【獨媒報導】47名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」案，共45人罪成。被控方指為組織者的戴耀廷、區諾軒、趙家賢、鍾錦麟及吳政亨5人，今（26日）續求情。代表吳政亨的大律師石書銘表示，吳在本案僅輔助角色，他從未倡否決預算案，亦真誠相信戴耀廷稱否決預算案不違法，屬判監3年以下的「其他參加者」。
石又於庭上讀出吳政亨親撰的英文求情信，吳稱一直堅信自由民主原則，認為社會分歧需通過文明民主方式處理，而公平公正選舉最能有效防止暴政出現。吳一直對民主陣營持續內鬥痛心，認為處理的最佳方法是初選，因此對初選「無限嚮往」，亦立下決心要盡一分力，發起「三投三不投」聯署。吳自言在整個初選中，從頭到尾都是一個「局外人」，故當控方指控他是本案組織者時「我感到非常驚訝」，並強調由始至終「我支持初選從來都僅是為了初選本身」，與承諾否決預算案無關。
5人今完成求情，下周二（7月2日）將處理第二批被告求情，為6名港島初選參與者：袁嘉蔚、梁晃維、鄭達鴻、徐子見、楊雪盈及彭卓棋，料需時2天。
辯方：吳政亨非組織者、從未倡否決預算案
戴耀廷、區諾軒、趙家賢、鍾錦麟今相繼完成陳詞，最後一位求情為吳政亨。代表吳的大律師石書銘指，雖然控方指稱吳為組織者之一，但隨着案中證據披露（transpire），可見吳不僅不是「組織者」，甚至不是「積極參與者」。石指，吳從一開始就是自行發起「三投三不投」計劃，過程中除了戴耀廷外沒有與其他被告溝通，其角色僅屬輔助（auxillary）。
吳政亨
石又指，與其他被告不同，吳從未提倡否決預算案，其關注點從來在於初選及爭取35+，甚至曾於電郵表示拒絕將否決預算案納入「三投三不投」；即使法庭裁定戴耀廷曾與吳政亨溝通，判刑時亦不能假設二人討論的深入程度。
法官李運騰指，吳政亨至少對涉案串謀知情，石同意，但重申不能確定他的參與程度。法官陳慶偉即指，吳政亨曾花大量金錢在《蘋果日報》登頭版廣告宣傳初選，法官李運騰亦指，吳是望確保「35+」成功。石回應，15萬元廣告費算合理，而且當時社會熱切討論否決預算案，但吳的廣告只是呼籲投票予支持初選的候選人，吳的關注點仍是在初選，並止於希望35+成功，而非進一步無差別否決預算案。
吳求情信：堅信自由民主原則、權力互相制衡
石書銘續讀出吳的求情信英文版本，當中吳稱自13歲隨家人移民至澳洲，先後於當地的新南威爾斯大學獲得理學學士（主修數學）及商學碩士（主修精算）學位，並自言：「於成長過程中，我不算太熱衷政治」，但是他一直堅信自由民主原則，亦確信權力互相制衡的社會價值。
吳認為，需要通過文明及民主方式去處理社會內部的分歧，由於「權力使人腐敗，絕對權力則使人絕對腐敗」，他相信定期舉行公平公正的選舉，最能有效制衡權力，減少權力成為暴政的可能性，所以他支持香港的民主運動。
吳：香港選舉制度對民主派不利 需妥善處理內部矛盾
吳指，如民主派能在特首選舉獲勝，配合取得立法會過半數議席，就可以組建一個真正的執政聯盟，取得管治權。可是民主派面對巨大的障礙，因香港的選舉制度對民主派極為不利，導致他們過去未能憑藉選票優勢，贏得上述兩場選舉。
吳又指，一直為民主陣營內的持續鬥爭痛心，認為須妥善處理民主派的內部矛盾，而最佳方法是通過文明而民主的程序去解決，亦即是通過民主派的內部初選，因此他對初選產生「無限嚮往」，亦立下決心，「必須為實現這夢想盡一分力。」
吳自言「無名氏」 對控方指控為組織者感驚訝
吳表示，儘管他「在政圈內是一個完完全全的無名氏」，但是他相信自己有權利和義務去為初選出一分力，因此發起「三投三不投」聯署。吳自言：「在整個初選過程中，從頭到尾我都是一個局外人」，包括沒有參與組織「35+計劃」、 沒有參與協調會議，亦沒有在初選中參選。「因此，當控方指控我是本案的組織者之一時，我感到非常驚訝。」
吳表示，由始至終，他支持初選，與承諾否決財政預算案與否並無關係，「我支持初選從來都僅是為了初選本身，與其他事宜無關」。他最後稱：「我相信法治是自由民主制度不可或缺的一部份，只有當合理的法例被制定，而這些法例被尊重和公正地執行，一個社會才有繁榮的希望。」（求情信英文全文及中文翻譯見文末）
辯方：不能怪責吳政亨信戴耀廷稱初選合法
石書銘續表示，從吳政亨的公開發言和電郵，他只是「局外人」，因其個人想法而發起「三投三不投」和推動初選，並像很多同案被告一樣，依賴戴耀廷指初選和否決財案不違法的分析，愚蠢地沒有意識到《國安法》的嚴重性。
石續指，《國安法》是非常新的罪行，有人對此或持保守立場，有人則較有希望，「但我們當時都是在嘗試在黑暗中找到出路，包括吳政亨。」他又指，法律意見可能是錯誤，吳政亨亦要為此承受責任，但不能怪責吳政亨或其他被告，當時相信一名顯然具資格提供意見的人，正如律師不能怪責當事人依賴自己取得最終可能錯誤的法律意見。
