踏入反修例運動7周年，6月9日，香港特首及行政會議通過就《維護國家安全條例》（即23條立法下的國安條例）第110條訂立附屬法例《程序事宜規例》，並於同日刊憲、即時生效。港府日前建議，由特首根據國安法發出證明書，認定某些罪行屬危害國家安全罪行；而如某人被控犯任何危害國家安全的罪行，同案中任何交替罪行亦屬危害國安的罪行。

As the seventh anniversary of the anti-extradition movement approaches, on June 9 Hong Kong’s Chief Executive and Executive Council approved subsidiary legislation under section 110 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, the legislation enacted under Article 23: the Procedural Matters Regulation. It was gazetted the same day and took immediate effect. The Hong Kong government had earlier proposed that the Chief Executive, by issuing a certificate under the National Security Law, could determine that certain offences are offences endangering national security; and that if a person is charged with any offence endangering national security, any alternative offence in the same case would likewise be an offence endangering national security.

根據目前刊憲文件，此次附屬條例重點有三：被認定為國安案的刑事案，調查和審判程序將加辣；特首證明書不受法院推翻，也不受任何其他法律的挑戰；特首證明書將適用於國安法生效前的案件。從港府提出相關建議到通過生效，僅僅一天。

According to the gazetted document, the subsidiary regulation has three main points: in criminal cases determined to be national security cases, investigation and trial procedures will be made more stringent; the Chief Executive’s certificate cannot be overturned by the courts or challenged under any other law; and the certificate will apply to cases predating the National Security Law. From the government’s proposal to passage and commencement, only one day elapsed.

此前特首已曾發出證明書，此一舉動是正式以成文法方式界定「其他危害國家安全的罪行」及相關程序，寫入法例。保安局局長鄧炳強指寫入法例的分別在於「法律確定性」。「以往我們靠法官判詞，去將危害國家安全罪行定義；法例講得很清楚時，就不需要法官再演繹這個法例。」

The Chief Executive had issued such certificates before. This move formally defines, in written law, “other offences endangering national security” and the relevant procedures, incorporating them into legislation. Secretary for Security Chris Tang said the difference made by writing it into law lies in “legal certainty.” “In the past, we relied on judges’ rulings to define offences endangering national security; when the legislation states it very clearly, judges no longer need to interpret the statute.”

他以唐英傑案為例，原本「恐怖活動罪」控告被告以電單車撞向警察，交替罪行是「危險駕駛導致他人受傷」。「當時（要由）法庭判決認為這也是危害國家安全罪行，但以後不用了，法律講得清楚，基於同一事實，就是特首發出證明書，證明是危害國家安全的事實，這事實不會變。」

He cited the Tong Ying-kit case as an example. The defendant was originally charged with “terrorist activities” for driving a motorcycle into police officers, while the alternative offence was “dangerous driving causing bodily harm.” “At the time, the court had to rule that this too was an offence endangering national security. But in future that will no longer be necessary. The law states it clearly: on the basis of the same facts, the Chief Executive issues a certificate certifying that the facts endanger national security, and those facts do not change.”

9日，特首李家超回應指，發出證明書是嚴謹和嚴肅的工作，每次均審慎行事。他並指許多涉國安的敏感情報只有特首可閱覽，未必可公開透露資料；危害國安圖謀大多涉及「國家級高手」，適宜由特首行使權力。

On the 9th, Chief Executive John Lee responded that issuing a certificate is rigorous and serious work, and that each instance is handled with caution. He also said that much sensitive intelligence involving national security can be viewed only by the Chief Executive and may not be publicly disclosed; plots endangering national security mostly involve “state-level masters,” making it appropriate for the Chief Executive to exercise the power.

立法會議員梁美芬回應指：「為何要在其他（罪行）問題上再用附屬法例？科技日新月異，制定國安法時未必可預測，在清晰界定下，有助市民不會隨便誤墜法網，以為自己可以『鑽洞子』等等。」議員吳秋北則稱，相關建議是「堵塞所謂心存僥倖者」。

Legislator Priscilla Leung responded: “Why use subsidiary legislation again on the question of other offences? Technology changes with each passing day. When the National Security Law was enacted, it may not have been possible to foresee everything. With a clear definition, it helps members of the public avoid inadvertently falling foul of the law, or thinking they can ‘exploit loopholes,’ and so forth.” Legislator Stanley Ng said the proposal was meant to “plug the gap for those who think they can get lucky.”

