Last week, 14 opposition figures were found guilty of conspiracy to subvert state power in a landmark case. Two were acquitted and another 31 pleaded guilty. They face sentences of up to life imprisonment.

The mass arrests, in January 2021, followed Beijing’s passing of a national security law the previous year, in response to months of civil unrest.

At a stroke, the government’s opposition was effectively removed, signalling a seismic shift in the city’s politics and paving the way for reforms to limit political influence to “patriots”.

The chain of events that has left many of the camp’s members facing years in jail is a tragedy, whoever you choose to blame.

Many of the former lawmakers, district councillors and activists awaiting sentence had devoted themselves to years of public service.

The case must be viewed in the context of the extraordinary times that engulfed Hong Kong, beginning with months of often-violent anti-government protests in 2019.

Opposition figures, backing the cause of the demonstrators, won a landslide in District Council elections that year. Riding the wave, they hoped to secure a majority in the Legislative Council.

Preparations began for an unofficial “primary” poll to select candidates. But by the time of the vote, in July 2020, the new national security law was in force. And that was not all.

Candidates in the “primary” had been encouraged to commit to a plan which would have seen them indiscriminately veto the budget if elected in sufficient numbers. The idea was to paralyse the government, force the chief executive to resign and spark a constitutional crisis.

The architect of the scheme, legal academic Benny Tai Yiu-ting, described it as a “lethal constitutional weapon”.

Concerns were raised this might breach the subversion offence created by the new law. It prohibited acts intended to subvert the state by seriously disrupting the “body of power in Hong Kong”.

Candidates in the “primary” risked crossing a red line. But the law had only just been passed and there were doubts about what was permitted.

The subversion offence required the use of “unlawful means”. This was a critical issue in the trial. The opposition’s scheme did not involve force or threats of violence and didn’t appear to amount to a crime, outside the national security law itself.

But the judges adopted a broad interpretation of the term. They ruled those involved met the “unlawful means” test by intending to abuse their duties as lawmakers, blindly voting down the budget in breach of the Basic Law.

The opposition figures continued with their scheme when the political winds were changing and new legal risks emerged. But it is doubtful many of them imagined they would end up facing long prison terms.

A fresh war of words between Western governments and Beijing followed the verdicts. The US is threatening fresh sanctions against officials. Such a step will not help Hong Kong.

Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung, in defending the case, described it as “a very sad story” with no winners. He is right about that.

Hong Kong is seeking to step up its engagement with the rest of the world and to present itself as a vibrant, free and open city. It needs to move on from the events of 2019.

Candles will still be lit on June 4, mostly in private, as people remember, reflect and hope for happier times in the future.