法官李運騰指，無論如何，吳政亨冒了犯法的風險，便須承擔後果，石同意，指因此吳坐在法官席前候判，只是希望法庭寬大處理。
辯方：吳政亨為「其他參加者」
石續指，望法庭考慮吳真誠誤信謀劃為合法而作出減刑，並指吳在刑期三級制下屬「其他參加者」。石又引顛覆罪的條文，列明顛覆行為包括推翻中國根本制度、推翻中央或香港特區政權機關等，認為相關行為才算「罪行重大」，而本案則涉非暴力手段。法官陳仲衡一度指，非暴力手段可以比暴力手段更有效，惟石認為也要考慮後果，本案所涉嚴重干擾、阻撓、破壞政權機關履行職能的行為，或不涉人命傷亡。
石總結，吳雖對涉案串謀知情，但沒有參與協調會議或實際參與組織謀劃，亦沒有參選，更不會投票否決預算案，望法庭裁定他最多只是「其他參加者」。
根據《國安法》第22條，一旦顛覆國家政權罪成，「首要分子或罪行重大」可判處10年以上至終身監禁；「積極參加者」可判監3至10年；「其他參加者」則判監3年以下、拘役或者管制。
案件編號：HCCC69-70/2022
吳政亨求情信英文全文：
Throughout the trial I was referred to as D5 and also my alias Lee Bak Loh. I wish to tell the Court who I am, what brought me into this arena of civil and political participation.
I was born in Hong Kong in the year 1978, and migrated to Australia with my parents at the age of 13. While I was there, I graduated with the Bachelor of Science (majoring in Mathematics) and the Master of Commerce (majoring in Actuarial Studies) degrees, both from the University of New South Wales (UNSW). After graduation, I entered the financial industry. I worked in the industry, first in Australia and later in Hong Kong, for more than a decade. At no point in my life did I have affiliation with any political parties, nor did I run in any elections. I have no previous criminal records.
Growing up, I was never too engaged in the world of politics, as I rarely had strong opinions regarding the specifics of policies one way or another. However, I have always strongly believed in the principles of liberal democracy, and the values of checks and balances in a society. Because in any community, there will always be differences in opinions among its members, and that these differences often need to be resolved before the said community can florish. It is much preferable if these differences were resolved through civilised and democratic means, rather than through violence or oppressions. Also, because “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, I believe that the holding of fair and regular elections provides the best counter balance against a power potentially becoming tyrannical.
