A former acting chief editor of the now-defunct Stand News has appealed his sedition conviction, arguing that he was fulfilling his professional duties without intent to undermine Hong Kong’s national security. Patrick Lam Shui-tung was convicted in August 2024 alongside former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and Stand News’ holding company, Best Pencil (Hong Kong), for publishing seditious material.

During the appeal hearing before a panel of High Court justices, Lam’s lawyer, David Ma Wai-kwan, contended that the trial judge erred by not adequately considering whether Lam had “seditious intent” when he published an article reflecting interviewees’ perspectives on the 2019 anti-government protests. The disputed article featured interviews with two alumni of Chinese University who expressed their distress over the November 2019 standoff between police and protesters at the campus and blamed law enforcement for the damage caused. This article was among 11 publications cited as evidence of a “criminal mind” behind disseminating seditious content from July 2020 to December 2021.

Ma asserted that Lam was acting as a Stand News employee and fulfilling standard publishing responsibilities. He maintained that Lam had no motive to incite hatred against authorities and was merely reporting the interviewees’ views as part of his journalistic role.

However, the justices referenced the original trial ruling, which held that the interviewees had provided information that was not entirely accurate and that its publication had a seditious effect. Justice William Tam Yiu-ho emphasized that Lam, as a media professional, was obligated to verify facts but nevertheless chose to publish the statements in their original form, thereby contributing to sowing discontent against the government.

Lam and Chung were the first media figures charged under Hong Kong’s British colonial-era sedition law since the city’s handover to China in 1997. Both were found guilty last year for conspiring to publish material deemed to incite hatred toward authorities.

The appeal panel did not deliver an immediate verdict and indicated that a judgment would be issued within six months. The case continues to highlight tensions surrounding press freedom and legal constraints in Hong Kong’s evolving political landscape.