「其他危害國家安全的罪行」 6月7日，立法會突然預告於8日加插會議討論相關修訂。

“Other offences endangering national security.” On June 7, the Legislative Council suddenly announced that an additional meeting would be inserted on the 8th to discuss the relevant amendments.

港府建議文件提到，國安法制定時是針對「危害國家安全最嚴重、最突出、最迫切需要禁止的四種行為和活動訂立罪行」，但其立法原意是，「危害國家安全犯罪」既包括四類罪行，也包括法律下其他危害國家安全的罪行。

The government’s proposal noted that when the National Security Law was enacted, it established offences targeting “the four types of acts and activities that most seriously, prominently, and urgently needed to be prohibited” in order to safeguard national security. But its legislative intent, the document said, was that “offences endangering national security” include not only those four categories of offences, but also other offences under the law that endanger national security.

鄧炳強在立法會上向議員解釋：「這裡（其他罪行）是沒有指明是什麼的，我舉個例，有人去劫獄、劫國安犯，這是危害國家安全的事實，但本身劫獄這罪行，並非國家安全罪行，這可能有爭拗。」他補充：「日後我們改了條例，只要特首根據事實，覺得這劫獄的事實就是危害國家安全，發出證明書證明事實是危害國家安全，日後進行撿控時，可以使用相關程序。」

Tang explained to legislators in the Legislative Council: “Here, these other offences are not specified. Let me give an example. If someone breaks into a prison to free a national security offender, that fact endangers national security. But the offence of prison break itself is not a national security offence, so there may be dispute.” He added: “After we amend the regulation, so long as the Chief Executive, based on the facts, considers that the prison-break facts endanger national security, and issues a certificate certifying that those facts endanger national security, the relevant procedures can be used in future prosecutions.”

文件引述黎智英案及伍巧怡案（羊村繪本案），指終審法院確定國安法提及的「危害國家安全犯罪」，包括「其他法律規定的同等性質的罪行」；又指《國安條例》第7條亦有寫入上述提到的「其他罪行」。

The document cited the Jimmy Lai case and the Ng Hau-yi case, also known as the Sheep Village picture-book case, saying that the Court of Final Appeal had confirmed that the “offences endangering national security” mentioned in the National Security Law include “offences of the same nature provided for under other laws.” It also said that section 7 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance had incorporated the “other offences” mentioned above.

港府指，若某宗案件並非《香港國安法》、《實施細則》或《國安條例》所訂的罪行，但該案件的事實情況顯示有關犯罪行為具有危害國家安全的性質，該案件便應屬「危害國家安全犯罪案件」，有關罪行則屬《國安條例》第7(d)條所指的「特區的法律下其他危害國家安全的罪行」。

The government said that if a case is not an offence prescribed by the Hong Kong National Security Law, its Implementation Rules, or the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, but the factual circumstances of the case show that the criminal conduct has the nature of endangering national security, then the case should be an “offence case endangering national security,” and the offence concerned should fall under section 7(d) of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance as “other offences under the laws of the HKSAR endangering national security.”

The government proposed the following subsidiary legislation:港府建議附屬法例如下：

- 如行政長官發出證明書，認定某刑事罪行案件中的有關作為涉及國家安全，該罪行即屬《國安條例》第7(d)條所指的危害國家安全的罪行；

If the Chief Executive issues a certificate determining that the relevant acts in a criminal offence case involve national security, that offence is an offence endangering national security within the meaning of section 7(d) of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance;

- 如某人被控犯任何危害國家安全的罪行，同案中任何交替罪行亦屬危害國家安全的罪行。

If a person is charged with any offence endangering national security, any alternative offence in the same case is also an offence endangering national security.

就第1項，鄧炳強指相關「其他罪行」變為國安案件後，被告人的最高刑罰仍會依照原有罪行的最高刑罰。

Regarding the first item, Tang said that after the relevant “other offences” become national security cases, the maximum penalty for the defendant will still follow the maximum penalty for the original offence.