It is for these reasons that I support the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, as I believe their cause of striving for democracy a noble one, and also a sensible one for the continued development of this city.
It was obvious to me that if the pro-democracy camp could obtain a majority in the LegCo and achieved a peaceful transfer of legislative power, it would be a huge step forward for the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. This would mean that for any ordinary government bill, after examining its contents, the pro-democracy camp could choose to accept or reject it as they saw fit. This in itself would be an awesome power that they never possessed in the HKSAR’s history. If the pro-democracy camp could manage to win the Chief Executive Election as well alongside a majority in the LegCo, they could then secure a true governing coalition, and this could change the democratic landscape in Hong Kong for good, and I believe for the better.
Although clearly, there were huge obstacles to overcome before the pro-democracy camp could win either of these two elections. For one, the Hong Kong electoral system significantly disadvantaged the pro-democracy camp, and this was obviously the main reason why they could not translate their dominance in the popular votes into winning either of these two elections in the past. Yet, I thought the pro-democracy camp as a whole shouldered part of the blame as well. For too long, I had been dismayed at the continuous infighting within the pro-democracy camp, which contributed to their repeated underperformances in the elections. For the movement to proceed forward, these internal differences needed to be resolved.
As I explained earlier, I thought the best way to resolve such differences would be through a civilised and democratic process, and this meant a primary election within the pro-democracy camp. Once the internal differences were suitably dealt with, and unity was achieved, I thought much was possible afterwards.
It was through this reasoning that I developed a passion for such a primary election. It was also clear to me that such primary election for the LegCo General Election would be very difficult to bring to fruition, evidenced by the fact that such primary election had never been successfully held in Hong Kong before the material time. I endeavoured to do my utmost to help make this pipedream into a reality.
There was, however, a glaring problem in my quest: I was a nobody in the political world. I had absolutely no name recognition among the public, nor among the political operators. This was made obvious by the fact that none of my co-defendants who gave evidence in Court knew who I was when asked. It was highly unlikely that I could make much of an impact in my endeavour. Yet, part of the beauty about democracy is that, in an election, no matter what a person’s status is, the person’s vote still counts as one vote, no more, no less. It is the voter’s right and possibly even the voter’s duty, to contribute a vote towards the total vote count, no matter how limited that contribution might be. Similarly, even though I was a complete outsider to the political world, I considered it my right, and possibly even my duty, to do something to increase the chance of a successful primary election, even if my contribution were going to be infinitesimal. It was with this mindset, that I launched the “Say No to Primary Dodgers” Campaign.
Throughout the whole process, I remained an outsider. As the Court had judged and I agreed, I did not take part in the organisation of this “Project 35+”, or any of the coordination meetings, and that I was not a candidate. That’s why I was so surprised when the prosecution accused me of being one of the organisers in this case. My relationship with D1 Prof. Benny Tai was actually more akin to the one that a lobbying group had with a policy maker, in which the lobbying effort was largely ignored. One of my main advocacies was for the participants to treat the Primary Election’s results as final, eg, since they could only realistically target three seats in the Kowloon East Constituency, in my opinion, they should allow only three primary victors there. Instead, the organisers insisted on allowing five victors in the said constituency, and planned to have a second race based on opinion polls right before the General Election. This, in my opinion, would defeat the whole purpose of having a primary election in the first place. I made repeated protestations about this to the organisers and the candidates (including the public letter forwarded by D1 to the candidates on the 20th May 2020), yet I was unable to change anything on that front.
It is important to note that among my advocacies, asking the candidates to promise to veto the Budget was never one of them. In fact, such notion never entered my mind until it became an issue in the public sphere, and it was most definitely not my original reason for supporting a primary election and launching my Campaign.
