Grenville Cross is a Senior Counsel and Honorary Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong, and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. On June 9, he attends the Academic Seminar on “One Country, Two Systems” hosted by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, China, and delivers opening remarks at the seminar.

Following is the full text of Grenville Cross's speech at the scene:

Good morning, Ladies and gentlemen.

I am most grateful to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences for inviting me to attend the Seminar, and to discuss the practical application of the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL) since its enactment in 2020. The NSL has been successfully integrated into the legal system of the Hong Kong SAR, and has enabled it to progress and prosper.

In 2019-20, there was a concerted effort by anti-China forces to wreck the “one country, two systems” governing policy, and destroy Hong Kong’s way of life. The black-clad mobs made no secret of their secessionist objectives, or their contempt for the rule of law. They brought mayhem to the streets, destroyed public facilities, attacked banks and private businesses, terrorized people from other parts of China, fire-bombed the police and their families, and attacked anybody who objected to their depredations. Although the forces of law and order did their utmost to hold the line, they lacked the essential tools the NSL subsequently provided.

Throughout the insurrection, the culprits were encouraged by the West’s China-hostile forces, including the Five Eyes partnership, who portrayed them as freedom fighters and pro-democracy activists. This was nonsensical, as those of us who witnessed their violence at first-hand knew only too well. However, there was method in their madness, and they knew that if they could wreck Hong Kong it would undermine China, such being their ultimate objective. But the enactment of the NSL saved the day, and Hong Kong’s various institutions have all since played their part in getting things back on track. 

With the arrival of laws criminalizing collusion with foreign countries to endanger national security, secession, subversion and terrorist activities, the “one country, two systems” policy is now operating in the way its architects always envisaged. The criminal justice system is also functioning as it should, and the rule of law is once again paramount. However, not everybody is happy.  

When the NSL was enacted, the Five Eyes partners and their proxies reacted with fury. They knew it was the death knell for the insurrection they had supported, albeit in varying degrees (the US took the lead). They tried to harm Hong Kong and its people with sanctions imposed on its officials, trade penalties intended to damage its economy and hostile travel advisories designed to cripple its tourism industry. 

The same people have sought ever since to demonize the NSL. They irresponsibly give the impression it has caused thousands of people to lose their liberty, which could not be further from the truth. Since 2020, the NSL has been applied with great restraint by the police and the prosecuting authorities, with prosecutions only resulting when they are absolutely necessary, as the statistics demonstrate.      

Between July 1, 2020 and May 1, 2025, 185 persons and 5 companies were prosecuted for offences in connection with endangering national security, including under the NSL, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (2024) and the now-repealed sedition offence under the Crimes Ordinance (Cap.200). Of those, approximately 170 persons and 1 company have finished court proceedings, with most defendants convicted. On any objective analysis, these figures are not large, and give the lie to Western propaganda.  

Moreover, the conviction rate of over 95% in national security trials shows that great care is being taken by the police in investigating national security cases. It also demonstrates that prosecutors are only authorizing prosecutions in the most meritorious cases. In Hong Kong, as elsewhere in the common law world, the judges can only convict accused persons if satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction rate testifies to the strength of the cases they have had to try.

As the NSL contains new procedures there were initially concerns over how these could be integrated into Hong Kong’s legal landscape, based as it is on the common law. However, by applying both skill and wisdom, the courts have interpreted the NSL in a way that is logical and understandable, but also realistic. For example, at an early stage the courts made clear they had no power to hold any part of the NSL to be unconstitutional or invalid because of any alleged incompatibility with either the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR or the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (FACC 1/2021). As a national law, the local courts lacked jurisdiction to impugn its provisions, which was logical.  

The courts have also clarified that the question of whether something is “in the interests of national security” is not a legal issue but one involving judgment and policy. In consequence,  as in other common law jurisdictions, the courts should defer to the views of the executive authorities, who are uniquely qualified to make such assessments (HCAL 979/2024). 

