Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/47

-47- 135. We accept Professor Lau’s opinion that the two parts of the Chinese Slogan (ie “光復香港” and “時代革命”) have a close semantic connection and cannot be construed separately. They must be viewed as a phrase of words or slogan as a whole.

136. In answering the question posed above, we do not find the analysis of the Defence Experts particularly helpful because as explained by Professor Francis L F Lee in his examination-in-chief, the emphasis of the analysis was to test a “key hypothesis”, namely whether the Slogan had one meaning only and that was how everybody understood it. The analysis was not directed at the question as to whether the Slogan was capable of having the meaning ascribed to it by Professor Lau.

137. We should reiterate that what we are concerned with in this case is not whether the Slogan meant one and only one thing as contended by Mr Grossman but whether the Slogan, when taken as a whole after considering all the relevant circumstances, was capable of inciting others to commit secession. The authorities which we have examined did not speak in terms of “one meaning only”. Instead, the focus was on whether the words/message/article/advertisement was capable of inciting others to commit the offence in question.

138. There is in fact no dispute amongst the 3 experts that at the material time on 1 July 2020, as a whole, the Chinese Slogan was at the very least capable of having the meaning ascribed to it by Professor Lau, namely, “the objective of separating the HKSAR from the PRC.” In the circumstances, it is not necessary for the court to resolve the differences