As I have explained earlier, I considered the benefits of the pro-democracy camp achieving a majority in the LegCo quite obvious by itself, so I never thought this additional condition was necessary, nor did I think it was even desirable to a certain extent. Since I feared that this issue would be a potentially divisive one among the pro-democracy candidates, and one that could threaten the success of a primary election being held. While I expressed delight when I thought that the candidates had reached a consensus, I explicitly stated that the exact wordings of the consensus didn’t matter. Because what delighted me was the fact that they managed to reach a consensus, which allowed a primary to go ahead, rather than the contents of the consensus themselves. It was also why, when later on I realised that some candidates had refused to sign a promise to veto the Budget, contradicting a previous claim that all of them would sign such promise, I urged people to put that issue aside and to focus on completing the primary first. Because all along, my support for a primary election never hinged on whether it was attached with a promise to veto the Budget or not. My support for a primary election had always been for itself, and itself only.
Last but not least, it should be noted that I had done my utmost to ensure my Campaign complied with the laws, whether they be the Election (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance, or any others. I believe that the rule of law is an essential part of any liberal democracy. It is only when reasonable laws are enacted, and that these laws are respected and justly enforced, that a society can hope to prosper.
I urge the Court to consider the aforementioned factors when determining my sentencing.
求情信中文翻譯全文（轉載自吳政亨（李伯盧）關注組）：
在整個審訊中，我被稱為第五被告或李伯盧(我的筆名)。我希望告訴法庭我的個人背景，以及我如何踏進公民和政治運動這個領域。
我於1978年在香港出生，13歲時隨父母移民澳洲。我在當地的新南威爾斯大學(UNSW)獲得理學學士（主修數學）及商學碩士（主修精算）學位。畢業後，我投身金融行業，並先後在澳洲及香港金融機構工作超過十年。我一生中從未與任何政黨有政治聯繫，亦從未於任何選舉參與競選。我以前没有任何案底。
於成長過程中，我不算太熱衷政治，因為我對政策的細節很少持強烈意見。然而，我一直堅信自由民主原則，亦確信權力互相制衡的社會價值，因為無論在任何體制中，成員總會在某些議題上持不同意見，而通常需要先處理這些分歧，才能使該群體得以蓬勃發展。
我認為，通過文明及民主方式去處理這些分歧，總好過以暴力或鎮壓手段去解決。而由於「權力使人腐敗，絕對權力則使人絕對腐敗」，我相信定期舉行公平公正的選舉，最能有效制衡權力，減少權力成為暴政的可能性。正因如此，我支持香港的民主運動，因我相信他們對民主的追求是一個高尚目標，同時，為著這城市的持續發展，它(對民主的追求)亦是一個理性的目標。
