeung is being brought back to the hospital

TSW Connection member Lam Chun hugs a family of defendant

All defendants finished their addresses to the court with proceedings deep into the fourth day on 4 March. Hundreds of people queued in the rain for entering the courthouse before the proceedings until nighttime, defying police warnings of violating the national security law.^[53]

Some media outlets applied to the court for lifting reporting strict restrictions on the bail proceedings which could only report the name of the court and the magistrate of the case, the date and place of the proceedings, the name of the defendants and their legal representation, the offence they were charged of and the result of a proceedings.^[62] The defence proposed a set of relaxed reporting rules, with Barrister David Ma saying that an open, fair and transparent trial was the "cornerstone of the rule of law", pointing out that freedom of speech and the press are respected under the national security law.^[62] A representative of Senior Counsel Hectar Pun argued that "if the media cannot report on this open hearing, then it will undermine the principle of open justice."^[62] Chief Magistrate Victor So refused the plea on the grounds that the general public or the press may not be able to determine whether a statement made in court fell under the scope of "legal argument," causing citizens to accidentally breach the restrictions, which would be "a bit dangerous for them".^[62]

Chief Magistrate Victor So initially granted bail to 15 of the 47 defendants at around 8 pm, but the decision was immediately appealed by the Department of Justice. The 32 remaining defendants were denied bail on grounds that they would be likely to continue to commit acts endangering national security, meaning they would have to be remain in detention until the trial begins on 31 May.^[58] When the defendants left the court, the supporters who waited outside waved goodbye and thanked their lawyers. Some also chanted "Five demands, not one less", "Political prisoners are not guilty" and "Hongkonger won't die!"^[63]

Bailed out (13)

• Helena Wong: approved on 11 March;^[75] Wong, after release, reunited with her husband and said: "I was really calm while I was in custody, as I know I did nothing wrong, but the bail hearing was really tiring in the first few days."^[76]
• Clarisse Yeung: approved on 12 March after appeal dropped by prosecution.^[73]
• Mike Lam: approved on 12 March after appeal dropped by prosecution.^[73]
• Lawrence Lau: approved on 12 March after appeal dropped by prosecution.^[73]
• Hendrick Lui: approved on 12 March after appeal dropped by prosecution.^[73]
• Tat Cheng: approved on 13 March.^[77]
• Michael Pang: approved on 13 March.^[77]
• Ricky Or: approved on 13 March.^[77]
• Kalvin Ho: approved on 14 March.^[78]
• Sze Tak-loy: approved on 14 March,^[78] for serving the community as district councillors and cooperating with various government departments.^[79]
• Lee Yue-shun: approved on 14 March,^[78] for serving the community as district councillors and cooperating with various government departments.^[79]
• Raymond Chan: approved on 16 September,^[80] for cooperating with the government as MP by supporting some government bills, and having been named by LegCo president Andrew Leung as the most diligent lawmaker.^[81][82]
• Wong Ji-yuet: approved on 21 December,^[83] to finish her bachelor's degree, and she had not explicitly advocated for international sanctions against the authorities, and for Hong Kong independence, during the primaries.^[84]

Remanded (34)

