Autistic Teenager Given Probation for Sedition: Individualised Sentencing and Rehabilitation in a National Security Case

An 18-year-old man with autism was convicted of sedition after writing phrases including “光時”—an abbreviation associated with the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times”—inside a male restroom at the China Hong Kong City office complex in Tsim Sha Tsui. He had also pleaded guilty before trial to three counts of criminal damage.

The West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts ultimately sentenced him to 18 months’ probation and ordered him to pay HK$1,500 in compensation to China Hong Kong City. According to reports, this was the first case under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance in which a person convicted of sedition received a non-custodial sentence.

Background of the Case

The prosecution’s case was that the defendant wrote the relevant phrases inside a male restroom at China Hong Kong City in July of the year concerned. Following trial, the court found that his conduct constituted the offence of sedition. He also admitted that the same conduct amounted to three counts of criminal damage.

In mitigation, the defence submitted that the defendant had learned a profound lesson and that his risk of reoffending was extremely low. He wished to continue his education. As the only child in his family, he also hoped to care for his father, who had significant health concerns.

A psychiatric report stated that the defendant had autism and limited social skills. Although he did not require hospitalisation, he was advised to continue attending follow-up appointments with a private psychiatrist. A psychological report further noted that he had been bullied during primary school, causing him to experience anxiety and psychological distress when entering toilet cubicles. Continued counselling was therefore recommended.

Seriousness of the Offence and Its Actual Impact

In sentencing, Chief Magistrate So Wai-tak observed that the words in question involved content capable of causing harm to others and carried a risk that others might act upon the message. The case therefore could not be treated merely as criminal damage or ordinary graffiti.

Nevertheless, the court also considered that the restroom was primarily used by commercial tenants and that only a limited number of people would have encountered the words. Their capacity for dissemination was substantially lower than that of content posted online or on social media. The words were also removed within a short period, meaning that their actual impact and reach were limited.

The court found that the method used was unsophisticated and that the conduct contained an element of emotional release. The circumstances were not among the most serious examples of this type of offence. Although the defendant had crossed the boundaries of the law, his culpability still had to be assessed by reference to the particular method used, the extent of dissemination and the actual consequences.

The Role of Autism and Personal Circumstances in Sentencing

Autism does not, by itself, provide a defence to criminal liability. However, a defendant’s psychiatric and psychological condition may be relevant at sentencing when the court assesses moral culpability, the risk of reoffending and the need for rehabilitation.

In this case, the court accepted that the defendant displayed no antisocial tendencies and that the incident was an isolated act rather than part of an organised or continuing effort to disseminate seditious messages. The court also considered that the defendant was only 12 years old during the social unrest of 2019 and that his views might have been influenced by false or misleading information encountered online.

The magistrate concluded that imprisonment would deal a severe blow to the efforts the defendant had made over many years in his education and personal development. It might also reduce his prospects of reintegrating into society. By contrast, with proper supervision, psychiatric follow-up and psychological counselling, he retained a good prospect of correcting his misconceptions and avoiding further offending.

The Principle of Individualised Sentencing

Sedition concerns national security and public order. In imposing sentence, a court must therefore adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. This case nevertheless demonstrates that, even where a national security-related offence is involved, the principle of individualised sentencing continues to require an assessment of the particular circumstances.

Relevant considerations included the method of offending, the extent of dissemination, the actual impact of the conduct, the defendant’s age and mental condition, his risk of reoffending and his prospects of rehabilitation.

A probation order is not equivalent to an unconditional discharge. During the 18-month probation period, the defendant must remain under the supervision of a probation officer, comply with the applicable conditions and attend follow-up treatment and counselling as professionally recommended. If he breaches the terms of probation, the court may bring him back and resentence him.

Legal Significance of the Decision

The significance of the case lies in the court’s decision not to impose immediate imprisonment merely because the charge concerned national security. While recognising the seriousness of the offence, the court conducted a detailed assessment of the defendant’s personal culpability and prospects of rehabilitation.

The outcome was, however, based on a combination of exceptional circumstances. These included the defendant’s young age, autism, the isolated nature of the incident, the limited reach of the words, their prompt removal, the absence of antisocial tendencies and professional assessments indicating that he was suitable for counselling and supervision in the community.

The case should therefore not be interpreted as establishing that sedition offences will ordinarily be dealt with by way of probation. Rather, it demonstrates that a non-custodial sentence may remain available in highly exceptional circumstances.

In passing sentence, the magistrate reminded the defendant that the conviction was a major setback but did not define his future, and urged him to abide by the law. Those remarks reflect the principle that criminal justice serves not only the purposes of punishment and deterrence, but also rehabilitation and the successful reintegration of offenders into society.

Case No.: WKCC 3238/2025

August 2026

Dr. Anthony Lai and Mr. Herbert Kwoon