就第2項交替罪行，律政司司長林定國解釋：「比如我們有一個（案）製造炸彈想炸警署，國安法是違犯恐怖活動罪，但可能有交替控罪是製造炸彈。這事實中是有可能被定國安罪，也可能因為犯罪證據元素問題，法庭最終只判他炸彈罪。」他指：「但因為他做的事是沒有分別的，這情況下根據新安排，為排除這方面的爭議，就算是定了製造炸彈罪，都會被認定是危害國家安全罪行。」

Regarding the second item, alternative offences, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam explained: “For example, suppose we have a case in which someone makes a bomb intending to bomb a police station. Under the National Security Law, that is the offence of terrorist activities, but there may be an alternative charge of making a bomb. On those facts, it is possible to convict of a national security offence; but because of issues involving the elements of the criminal evidence, the court may ultimately convict only on the bomb offence.” He said: “But because there is no difference in what he did, under the new arrangement, in order to eliminate disputes on this point, even if he is convicted of making a bomb, it will be deemed an offence endangering national security.”

鄧炳強指，這類情況適用於「我們最初檢控時間不夠，後來才發現有新的情況，就要用這證明書」，「我們想清晰在法庭上講出法律含意，而不需要在法庭、由法官演繹我們的法律。只有在特首簽發的這些案件，才是危害國家安全案件。」 調查和審判程序將加辣？

Tang said such situations apply when “we did not have enough time at the initial stage of prosecution, and only later discovered new circumstances, so we need to use this certificate.” “We want to state clearly in court the legal implications, without needing the court, or the judge, to interpret our law. Only those cases for which the Chief Executive has issued certificates are cases endangering national security.” Will investigation and trial procedures be made more stringent?

Certificates apply to cases predating the National Security Law.證明書適用於國安法生效前案件

政府強調，這次變化沒加辣、沒擴大；沒有新罰則，警方不會有新權力。立法會上，有議員提到相關網上評論，指「亂過馬路」都可能犯國安法，是無稽之談及惡意抹黑。有立法會議員形容改變「不是大件事」。

The government stressed that this change does not make things harsher and does not expand the law; there are no new penalties, and the police will have no new powers. In the Legislative Council, some legislators referred to online comments suggesting that even “jaywalking” could violate the National Security Law, calling such claims absurd and malicious smears. One legislator described the change as “not a big deal.”

目前，當一宗刑事案被認定為危害國安罪行，雖然罰則不會加重，但調查和審判程序將會「加辣」。

At present, when a criminal case is determined to be an offence endangering national security, the penalties are not increased, but the investigation and trial procedures become more stringent.

具體而言，普通刑事案與國安案有著不少分別，當刑事案被認定為國安案，不少法律程序將會改變。後者案件將可指定法官審理、可指示不用陪審團、可延長被告扣留期、有更嚴格的保釋門檻（除非確認不危害國安否則不會擔保）等。

Specifically, ordinary criminal cases and national security cases differ in many respects. When a criminal case is determined to be a national security case, many legal procedures change. The latter may be tried by designated judges; directions may be issued dispensing with a jury; the defendant’s detention period may be extended; and the threshold for bail is stricter, with bail denied unless it is confirmed that the person will not endanger national security.

前者扣留期最多48小時，保釋門檻較低、採取「有利於保釋的假定」（presumption in favour of bail）、也可由法官或陪審團審理。但國安案則最多可扣留16日、保釋門檻較高，法官一般考慮不予保釋，除非確信其不會繼續危害國家安全行為，並且由指定法官審理，律政司長可指示不設陪審團。

In the former category, the maximum detention period is 48 hours, the bail threshold is lower, a “presumption in favour of bail” applies, and the case may be tried by a judge or by a jury. But in national security cases, detention may last up to 16 days, the bail threshold is higher, judges generally consider refusing bail unless satisfied that the defendant will not continue to commit acts endangering national security, the case is heard by a designated judge, and the Secretary for Justice may direct that there be no jury.

國安案亦可強制涉案人提供手機密碼。若沒有附屬法例，即使特首發出證明書，辯方律師仍可能挑戰相關法律程序，要求用普通刑事案的法律程序處理。附屬法例落實後，則未必有爭拗的空間。

National security cases may also compel persons involved to provide mobile-phone passwords. Without the subsidiary legislation, even if the Chief Executive issued a certificate, defence lawyers might still challenge the relevant legal procedures and ask that the case be handled under the procedures for ordinary criminal cases. Once the subsidiary legislation is implemented, there may no longer be room for dispute.

