Abstract This case note critically examines the jurisprudential significance of HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying 2025 HKCFI 6291, arguing that the Verdict represents a distinct phenomenon as a common law illusion. While ostensibly adhering to orthodox interpretive canons, the Court deploys a result-oriented instrumentalism that utilizes common law methodology to expand state power rather than constrain it. Specifically, the Verdict reveals a stark ‘interpretive asymmetry’, characterized by an oscillation between literalism and contextualism, contingent upon which method better serves national security objectives. This note dissects three key judicial manoeuvres: first, the selective deployment of contextualism to elevate national security above constitutional rights; second, the distortion of interpretive canons to reconstruct the material elements of the offence of collusion with foreign elements; and third, the misapplication of comparative jurisprudence to legitimize the Hong Kong National Security Law’s expansive reach. By severing the nexus between collusion and surreptitious conduct, the Court effectively transmutes public political expression into criminal offence. Ultimately, the decision establishes a precedent that fundamentally alters the landscape of Hong Kong’s legal order, challenging the protective presumptions foundational to the common law tradition.
Celeste Lo (Thu,) studied this question.