• Ng Kin-wai: denied on 11 March 2021;^[75] denied on 6 June 2022,^[85] for clear determination to promote Hong Kong independence.^[86]
• Jeremy Tam: denied on 13 March;^[77] denied on 22 April for signing a letter in September 2019 supporting the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.^[87]
• Sam Cheung: denied on 14 March;^[78] denied on 9 April for "determined and resolute" in his contribution to the democrats' scheme.^[88]
• Leung Kwok-hung: denied on 29 March;^[89] denied on 13 May for resolute in his position against the government and the national security law and that his risk of reoffending was high due to international support.^[90][91]
• Ben Chung: denied on 31 March for seeking of crowdfunding, alleged to be part of a money laundering scheme, and his pivotal role in the defunct organization Power for Democracy;^[92] denied on 1 June.^[93]
• Kwok Ka-ki: denied on 13 March;^[77] denied on 9 April for inviting U.S. interference on Hong Kong affairs.^[88]
• Jimmy Sham: denied on 12 April;^[94] denied on 13 May for being a "determined and resolute young man" who had vowed to continue to push for the government to give in to the protesters five demands and that he was at risk of reoffending if granted bail.^[90][91]
• Claudia Mo: denied on 14 April;^[95] denied on 28 May for her exchanges on WhatsApp with Western media were a "threat to national security".^[96]
• Chui Chi-kin: denied on 22 April for causing fear and inciting hatred against the government by uploading a video on his YouTube channel which appeared to show a large contingent of People's Liberation Army military vehicles crossing into Hong Kong from Mainland China.^[97]
• Andrew Wan: denied on 28 May citing the contents on his computer that advocated for Hong Kong independence, and the formation of a group which called for international sanctions against Hong Kong officials who allegedly permitted "excessive police violence".^[98] This, the court argued, demonstrated a "persistent and strong devotion" to the agenda of subversion and secession.^[99]
• Henry Wong: denied on 1 June;^[93] denied on 1 September^[100] for his active participation of international front, which is calling for sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese government officials.^[101]
• Gary Fan: denied on 1 June;^[93] denied on 8 September,^[102] for being a "determined and resolute man" who had vowed to continue to push for the authorities to give in to the protesters' five demands and he had called for all parties to act together in opposing the government.^[81][82]
• Gordon Ng: denied on 1 June;^[93] denied on 14 September 2022.^[103]
• Andrew Chiu: denied on 1 June.^[93]
• Nathan Lau: denied on 1 June.^[93]
• Roy Tam: denied on 23 August,^[104] citing on the election campaign speech of his stance against the Hong Kong government, police and the national security law. In addition, he is also calling for international sanctions against Hong Kong officials and senior police officers on his Facebook page, although he removed his account after promulgation of national security law.^[105][106]
• Gwyneth Ho: withdrew bail application on 8 September after request to lift reporting restrictions was rejected by Toh. Ho was represented by Douglas Kwok after the original representing barrister Chow Hang-tung was arrested that day.^[107][108]
• Frankie Fung: denied on 4 November,^[109] for showing himself to be persistent in promoting and spreading subversive ideologies due to his media outlet that he co-funded, which is serving as a platform to promote seditious ideologies and calling for international sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials.^[110]
• Carol Ng: denied on 20 December,^[111] for having an international influence as a result of her trade union work and having called for resistance against the authorities after losing the primary election and shown determination to resist against the government.^[112]
• Lam Cheuk-ting: denied on 13 May 2022,^[113] for using his Patreon account to enhance international lobbying and resistance against the government and having a strong political influence due to his stance on lobby for sanctions.^[114]

Special cases

• Wu Chi-wai: emergency application approved on 7 May to attend the funeral of his 92-year-old father after the denial of his initial request by the correctional department sparked wide criticism.^[115] Remanded in custody before and after the temporary bail.
• Owen Chow: approved on 22 June to enable Chow to finish his nursing degree, and he had not explicitly called for Hong Kong independence during the primaries;^[116] re-arrested on 12 January 2022 and bail revoked following a court ruling that he had broken his bail conditions and endangered national security through online postings of an inciteful nature which related to the 2019 Prince Edward station attack and the 2019 Yuen Long attack.^[117][118]
• Winnie Yu: denied on 1 June;^[93] approved on 28 July after observing in her written explanation that there was no evidence that Yu ever had an international connection;^[119][120] re-arrested on 7 March and bail revoked for breaking bail conditions.^[121][122]

Timeline of primaries

Au started testifying against fellow democrats on 6th day of trial, revealed that the plan for primaries first floated in January 2020,^[135] in a meeting joined by him, Tai, Lee Wing-tat (Democratic), Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour), and Wong Ho-ming (LSD). Tai in meeting labelled a majority in the Legislative Council as a "constitutional weapon of mass destruction" to force the resignation of the Chief Executive by vetoing the budget. He also considered establishing "a mechanism for citizens to participate", preferably through referendum, to achieve the five demands in the protest movement. Au claimed he became an organiser after Lee's invitation, likely because he was once the leader of pro-democracy coalition CHRF, wishing to contribute to the democratic movement.^[136] He said he was mainly responsible for administrative jobs including liaising and holding election forum, while Tai handled the narrative works and Chiu was assisting the plan.^[137]

Au and Tai then met various democrats and in February and March in a series of briefings on the primaries plan. Parties were divided on the idea of vetoing the budget, while others did not express much interest in running in the unofficial election. Joshua Wong, according to Au, even urged him no need to be involved as he was about to study abroad.^[138]

