Five indigenous residents who deny conspiracy to defraud the Lands Department are seeking to have their trial stopped permanently. Their application continued on Tuesday, the 27th day of the trial at Tuen Mun Magistrates' Courts, with the defence arguing that the prosecution should never have been brought.

The charge alleges that, between 1991 and 2017, the defendants conspired with a village chief and others to misrepresent themselves to the Lands Department as the sole lawful registered owners of land. The alleged false claims were intended to secure licences to build village houses.

Defence counsel argued that government officials had assured the Heung Yee Kuk that the disputed statutory-declaration requirements would be changed or decriminalised. Counsel said the Kuk represented indigenous residents, so assurances made to it could reasonably be relied on by villagers. The defence cited discussions involving the then development secretary and the then housing and planning secretary between 2006 and 2008.

Counsel said two defendants signed the declarations in September and December 2005, while the government was discussing changes. The declarations required applicants to confirm they were the land’s sole lawful registered owners and had not transferred rights to someone else. Those two terms were removed in 2006 and 2007, counsel said; in 2009, the Lands Department asked the two defendants to sign letters confirming they would not revoke their declarations.

Counsel pointed to two official letters copied to the Security Bureau and the Chief Executive’s Office, arguing that this showed the assurances were an official position and that enforcement agencies were expected to follow it. The defence said the present prosecution, based on the disputed declaration terms, ran counter to that position.

The magistrate asked whether the defence’s concern about public confidence was directed at the court, the justice system or government policy. Counsel replied that it concerned whether the public could trust government statements and, in turn, have confidence in justice. The defence argued that a fair trial would not resolve its underlying claim that the residents should not have been prosecuted.

The prosecution was due to make submissions on Wednesday, 11 November. The court had not yet ruled on the application.