國安法第四章也列明，部份審訊可以閉門；而《國安條例》則訂明限制諮詢個別法律代表、在保釋後對被告發出「行動限制令」、以及不得披露處理國安案件或者工作的人的個人資料等。

Chapter IV of the National Security Law also states that some trials may be held behind closed doors; the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance provides for restrictions on consulting particular legal representatives, “movement restriction orders” against defendants after bail, and prohibitions on disclosing personal information about those who handle national security cases or work.

此外，《規例》正式刊憲時補充，特首證明書一經發出，不論是在案件的任何法律程序展開之前抑或進行期間發出，該案件即屬國安案件，不論上述作為或檢控是在國安法生效之前、之時抑或之後；即特首證明書將適用於國安法生效前的案件。

In addition, when the Regulation was formally gazetted, it added that once the Chief Executive’s certificate is issued, whether before the commencement of any legal proceedings in the case or while they are ongoing, the case is a national security case, regardless of whether the acts or the prosecution occurred before, at the time of, or after the National Security Law came into effect. In other words, the Chief Executive’s certificate will apply to cases predating the National Security Law.

在法律程序上，特首證明書在什麼階段可以引入？根據立法會上說法，如果案件期間發現新證據顯示涉及國安，仍然可以引入。那麼被告被裁決後，判刑後、或服刑後能否發出？林定國指，不會發生判罪後重新把案件定性為國安案的情況，「事件完了，一定有一個cut off point，所以剛說審訊結果出來，就不會再有機會返轉頭。」他指原則上是定為相關法律程序期間。

Procedurally, at what stage may the Chief Executive’s certificate be introduced? According to statements in the Legislative Council, if new evidence is discovered during the case showing that it involves national security, it may still be introduced. Then can it be issued after the defendant has been adjudicated, sentenced, or has served the sentence? Lam said there would be no situation in which a case is reclassified as a national security case after conviction. “Once the matter is over, there must be a cut-off point. So, as just mentioned, once the trial result is out, there will be no opportunity to turn back.” He said the principle is that it applies during the relevant legal proceedings.

有消息人士向《明報》指，此後警方或律政司在案件調查初期，可向特首申請發出相關證明書，提早以國安法規定的程序及調查權力處理案件，有別於以往在上庭後才發出證明書的做法。

A source told Ming Pao that from now on, during the early investigation stage of a case, the police or the Department of Justice may apply to the Chief Executive for the relevant certificate, allowing the case to be handled earlier under the procedures and investigative powers provided by the National Security Law, unlike the previous practice of issuing certificates only after a case had gone to court.

The Chief Executive’s certificate cannot be overturned by the courts.特首證明書不受法院推翻

現在，特首證明書不受法院推翻，也不受任何其他法律的挑戰。林定國解釋指，行政機關有判斷敏感、高度機密資料的經驗、知識、資源和情報，「遠比法院有能力作出合適的判斷」。鄧強調，根據普通法原則，判斷哪些是危害國安事實，應該由行政機關作判斷，而非司法機關。

Now, the Chief Executive’s certificate cannot be overturned by the courts or challenged under any other law. Lam explained that the executive authorities have the experience, knowledge, resources, and intelligence to assess sensitive and highly confidential information, and are “far more capable than the courts of making an appropriate judgment.” Tang emphasized that, under common-law principles, judgments about which facts endanger national security should be made by the executive, not the judiciary.

行政長官的權力來自何處？文件指出，《國安法》和《國安條例》賦予行政長官有權認定某項行為或事宜是否涉及國家安全，並發出對法院有約束力的證明書；行政長官發出證明書的機制，正是界定「特區的法律下其他危害國家安全的罪行」的機制；《國安條例》亦授權行政長官會同行政會議，為更有效地實施國安法而訂立附屬法例。

Where does the Chief Executive’s power come from? The document states that the National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance empower the Chief Executive to determine whether an act or matter involves national security and to issue a certificate binding on the courts. The mechanism by which the Chief Executive issues a certificate is precisely the mechanism for defining “other offences under the laws of the HKSAR endangering national security.” The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance also authorizes the Chief Executive in Council to make subsidiary legislation for the more effective implementation of the National Security Law.

