- 23 -
protect national security. That would not be conducive to the legislative purpose of the NSL: cf Lai Chee Ying v Commissioner of the Police[1].
34. Last but not least, we noted that whilst the phrase “whether or not by force or threat of force” (不論是否使用武力或者以武力相威脅) appeared in NSL 20 (Secession), sub-paragraph (2) of that article specifically referred to “altering by unlawful means the legal status of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or of any other part of the People’s Republic of China” (非法改變香港特別行政區或者中華人民共和國其他任何部分的法律地位) as a prohibited act. Therefore, it was clear that when the phrase “unlawful” or “unlawful means” was used, the NPC did not intend it to be restricted to acts involving the use of force or the threat of force. Therefore, we did not consider that NSL 20 could lend support to the defence submission.
35. In conclusion, we came to the view that the mischief rule required NSL 22(3) to be construed to cover acts not just by the use of force or the threat of force, but also other unlawful means. Limiting NSL 22 only to acts and activities by the use of force or the threat of force would be absurd and illogical and defeat the purpose of the NSL. It should be noted that the other means employed would still have to be an unlawful one, not just any means.
Unlawful means
36. The second issue raised by some of the defendants was that the term “other unlawful means” had to refer to a criminal offence. It
- ↑ [2022) 5 HKLRD 205, at [35]
