We are ending our live page on the Hong Kong 47 verdict. Here are the key points from today:

• A Hong Kong court has found 14 pro-democracy activists guilty of subversion
• Two others have been acquitted - though the Department of Justice later launched an appeal against this. They will remain on bail pending the determination of the appeal
• Thirty-one others had pleaded guilty earlier, and will be sentenced, along with the 14, at a later date
• All 47 were charged in 2021 with trying to "overthrow" the government by organising an unofficial election
• It is the biggest case under the China-imposed national security law (NSL), which critics say has crushed dissent in Hong Kong but which Beijing has described as necessary to maintain order
• The NSL was imposed in 2020, a year after Hong Kong was rocked by unprecedented anti-government protests

This page was brought to you by Joel Guinto, Frances Mao, Kelly Ng and Yvette Tan in Singapore, Martin Yip, Lok Lee and Grace Tsoi in Hong Kong and Nicole Ng in Sydney

You can read more about today's events here

In 2020, Hong Kong was transformed when China introduced the national security law (NSL).

Created in response to the protests which erupted in Hong Kong the year before, the law made illegal a wider range of dissenting acts while reducing the city's autonomy in several ways.Beijing and Hong Kong authorities argue the law is necessary to maintain stability and deny it has weakened autonomy.There are four main offences which can be punishable with a maximum sentence of life in prison.

• Secession: Advocating for breaking away from China
• Subversion: Undermining the power or authority of the central government
• Terrorism: Using violence or intimidation against people
• Collusion with foreign or external forces

All 47 in this case were charged with subversion.

Lawrence Lau and Lee Yue-shun will continue to remain on bail pending the determination of the appeal.

Their bail conditions were extended “in order to maintain the status quo and to avoid possible irreparable prejudice to national security and the appeal rendered nugatory,” said Maggie Yang, the Director of Public Prosecutions, according to a SCMP report.

A hearing has been set on 25 June for their mitigations.

We're seeing local media reports that the Department of Justice has launched an appeal against the acquittals of Lawrence Lau and Lee Yue-shun.

We'll bring you more as we get it.

We earlier reported that Lawrence Lau and Lee Yue-shun were acquitted. The two former district councillors are now back in court, where they are waiting to see if they will be granted bail.

The law states that acquitted defendants could be detained in custody or be granted bail if the prosecution informs the court of its intention to appeal the verdict.

Simon Atkinson
Australia producer, BBC News

Australian foreign minister Penny Wong says she is "deeply concerned" by the conviction of 14 pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong - including Gordon Ng, an Australian citizen.

Wong said the Australian government regularly raised consular and human rights concerns directly with the Hong Kong and Chinese governments and would continue to do so, including in the case of Ng.

She said Australia continued to request consular access to Ng from Hong Kong authorities.

Australia has "expressed our strong objections to the Hong Kong authorities on the continuing broad application of national security legislation to arrest and pressure pro-democracy figures, opposition groups, media, trade unions and civil society", she said in a statement.

"The systemic erosion of Hong Kong’s rights, freedoms, autonomy and democratic processes has been consistently raised with China and Hong Kong."

Image source, Getty Images

Earlier, we outlined why the court acquitted two of the defendants. Here's some of the reasoning for why the judges convicted the 14 others - including district councillor Clarisse Yeung.

Yeung, 38, ran as an independent in the primary vote in 2020 and espoused democratic values even though she wasn't tied to any particular political party.

When she was arrested in 2021, police raided her home, taking letters, computers and campaign materials.

The judges cited evidence from those sources in ruling her guilty of subversion.

They said that material showed she was on board with the plan to disrupt government if she was elected - that she would use her veto power as a lawmaker and voice opposition to the National Security Law.

She had endorsed a group document known as the "Inked Without Regret Declaration" outlining those aims and she had "aligned herself" with the pro-democracy camp, the judges said.

"We draw the irresistible inference that she had the intention to subvert the State power."

Lawrence Lau was at a loss for words when asked by reporters how he felt after his acquittal. Instead, he urged the public to study the judgement handed down today and continue following the case of the Hong Kong 47.

Image source, Reuters

If you're just joining us now, here's a quick recap of events in Hong Kong's largest trial under the harsh National Security Law (NSL) imposed by China.

Rights groups and legal experts had stressed that the group were not expected to have a fair trial given the law's powerful scope and the 100% conviction rate previously recorded under the law.

• Three High Court judges convicted 14 pro-democracy figures who had been involved in an unofficial election primary in 2020, finding that they had planned to undermine the city's legislature if elected.
• They acquitted two defendants - a social worker and a barrister who represented himself
• The democracy camp - among them former lawmakers, union leaders, activists and student leaders - were found guilty of the crime of "subversion" under the NSL
• Thirty-one other defendants had already pleaded guilty prior to today's hearing - so that is 45 people convicted in the single case

• Rights groups have slammed the verdict, saying the judges showed "utter contempt for both democratic political processes and the rule of law". They said defendants had the right to run for political office
• However the court ruled that if the democracy campaigners had been elected, they would have posed a national security risk. They agreed with prosecutors who argued this would have caused a "constitutional crisis"
• The ruling today comes after a marathon 100-day plus trial which began in February 2023
• Many of the defendants have been held in pre-detention ever since their arrests in 2021
• The verdict was handed down under tight security with many of the defendants' supporters present

The room for civic activism in Hong Kong has drastically shrunk, observers say.

“The National Security Law has created an environment of fear and self-censorship,” says Simon Cheng, an exiled pro-democracy activist.

He said many activists have been arrested or gone into exile, while their organisations have disbanded under pressure.

“The once-prominent voices advocating for democracy and human rights are being silenced, leaving a void where robust public debate and civic engagement used to be,” he said.

