Appeal judges questioned whether a 2021 interview about clashes at a university campus could amount to a seditious publication when it was presented as a record of former students’ feelings. The hearing focused on why the article appeared two years after the events, whether its account should have been checked and the purpose of publishing material said to contain inaccuracies.

The appeal was brought by 林紹桐, then the acting editor-in-chief of the Chinese-language news outlet 《立場新聞》, who was convicted after trial of conspiracy to publish seditious publications. The High Court heard his challenge on 22 September 2026. He had approved and republished the article at the centre of the case, one of the publications covered by the prosecution’s wider case against the outlet.

The disputed piece was a profile interview with two former students recalling their experiences of the November 2019 campus clashes. Defence barrister 馬維騉 said it recorded their subjective responses, including their view that police had no right to enter the campus and their distress after hearing police say “burn it all”. He argued that the article did not accuse police of causing a fire at the sports ground and was not intended to provide a balanced account containing every side of the dispute.

The judges pressed the defence on whether journalists had a responsibility to verify the interviewees’ account, given the two-year gap between the clashes and publication. The bench also criticised the article’s description of tear gas as “missiles” and questioned its purpose. The defence said a police response was added in a later update; the chief judge said the sedition issue had to be assessed by reference to the article as it appeared when first published.

The prosecution argued that the trial judge had carefully considered the article’s content and form. Senior assistant director of public prosecutions 劉德偉 said the relevant events were already clear by 2021 and questioned the purpose of publishing an account containing what he described as numerous errors. He argued that feelings based on incorrect statements could not justify crossing the legal boundary and that the article could provoke hatred towards police.

The trial court convicted the outlet’s parent company, former editor-in-chief 鍾沛權 and the acting editor-in-chief in 2024. The company was fined HK$5,000, while 鍾沛權 was sentenced to 21 months in prison. The acting editor-in-chief was released immediately after sentencing, having received credit for time on remand and a reduction linked to his health.

The appeal court is expected to issue its written decision within six months.