In their interpretations of the NSL, the courts have always respected the rights of criminal suspects. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say the NSL is human rights heavy.  Whereas national security legislation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere says little or nothing about the rights of accused persons, the reverse is true in Hong Kong. 

At the outset, the NSL stipulates that “Human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security” (Art.4), and that “The principle of the rule of law shall be adhered to” in national security cases” (Art.5). It also provides that the fair trial guarantees embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be observed, together with the presumption of innocence and the right of defense (Art’s4-5). When they have adjudicated upon NSL prosecutions, the courts have often referred to these protections, as when, for example, they considered the provision which makes it more difficult for a suspect to obtain bail pending trial in a national security case (FACC 1/2021).

Although the NSL introduced a new sentencing regime with tiered penalties for national security offences, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) has rationalized its provisions and accommodated them within existing parameters. Whereas the customary practice in Hong Kong is for the legislature to fix a maximum sentence for an offence and then leave it to the trial courts to decide whether the sentence should be high or low, depending on the aggravating and mitigating factors, the NSL stipulates precise sentencing bands. 

For example, in relation to subversion, a principal offender who commits a grave offence faces 10 years imprisonment to life imprisonment, an active participant faces 3 to 10 years imprisonment, and a minor figure faces up 3 years’ imprisonment. This approach is novel, but the HKCFA has helpfully explained how it should operate. It has also indicated  what the impact of mitigating factors should be on sentence, and the circumstances in which an offender’s culpability can move his situation from one sentencing band to another (FACC 7/2023).

Moreover, in imposing sentences for NSL offences, the trial courts have displayed realism and common sense. Their sentences have served to underline the seriousness with which national security crimes must be viewed.  For example, after 45  anti-China activists were convicted of conspiring to commit subversion by plotting to gain control of the Legislative Council and then using it to paralyze the government and wreck the political system (31 pleaded guilty), they received sentences of imprisonment ranging from 4 years 2 months to 10 years (HCCC 69&70/2022). This sent out the clear message that condign punishment awaits anybody who tries to harm Hong Kong by endangering national security.  

Although invariably severe, the sentences imposed for national security crimes have accorded appropriate weight to mitigating factors wherever possible. The sentences have invariably achieved a correct balance. Whereas the Secretary for Justice enjoys the right to invite the Court of Appeal to increase a sentence if he considers it manifestly inadequate, it is noteworthy he has not had to do so in a single national security case since 2020.   

Another notable feature of the NSL has been its inherent flexibility, which has facilitated its assimilation into the legal system. For example, while it is harder for national security suspects to obtain bail pending trial, they can still be granted bail if there are sufficient grounds for believing further offences endangering national security will not result (Art.42). Although national security prisoners can be denied the customary remission for good behavior of one-third of their sentence, this is not automatic and depends upon a risk assessment by the Committee for Safeguarding National Security (SNSO, s.152). 

Whereas, moreover, jury trials can be dispensed with in favor of 3-judge panels in national security trials in the Court of First Instance, it is not automatic and strict criteria must be satisfied (Art.46). Although the HKSAR Chief Executive has the discretion over whether to approve applications from overseas lawyers to conduct national security cases, there is no blanket ban, and each case is decided on its own merits (NPCSC Interpretation; Art’s 14 and 47). Whereas trials can be held outside Hong Kong in three situations (Art.55), this has not happened once in five years, and the power has always been strictly controlled.

In conclusion, the NSL has performed yeoman service since 2020, and it has done so in ways that are fair, legitimate and respectful of basic rights.  However, national security remains a work in progress, and improvements are sometimes necessary. On May 13, 2025, for example, the HKSAR Government gazetted subsidiary legislation to facilitate the work of the Central Government’s Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong and to address the threats arising in a complicated geopolitical situation. Everybody must remain vigilant, never forgetting that dangers are ever present.

In consequence of the NSL and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, the “one country, two systems” policy is now fully protected and Hong Kong can support national development from a secure base, which everybody should applaud. 

Thank you.

Cover photo: Provided by host