According to Andrew Chiu, PfD was invited to advise on the primaries because of previous experience in organising primaries for legislative by-elections,^[139] later invited reluctantly by Tai to host the polls after pollster HKPORI declined.^[140] The recollection of PfD's involvement in the primaries differs between the other two witnesses. Chiu claimed the group officially accepted the invitation in May as he hoped the PfD would not be marginalised,^[140] but Ben Chung told the court that a meeting in February between Chiu, Chung, Tai, and ex-MP Fung Chi-wood had reached a consensus which PfD would co-ordinate and crowdfund the primaries.^[136]

Between March and July 2020, at least 16 coordination meetings for six constituencies (Kowloon East, Kowloon West, New Territories East, New Territories West, Hong Kong Island, District Council (Second)) were held, invited by Tai and joined by pro-democracy parties along with those interested to run in the upcoming general election. These meetings agreed to the holding of primaries and election forum, settled on the target number of seats, and confirmed the leapfrog mechanism for disqualified candidates.^[136]

Au said in court Tai introduced the concept of vetoing budget in the coordination meetings. The "35+ Plan" (Chinese: 35+計劃) document prepared by Tai, without references to the veto power, was discussed starting in April. A "coordination agreement" file was then drafted by Tai, including the wording of "to actively use the power of Basic Law including vetoing the financial budget",^[136] described by Au as an "invention" by Tai to balance both sides.^[137] The notion to defeat the budget was contested during these meetings, as multiple participants were skeptical,^[138] but Tai sided with the localists as mentioned by Chiu.^[139] In New Territories East meeting, traditional democrats were criticised by localist Owen Chow for being skeptical. Eventually the agreement document for New Territories East and West constituency adopted the wording of "to use" the veto power, while the other continued with "to actively use".^[136] Chiu believed this was a result of localist's pressure on the traditional democrats as the former back then was "very progressive".^[141]

Au said Tai announced "agreements had finally reached" on the coordination of the six constituencies on 3 June. Replying to judge's question, Au believed it is fair to say consensuses between participants through the "coordination agreements".^[142] Chiu and Chung echoed Au, agreeing all coordination were completed by 9 June, the date for press conference announcing the primaries, as the final version of the agreements were considered by Tai as the "consensuses" between candidates. Chiu added that such consensuses do not include actions after elected to the Legislative Council.^[143] These documents, however, were not publicised as organisers were concerned of potential disqualification by the authorities and the rumoured implementation of the national security law after Au and Chiu convinced Tai.^[141] Despite so, 37 localists and parties from the "resistance camp" signed an agreement (Chinese: 墨落無悔; lit. 'No Regret Upon Inked') vowing to veto the budget, which Chiu said was because of distrust between the two wings in the democracy movement.^[141] Kowloon East and New Territories West candidates submitted an additional, voluntary (disputed by Sze Tak-loy's attorney)^[143] "consensual principles" (Chinese: 共同綱領) document attached with nomination forms which was similar to the "coordination agreement". Chiu testified in court that Tai mentioned Joshua Wong and Eddie Chu advocated the submission, while some localists forced others to follow suit.^[136] Au admitted the organisers had already lost authority to stop the localists, and revealed that Wu Chi-wai, chairman of Democratic Party, refrained from signing that document despite eventually gave in to pressure. But he agreed no candidates publicly opposed to use the veto power.^[142]

During election forum between 25 June and 4 July, national security law was inserted to Hong Kong's legal system on 30 June. Tai texted candidates and said he believed the veto manifesto does not violate the new law and the primaries would go ahead.

On 3 July Apple Daily published a front-page advertisement by Gordon Ng, deemed by the prosecutors as one of the organisers, urging to support the primaries.^[136] Au said he does not know Ng, and had no idea he was one of the organisers.^[142] Chiu shared Au's view but thinks his "Say No to Primary Dodgers" campaign gives an impression of organising party. Chiu, during testimony, said Tai once confirmed the campaign was not direcly linked to the primaries, and claimed he personally concerned Ng's petition might violate election laws.^[140]

