- 24 -
was submitted that any interpretation given for less than a full criminal offence would render the ambit of NSL 22 too broad and uncertain. It was further submitted that given the severe penalty attached, the notion of “other unlawful means” might, if including civil wrong, become too wide and uncertain.
37. Having heard from counsel, we were unable to accept the defence submission. In our judgment, the defence submission would go against the stated purpose of the NSL. As stated above, one of the national security risks stipulated in the Explanation 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.
38. NSL 1 demanded a resolute, full and faithful implementation of the “One Country, Two Systems” policy and an improved legal system and enforcing mechanism in safeguarding national security. In accordance with NSL 3, the HKSAR held a duty under the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China in safeguarding national security. NSL 6 also required residents of Hong Kong to obey the NSL and not to engage in conducts and activities endangering national security. It was therefore inconceivable that acts or activities by whatever forms and methods with a view to subverting the state power could be considered to be acceptable or tolerable. It was pertinent to note that the use of the unlawful means had to come with a view to subverting in order to constitute a full offence.
