The 14 convicted on Thursday will be sentenced at a later date along with 31 others who have already pleaded guilty – some of them having turned witness for the prosecution – following mitigation hearings set to begin on June 25.

Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu said the verdict was testament to the scale and gravity of the case as he expressed the government’s determination to combat any act that would endanger national security.

“In this regard, the Hong Kong government has the necessary laws, which it will strictly enforce. The government will use its full efforts to prevent, suppress and punish behaviours and activities that endanger national security,” he said.

More than 1,180 days after the case was first brought to trial, police were out in force for Thursday’s verdict and the court was packed with spectators including diplomats and representatives of Western governments which have been highly critical of the national security law.

Among those who had already pleaded guilty earlier were activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung and former Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai, who appeared in court to watch a live broadcast of the proceedings.

Activists from opposition group the League of Social Democrats tried to stage a protest against the “false imprisonment” of the 47 but were intercepted by police before they could get near the court building. Police later confirmed five members of the group had been arrested for disorderly conduct in public.

Some of Hong Kong’s most prominent opposition figures were among those convicted on Thursday, including former lawmakers Helena Wong Pik-wan, Lam Cheuk-ting, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen and “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.

Former district councillors Tat Cheng Tat-hung, Clarisse Yeung Suet-ying, Michael Pang Cheuk-kei, Kalvin Ho Kai-ming, Sze Tak-loy and Ricky Or Yiu-lam were also found guilty, along with activists Owen Chow Ka-shing, Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam, Winnie Yu Wai-ming and Gordon Ng Ching-hang, who had promoted the so-called primary without joining as candidates.

The two who were acquitted had their bail conditions extended, including a ban from leaving Hong Kong, after public prosecutions director Maggie Yang Mei-kei invoked a new legal rule that allowed the imposition of bail conditions in acquittal cases.

The court granted the prosecution’s request but rejected a last-minute bid for temporary release by Michael Pang. He was remanded in custody alongside seven others who had been previously granted temporary release until Thursday’s verdict.

In a 318-page written ruling, the three-judge panel drew particular reference to the wider plot led by Benny Tai, the former law professor already behind bars and a key figure among those who pleaded guilty earlier in this case.

The judges found that Tai’s conspiracy, if successful, would have seriously interfered with, disrupted or undermined the government’s functioning due to the substantial harm to the “power and authority of the government and the chief executive”.

The court noted that if the opposition camp had succeeded in securing control of the Legislative Council and indiscriminately vetoed the government’s financial blueprints according to plan, the city’s leader would have no choice but to resign, because any application for provisional funding would be similarly blocked and the implementation of new government policies seriously hampered.

The judges, who heard the case at West Kowloon Court, dismissed the defence contention that the exercise of a lawmaker’s constitutional duty was always covered by parliamentary privilege.

“Indiscriminate vetoing of the budgets or public expenditure introduced by the government to compel the government to respond to the five demands [of protesters during the 2019 unrest] had all along been an act in violation of upholding the Basic Law, not to say if such acts were accompanied with a view to seriously undermining the power and authority of the government or the chief executive,” they wrote.

The court stressed that a deliberate refusal by the majority of legislators to examine the merits of government budgets constituted a clear breach of their duty to safeguard national security and uphold the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

The conspiracy to block budgets and compel authorities to accede to a specific political agenda would violate articles 73 and 104 of the Basic Law, which required the legislature to “examine and approve” government spending blueprints and for public servants to abide by their oath of office, the judges ruled.

The court also attached importance to remarks made by a senior mainland Chinese official in 2020 that “anti-China forces” had sought to paralyse the legislature and create “legislative and administrative means” to interfere with the government.

Separately, the three-judge panel snubbed a defence interpretation that any “unlawful means” adopted to commit a subversive act must involve violence, ruling instead that non-violent acts such as the promotion of Hong Kong independence and desecration of the national flag could also undermine national security. One could be found guilty of subverting state power without the use of force, criminal means or even awareness that the means being adopted were unlawful.

A key factor in the court’s determination of guilt was whether the defendants had promised to comply with Tai’s plot by endorsing an online declaration titled “Resolute Resistance, Inked without Regret”.

The judges said the declaration represented the basis for cooperation among the election candidates from different opposition parties and constituted the “highest common factor across the spectrum of the resistance camp”.

The court further held that all participants “knew perfectly well” the goals of the so-called primary when they signed a nomination form confirming their agreement in and support of the “consensus” reached in a series of coordination meetings led by Tai before the unofficial polling exercise.

The candidates had to pay a deposit which would not be refunded if they opposed the consensus, the judges noted.

The panel ruled that all participants became parties to the subversion plot after being made aware of lawmakers’ veto power and the purpose behind it.

But the court was unable to ascertain whether Lawrence Lau had agreed to be part of the conspiracy, as the judges highlighted his avoidance of social media, which was the main channel of communication among participants in the “primary”, and the lack of evidence he had openly advocated indiscriminate vetoing of government budgets.

The court also found Lee Yue-shun, who was with the now-defunct Civic Party at the time, might not have been aware of his party’s endorsement of the online declaration as he was late to join its campaign in the “primary”.

Security chief Chris Tang Ping-keung described the case as “a very sad story” in which there were no winners.

He applauded the Department of Justice, judiciary and law enforcement for conducting their duties despite “smearing” by “external forces”, a reference to criticism from foreign governments and activist groups.

In Beijing, foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning also weighed in, saying nobody would be allowed to violate the law in the name of democracy.

In contrast, Thursday’s verdict triggered a fresh round of condemnation from the West, with a European Union spokesman saying the conviction of opposition members “marks a further deterioration of fundamental freedoms and democratic participation in Hong Kong”.

He described the prosecution as being “politically motivated” and said the defendants faced criminal sanctions for “peaceful political activity that should be legitimate in any political system that respects basic democratic principles”.

The US consulate was “gravely concerned” over the court ruling, a spokesman said, alleging that the defendants had been prosecuted and jailed for “peacefully participating in normal political activities”.

The Australian consulate said it was “deeply concerned” as well, noting that Gordon Ng, one of those convicted on Thursday, was an Australian national.