Erick Tsang became the first official warning the unofficial poll could be in breach of the national security law on 9 July, two days before the start of the voting. After the end of the poll on 13 July, Chinese officials in Hong Kong condemned the "illegal" election. On the next day, Tai told candidates to avoid mentioning "paralysing the government". Au understood this as an act to avoid legal risk;^[142] Chiu said this showed Tai likely knew he crossed the line because he first said the legality as he understood was simply based on common law system but not Chinese continental law.^[141] The strong condemnation prompted Au, who claimed "doing his best to dismantle the primaries" and quit only because of its legality,^[144] Chiu, and Tai, to quit on 15 and 16 July. Chiu, in court, further labelled the primaries were "out of control" after the victorious resistance camp convened a press conference and promised the mutual destruction after elected to parliament.^[136]

Following government's decision to postpone the election citing the emergency law, PfD continued to finish the follow-up administrative works. Chiu said he had met Tai later that year, when Tai believed the worst is already over without giving up hope on vetoing the budget.^[136] Under the initial plan, the PfD would ask the HKPORI to commission an opinion poll on strategic voting, with results released a week before the general election.^[141] Another opinion poll would also be commissioned for the proposed veto manifesto, an idea by Tai after the election postponement in order to exert pressure on the traditional moderates.^[143]

The democrats were charged and detained after February 2021. Chiu confirmed in court that he had been helping police's investigation by June 2021,^[140] while Au did so three months later.^[138]

Ideologies

In addition to recall the history of timelines, Au and Chiu, in addition, elaborated their interpretation and views on "lam chau" doctrine and "resistance camp".

Au said a considerable size of participants believed forcing the Chief Executive to stand down through voting down the budget involved a degree of "lam chau" idea. Au described the "resistance camp" is in the "progressive" wing of the pro-democracy spectrum, naming Winnie Yu as a member of the camp, Owen Chow as "localist", and Gwyneth Ho with some "left-wing ideologies".^[142] In general, Au and Chiu agreed Kalvin Ho (ADPL) is a moderate, traditional democrat; Lam Cheuk-ting and Helena Wong (both Democratic) are relatively China-friendly, moderate, traditional democrats;^[130] both Raymond Chan (People Power) and Leung Kwok-hung (LSD) are progressive democrats but not radical;^[137] while William Or (Community Alliance) was also a moderate, but was not a reason for his heavy defeat in the primaries;^[144] Cheng Tat-hung and Lee Yue-shun (Civic) are not radicals despite their party joined the "resistance camp".^[140][143]

Au said the pro-democracy camp was divided in two groups, one advocating negotiations by winning a majority in the chamber, another pushed for "lam chau" to force the government to concede and to break the impasse in despair.^[130][144]

During the protest the concept of unity between the radicals and moderates (Chinese: 和勇不分) emerged, Au explained "radicals" referred to those participated in riots and threw Molotov cocktails whilst "moderates" joined in peaceful rallies, and that the bonding in-between extended the protest movement.^[137]

When asked by the judge, Chiu said "localists" focus on local cultures and values but do not go as far as advocating independence, but the "anti-government" "resistance camp" only formed after the primaries and were unsatisfied with the traditional democrats.^[143]

Mike Lam, who first announced running in indirectly elected Import and Export constituency but changed his mind to run in New Territories East for the primary, said his decision was made due to "corrupted system" of the functional constituencies. Lam eventually returned to the Import and Export election after losing the primaries.

Divided with Tai

Explicitly pointing out the disagreement between him and Tai over the veto manifesto, Au and Chiu said their missions and wishes were to co-ordinate their colleagues to achieve a majority in the legislative election, but not to bundle the candidates to block the budget or to advocate "lam chau", while Tai was focusing on the veto power after securing the control of parliament. Au insisted the veto manifesto is never part of the plan to secure a legislative primary,^[144] but Tai was "hard-selling" the manifesto. He trashed his "lam chau" plan as a "final fantasy", "unrealistic", and "apocalyptic",^[137] and labelled the coordination process in the latter stage of the primaries is "undemocratic" and "infighting".^[144] Having first read the plan only after the Chinese officials denounced the poll, Chiu thought the plan would lead to a "nuclear explosion-like" end.^[141]

