The case revolves round an unofficial number one the defendants organised in 2020 to pick out applicants for native elections – some 600,000 public voted in it to pick out opposition applicants.
Prosecutors alleged that the activists held the principle with the aim of having into the Legislative Council and disrupting executive insurance policies.
The judges famous the prosecution’s argument that the defendants – if they’d been elected – would have “pursued a course of conduct which was to indiscriminately veto any budgets or refuse to pass any budgets… to be introduced by the Government”.
That plan, known as “the Scheme” through the court docket, would have led to chaos, prosecutors argued. They stated this was once subversion – an try to undermine the authority of the central executive.
The court docket correct pronouncing this might have resulted in a “constitutional crisis”.
This may lead to “seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of power of the HKSAR”, the court docket stated.
On the other hand, many critics and rights teams have identified that this situation hinged on hypotheticals: what would have came about if the defendants had been elected, and in the event that they pursued the alleged movements.