行政會議成員湯家驊亦向《明報》表示，「特首大晒」是國安法主體法例已有的規定。

Executive Council member Ronny Tong also told Ming Pao that “the Chief Executive has the final say” is already a provision in the principal legislation of the National Security Law.

2020年國安法最初公布之際，特首證明書機制已經存在：法院若遇到國家安全行為的定義問題等，應向行政長官提出，取得相應證明。

When the National Security Law was first promulgated in 2020, the Chief Executive’s certificate mechanism already existed: if a court encountered questions such as the definition of conduct involving national security, it should seek and obtain the corresponding certificate from the Chief Executive.

特首在國安法後曾至少三次發出證明書，證明相關官司或材料涉及國安，包括前港大學生會評議會主席張敬生案、《願榮光歸香港》禁制令、以及鄒幸彤曾就「懲教署拒絕其親友送入4本書籍」的決定提出司法覆核。

Since the National Security Law, the Chief Executive has issued certificates at least three times, certifying that relevant litigation or materials involved national security. These include the case of former University of Hong Kong Students’ Union Council chair Cheung King-sang, the injunction over “Glory to Hong Kong,” and a judicial review brought by Chow Hang-tung over the Correctional Services Department’s refusal to allow her relatives and friends to send in four books.

立法會上亦提及2024年的港大評議會張敬生案。2024年，港大學生會評議會時任主席張敬生等4人被控「宣揚恐怖主義」國安罪，後承認交替控罪「煽惑有意圖傷人」各被判囚 2 年，最終上訴減刑至判囚15個月。

The Legislative Council also mentioned the 2024 case of HKU Council chair Cheung King-sang. In 2024, Cheung King-sang, then chair of the University of Hong Kong Students’ Union Council, and three others were charged with the national security offence of “advocating terrorism.” They later pleaded guilty to the alternative charge of “incitement to wound with intent” and were each sentenced to two years in prison; on appeal, their sentences were ultimately reduced to 15 months’ imprisonment.

張敬生一度向高院申請人身保護令，指自己應獲行為良好的三分之一刑期扣減；3日後，特首發證明書指案件涉及國安，案件改由國安指定法官黎婉姫審理。當時張的律師曾爭議，他的交替控罪不符「危害國家安全的罪行」定義。

Cheung once applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he should receive a one-third sentence reduction for good conduct. Three days later, the Chief Executive issued a certificate stating that the case involved national security, and the case was transferred to be heard by national security designated judge Esther Toh. At the time, Cheung’s lawyer argued that his alternative charge did not meet the definition of an “offence endangering national security.”

而2023年，特首亦曾發證明書確認政府禁制令涵蓋的4項傳播歌曲《願榮光》行為屬國家安全行為；2025年，前支聯會副主席鄒幸彤曾就「懲教署拒絕其親友送入4本書籍」的決定提出司法覆核，特首發出證明書認定相關書籍涉國安。

In 2023, the Chief Executive also issued a certificate confirming that four acts of disseminating the song “Glory to Hong Kong,” covered by the government’s injunction, were acts involving national security. In 2025, former Hong Kong Alliance vice-chair Chow Hang-tung sought judicial review over the Correctional Services Department’s refusal to allow her relatives and friends to send in four books; the Chief Executive issued a certificate determining that the books involved national security.

The subsidiary legislation has taken effect and will be submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny afterward.附屬法例已生效，後交立法會審議

早前港府指應儘早完成相關立法程序，「早一日，得一日」。政府在聽取委員會意見後就附屬法例刊登憲報，提交立法會進行「先訂立，後審議」程序。

Earlier, the Hong Kong government said the relevant legislative procedures should be completed as soon as possible: “every day earlier counts.” After hearing the committee’s views, the government gazetted the subsidiary legislation and submitted it to the Legislative Council under the “negative vetting” procedure, meaning it is made first and scrutinized afterward.

《明報》報導指，除立法會文件提及支持立法原意觀點的黎智英案、伍巧怡案，政府回覆時無補充是否其他案件導致修訂。

Ming Pao reported that, apart from the Jimmy Lai case and the Ng Hau-yi case cited in the Legislative Council document as supporting the legislative intent, the government did not add in its reply whether any other cases had led to the amendment.