“The vibrant, diverse civil society that once thrived in Hong Kong is now struggling to survive under oppressive measures.”

Sixteen of the Hong Kong 47 pleaded not guilty while 31 entered guilty pleas. Observers and legal experts say those who admitted fault likely did so for practical reasons, in the hopes of receiving a reduced sentence.

“Many have likely done so as a pragmatic decision, recognising that the chances of a fair trial are slim. By pleading guilty, they might hope to receive reduced sentences and avoid even harsher penalties. It’s a tragic reflection of how activists are being forced into concessions,” said democracy activist Simon Cheng, who previously worked at the UK’s consulate in Hong Kong.

“They are forced to make the impossible decision between pleading guilty to a non-existent crime for a potential reduction in sentence, or fighting a losing battle under the unjust national security law," Amnesty International has said.

Kelly Ng
Live reporter

Image source, Reuters

Similarly, the judges noted Lee Yue-shun's "clear record". They found he "had nothing to do with" the group's declarations and was not privy to discussions around it.

The social worker - known in this case as Defendant 46 (D46) - was not yet a candidate of the Civic Party when the party endorsed the declarations.

They added that while he was eventually aware of the party's stance on vetoing the budgets, he had told team members to design new pamphlets when he realised the old versions may violate the NSL.

"At the end of the day, having considered all the evidence relevant to D46, we cannot be sure that D46 was a party to the Scheme. Similarly, we cannot be sure that he had the intention to subvert the State power during the material period of time," the judges said.

Frances Mao
Live reporter

Image source, Reuters

The judges were quite complimentary of Lawrence Lau, the barrister they found not guilty of the charge of subversion. He was known as Defendant 16 (D16).

In their comments on him, they introduced him as "a man of clear criminal record" which they said benefited his "credibility".

The judges went on to say that even though Lau had run as a candidate in the primary election, they didn't believe he fully subscribed to the democratic camp's ideas.

He knew about the plans to veto government budgets and disrupt policies if voted in, they said. But they ruled he didn't believe in them because he didn't campaign on them.

"On the evidence before us, although D16’s name appeared on the [group] declaration and he submitted his nomination form containing the declaration... D16 had never advocated in his electioneering campaign to veto the budgets, not on his Facebook page or in the election forum he attended."

"We are also not sure that D16 had the intention to subvert the State power at any stage."

The BBC was there when activist Lee Yue-Shun spoke to media after he was acquitted of subversion. He said he couldn't comment on the case or the verdict. But he said he feels "very peaceful" and was looking forward to seeing his family.

Here are the key events that led to today's landmark ruling:

• 2019 - Hong Kong government introduces an extradition law amendment bill, sparking months of protests, some of which erupt in violence. Government withdraws the bill
• June 2020 - Beijing imposes National Security Law in response to protests
• July 2020 - Organisers hold unofficial election primaries to determine opposition candidates. Some 600,000 people come out to vote. China says these actions are “illegal”
• February 2021 - The 47 are charged with “conspiracy to commit subversion” for organising and participating in the primaries
• March 2021 - China says only “patriotic” figures can run in the Hong Kong Legislative Committee
• February 2023 - The marathon trial for the 47 begins. Thirty-one plead guilty while the trial proceeds for the remaining 16.
• March 2024 - Hong Kong imposes second national security law, Article 23, which expands the list of crimes
• May 2024 - A court convicts fourteen of the 16 activists. They will be sentenced at a later date, together with the 31 who entered a guilty plea.

Lok Lee
BBC Chinese, Hong Kong

Lawrence Lau, one of two acquitted activists, tells reporters he should not be the focus of today's court ruling.

“If there was any lead character today, this judgment should be it, so I hope everyone can read and see how the judges handled this case,” the 56-year-old barrister tells reporters.

“This is only the end of one stage and this case will probably continue, so I can’t say too much,“ he adds.

Hong Kong activist leader Nathan Law is one of the 53 who were arrested for organising the unofficial primary election, but he fled into exile in the UK before the NSL came into place.

He spoke to the BBC news channel this morning on why this trial matters.

Some more of the reasoning from the High Court judges - Andrew Chan, Alex Lee and Johnny Chan.

They dismissed much of the defence's argument including one which essentially says that holding a primary vote is in itself not "unlawful means" which threaten national security.

As we've reported, holding a primary was a common and accepted activity in Hong Kong politics before the NSL.

But the court dismissed this reasoning.

"One of the national security risks stipulated... was paralysing the operation of the legislature. It was described as a serious challenge to the bottom line of the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, the rule of law and national sovereignty, security and development interests."

"It would not be difficult to see that the operation of the legislature could be paralysed by a means which was not criminal offence in itself."

Lok Lee
BBC Chinese, Hong Kong

Lee Yue-shun thanked his supporters after he was acquitted of subversion.

“I cannot make any comments because the Justice Department has said it might lodge an appeal,” said the 30-year-old social worker. “I can only tell everyone that I feel very peaceful.” 



He also said he was going to a dim sum lunch with his family.

Frances Mao
Live reporter

The case revolves around an unofficial primary the defendants organised in 2020 to pick candidates for local elections - some 600,000 people voted in it to pick opposition candidates.

Prosecutors alleged that the activists held the primary with the intention of getting into the Legislative Council and disrupting government policies.

The judges noted the prosecution's argument that the defendants - if they had 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, referred to as "the Scheme" by the court, would have caused chaos, prosecutors argued. They said this was subversion - an attempt to undermine the authority of the central government.

The court agreed saying this would have led to a "constitutional crisis".

This would result in “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 said.

However, many critics and rights groups have pointed out that this case hinged on hypotheticals: what would have happened if the defendants were elected, and if they pursued the alleged actions.