To me the points to note would be
1) Claiming books for children are a threat to national security. (By extension, might video games that don’t feature Taiwan as part of China, or China as a “bad actor”, such as People’s General, be a threat to national security?)
2) Claiming that a common law jurisdiction can be consistent with a place where I imagine that writing something like Animal Farm today could put you behind bars.
3) Sentence guidelines are up to 2 years for this offence, and these dangerous criminals have apparently already been detained for 13 months, I think under the no-bail provisions despite not technically being a national security offence, so again they have effectively served their sentence regardless of their “undoubted” guilt. Not sure how consistent with the common law that is. It’s amazing how many rule by law officials have blended in despite their personal sentiments until disguise wasn’t necessary.
4) The casual mention of trial judge/jury and their feelings… as though there were no difference between people pre-screened for their sympathies and those drawn by random lot to arrive at a general interpretation (which was a common law protection).
5) Mindreading, guilt by imputation, and politics - apparently permissible or even integral to criminal cases if so decided by the courts, seems an inescapable interpretation.