對我而言，明顯地，若然民主陣營能夠在立法會選舉中取得過半議席，並實現立法權力的和平轉移，這將會是香港民主運動的一大進步。這意味在任何一般政府議案上，民主陣營在審查其內容後，可以按他們的判斷選擇通過或否決該議案。這是民主陣營在香港特別行政區史上，從未擁有過的重大權力。如果民主陣營能在行政長官選舉上同時獲勝，配合立法會內的過半議席，就可以組建一個真正的執政聯盟，取得管治權。這將對香港的民主格局產生永久性影響，我亦相信這將會是正面的影響。
然而，在民主陣營能夠贏得兩項選舉其中任何一項之前，顯然還有巨大的障礙需要克服。
首先，香港的選舉制度對民主陣營極為不利，這絕對是民主陣營過去未能憑藉選票優勢，贏得這兩場選舉的最主要原因。但我認為民主陣營總體來說，亦需為他們的落敗承擔某程度上的責任。
在過去一段太長的時間，我都一直為民主陣營內的持續內鬥痛心，這內鬥一直令民主陣營在選舉上，屢屢無法發揮最佳表現。而為了香港民主運動的前景，這些內部矛盾必須妥善處理。
如前所述，我認為處理這內部矛盾的最佳方法是通過文明而民主的程序去解決，亦即是通過民主陣營的內部初選。當這些內部矛盾得到妥善處理，而民主陣營內一眾人士能齊心向前，我認為再困難的目標都有達成的可能。
基於這個心路歷程，我對以上所形容的初選產生無限嚮往。但我亦明白，針對立法會大選的全民主陣營初選極難實行，觀乎在案發之前，此類初選從未能成功舉辦過，它的難度由此可見一斑。於是我立下決心，必須為實現這夢想盡一分力。
然而，即使我希望出一分力，也要面對一個明顯的障礙—我在政圈內是一個完完全全的無名氏。無論在公眾層面、政圈中人眼中，我都沒有任何知名度。從本案所有上庭作供的同案被告作證時，被問及有關本人的事情，都表示在案發時不認識我，這明顯地證明了上述說法。
以我的身份，對於在實現初選的過程中，能夠產生任何實質影響力的機會極微。不過，民主的其中一個可敬之處，就是在選舉中，無論投票者的身位地位如何，那一票都是算作一票，不多也不少。即使每一票的實質影響力有限，每一個選民都有權利，甚或可能是有義務，去貢獻這神聖一票。同樣地，儘管我在政治世界中完全是局外人，可以做到的是多麼的微不足道，我相信我有權利，甚至可能是我有義務，去為初選出一分力。
而我正正是抱着如此信念去發起「三投三不投」聯署。
在整個初選過程中，從頭到尾我都是一個局外人。正如法庭判詞所指、而我亦同意，我沒有參予組織「35+計劃」、 沒有參予協調會議，亦沒有在初選中參選。因此，當控方指控我是本案的組織者之一時，我感到非常驚訝。
我與第一被告戴耀庭教授的關係，實際上更像一個被無視的遊說團體與決策組織的關係。我其中一個主要倡議是「應將初選結果視為最終結果」。以九龍東選區為例，由於民主陣營在大選時，實際上最多只可望獲得三席，因此我認為初選時該區只應有三個優勝名單。可是，組織者堅持允許該選區有五個優勝名單, 並計劃在大選前再以民調作第二輪競賽。對我而言，這做法與初選的意義背道而馳，我為此多次向組織者及參選人提出抗議（包括第一被告於2020年5月 20日向參選人轉發的公開信），但我無法在此帶出任何改變。
值得注意的是，在我的倡議中，要求參選人承諾否決財政預案從來都不是其中之一。說實在，在這成為公眾議題之前，我根本從來沒有這個想法，這亦絕對不是我當初支持初選及發起聯署的原因。
正如前文所說，我認為民主陣營獲得立去會過半議席，本身已是足夠明顯的好處，所以我從沒有想過需要更多額外條件。在某程度上，我甚至不認為這額外條件可取。因為我害怕這議題可能會在民主陣營參選人當中引發爭議，從而威脅到初選的實現。
當我認為參選人同意「共同綱領」時，我表示高興，但亦有明確表明我認為「協調成功」四字已是大快人心，根本無需看細節。因為令我高興的是參選人終於達到共識，令初選能夠順利舉行，而不是共識的內容本身。這亦解釋了當我之後得知「某些初選參選人拒絕簽署承諾否決財政預算案」，發現與之前「所有參選人都願意簽署」這一說法有所出入時，我懇求大家將這爭議放一旁，希望大家先聚焦於完成初選。
因為由始至終，我支持初選從來無關承諾否決財政預算案與否—我支持初選從來都僅是為了初選本身，與其他事宜無關。
最後值得留意的是，我一直盡我所能去確保「三投三不投」團隊遵守所有法律，無論是《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》、 《預防及控制疾病條例》或其他任何法律。我相信法治是自由民主制度不可或缺的一部份。只有當合理的法例被制定，而這些法例被尊重和公正地執行，一個社會才有繁榮的希望。
我懇求法庭於決定本人刑期時考慮以上所述因素。
求情第2日
戴耀廷一方指戴真誠誤信否決財案不違法 非為私利、而是畢生對法治民主堅定決心
辯方倡3從犯證人減刑50%至66% 一度指趙家賢為「超級金手指」 官不同意
吳政亨親撰求情信 稱堅信自由民主、信公平選舉防暴政 支持初選從來無關否決預算案
求情第1日
戴耀廷21個月以來首公開露面 控方指組織者不屬「首要分子」有違常理
辯方指戴耀廷國安法後角色有限 建議以3年為量刑起點 官：有點大膽