前香港大學公法講座教授陳文敏撰文指出：「從制度演變角度而言，可以看到一條清晰的發展軌跡：涉及國家安全的問題，正逐步由法院的司法判斷轉變為行政機關的認定事項。」

Former University of Hong Kong chair professor of public law Johannes Chan wrote: “From the perspective of institutional evolution, one can see a clear trajectory: questions involving national security are gradually shifting from judicial judgment by the courts to matters of determination by the executive.”

他指，在普通法制度下，決定某項罪行是否符合特定法律分類，以及某名被告應否受到特殊刑事程序約束，歷來被視為司法職能的重要組成部分。「今次附屬法例表面上是處理『誰來分類』的問題，實際上處理的卻是『誰來決定被告能否享有普通刑事程序保障』的問題。而後者，正正是法治社會中最核心的司法職能之一。」

He said that under the common-law system, deciding whether a particular offence falls within a specific legal classification, and whether a particular defendant should be subject to special criminal procedures, has historically been regarded as an important part of the judicial function. “On the surface, this subsidiary legislation deals with the question of ‘who classifies.’ In reality, however, it deals with the question of ‘who decides whether a defendant may enjoy the protections of ordinary criminal procedure.’ And the latter is precisely one of the most core judicial functions in a society governed by the rule of law.”

「因此，今次修訂的真正爭議，不在於它是否新增罪行、刑罰或執法權力，而在於它是否將決定一宗案件法律性質的重要權力，由法院轉移至行政機關，而又沒有同時建立足夠的客觀標準、程序保障及獨立監督機制。」

“Therefore, the real controversy over this amendment is not whether it creates new offences, penalties, or law-enforcement powers, but whether it transfers the important power to determine the legal nature of a case from the courts to the executive, without at the same time establishing sufficient objective standards, procedural safeguards, and mechanisms of independent oversight.”

由專注法律與政策研究的人權工作者成立的香港人權資訊中心則向RFI表示，新附例賦予特首無上權力去把香港任何法例中的罪行指定為國安罪行，而有關決定是不受任何司法挑戰的，意味特首在不受監察和制衡的情況下，藉着政治和行政權力去進一步擴大國安法範圍及其適用性。中心指，新例顯然會進一步擴大國安侵犯人權的範圍，以及進一步弱化司法獨立。

The Hong Kong Centre for Human Rights, founded by human-rights workers focused on legal and policy research, told RFI that the new subsidiary legislation gives the Chief Executive supreme power to designate any offence under any Hong Kong law as a national security offence, and that such a decision is not subject to any judicial challenge. This means the Chief Executive can, without monitoring or checks and balances, use political and executive power to further expand the scope and applicability of the National Security Law. The Centre said the new rules will clearly further expand the range of human-rights infringements under national security and further weaken judicial independence.

建議文件末段強調，相關修訂為國安罪行相關規則的實施帶來更大確定性，並不涉及任何新訂的刑事罪行、處罰或執法權力。一如既往，危害國家安全的相關案件，「所有面對刑事指控的人在《基本法》及《香港人權法案條例》的保障下，會繼續享有由有獨立審判權的司法機關進行公平審訊的權利。」

The final section of the proposal stressed that the amendments bring greater certainty to the implementation of rules relating to national security offences and do not involve any newly created criminal offences, punishments, or law-enforcement powers. As always, in cases relating to offences endangering national security, “all persons facing criminal charges, under the protection of the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, will continue to enjoy the right to a fair trial by an independent judicial authority.”

被問到市民認為修訂會「擴大打擊無辜者」等，政府會如何回應和進行教育工作，林定國回應指「不是由政府判斷一個人有無罪」，而是交由法院處理，並指審訊程序有確保被告會得到公平審訊，「不存在透過任何形式的附屬法例企圖將無辜者入罪，這是不可能存在的情況。」 鄧炳強則指教育工作會一直持續，反駁隊亦會繼續「做嘢」。

Asked how the government would respond and carry out public education work when members of the public believe the amendments will “expand the targeting of innocent people” and the like, Lam replied that “it is not for the government to judge whether a person is guilty or innocent,” but for the courts to handle, and said that trial procedures ensure defendants receive a fair trial. “There is no such thing as attempting, through any form of subsidiary legislation, to convict innocent people; that is a situation that cannot possibly exist.” Tang said education work would continue, and the rebuttal team would continue to “get things done.”