Au also agreed even the concept of "five demands", which primaries' candidates were asked to agree, was not clearly defined,^[130] and he personally does not believe all demands could be achieved,^[137] neither is the "35+" plan for majority. Au analysed that the pro-democracy camp has been "fragmentated" since 2016 without commanding force, not even Tai himself, and that all democrats would vote in bloc after a victorious election is only a "hypothesis" proposed by Tai, but not a "shared vision". Au agreed the "constitutional weapon" is "flawed" as the views of members representing the functional constituencies, which were representing the interests of professionals and businesses and also targets of the "35+" plan, were not fully considered. The blueprint of sweeping into power after controlling the parliament is, in Au's words, a "joke" as Hong Kong is in a "executive-led" system.^[144]

Chiu recalled Tai's effort to shore up "constitutional confrontation" as early as 2018 wishing no candidates in the next year's local elections would be elected unopposed, which led to the emergence of localists, populists, and political novices. He was particularly enraged by Tai's "irresponsible" article in April that ensued the vetoing of budget after winning a majority without any consensuses between the democrats, saying Tai acted like "the sole leader of Hong Kong's pro-democracy camp". Chiu, who agreed there is resentment with Tai,^[143] added that, in hindsight, PfD would not agree to hold the primaries had he read the commentary.^[139]

Chung believed it is "rather challenging" for the democracy movement to win the control of parliament in the election because of PR voting method, considering the vote share of the camp did not significantly increased in the 2019 local elections, but Tai was "very optimistic" on securing the desired seats.^[145]

Nevertheless, Chiu's testimony, which Chiu requested to amend and clarify on few occasions during the trial,^[143][146] was repeatedly questioned by the justice panel. For one instance, Chiu said wording of "liberate Hong Kong" and "suppress Hong Kong communist regime" on PfD's website was drafted by his colleagues. Chiu also claimed PfD or himself were "overridden" by Tai, but the judge said these were not recorded in any documents, even a report of PfD after the primary thanked the two coordinators. In defense, Chiu said those were drafted by PfD Secretary-general Luke Lai King-fai, who also minuted the coordination meeting.^[140] Trevor Beel, representing Gwyneth Ho, grilled Chiu for his credibility for pretending to be a moderate, but was interrupted by the judge who reminded him for possible adverse impact. Chiu then strongly disagreed with those accusations.^[143] Chung's statement in court regarding Ho were twice furiously denied by Ho herself.^[147]

Anonymous video

On the second day of the trial, a video was played in courtroom showing a closed-door meeting held in May 2020, attended by Benny Tai and other democrats,^[131] when Tai suggested launching the primary election and other details of the plan.^[148] As the footage was shaky and shot below a table, with the camera pointing towards Tai from time to time, questions arise over who recorded the video.

The recorder of the video later testified anonymously in court during the fourteenth week of hearing, only to be identified as Mr. X.^[145] Points Media, formed by overseas Hongkongers, identified Kim Chan, once joined pro-Beijing party DAB, as the recorder.^[149] Chan's attendance in the meeting was confirmed by ex-District Councillor Michael Mo.^[150] The attorneys of defendants also confirmed the rumour.^[151]

"Mr. X" testified that Tai first mentioned the idea of triggering a government shutdown by vetoing the budget between December 2019 and January 2020. He was invited by Leung Ka-shing of People's Power to sit in a coordination meeting, and decided to record it because he suspected Tai's idea could be illegal and the footage could allow him to "study" further. When asked why the video was shaky, Mr. X insisted he publicly recorded without hiding. He anonymously sent the videos and recordings to the police in September and October 2020, and started assisting the police in April 2021. "Mr. X", a former secretary to a pro-Beijing member, said he sometimes support the pro-democracy camp while sometimes doesn't, but denied recording the meeting upon other's request.^[145]

Other witnesses

Other than the four defendants testifying against fellow democrats and "Mr. X", the prosecution also summoned other witnesses. New Territories East returning officer Amy Yeung Wai-sum, who invalidated Gwyneth Ho's nomination, said officials of Constitutional Affairs Bureau provided Facebook posts of Ho during political screening. She said the disqualification letter was drafted by others and signed by her.^[152]

A police officer from the national security department confirmed a Facebook account with pseudo-name was shared by national security cops. She agreed a comment posted by this account under one of the Tai's post, which reads "you will reap what you sow even you didn't break the law!!", was intended to provoke other responses. One national security police said he does not know what is Tai's "lam chau plan" even though arresting Gwyneth Ho for attempting to achieve the plan. Three other cops confirmed Apple Daily, Stand News, and Independent Media handed in documents related to advertisement of the primaries as ordered by the law enforcement.^[152]