Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and three companies of Apple Daily were charged with conspiracy to collude with foreign forces. The trial entered its 10th day today (January 16) at the West Kowloon Court (provisional High Court). The defense disputed that the two expert witness reports by Wang Guiguo, an expert witness for the prosecution and a law professor at City University of Hong Kong, are not relevant to the discussion of whether Jimmy Lai’s conduct led to the eventual imposition of sanctions by foreign countries, challenging the admissibility of the witness reports. After consideration, three judges ruled that Wang’s witness reports were relevant and could be presented in court. The case has been adjourned to tomorrow and former president Cheung Kim-hung will be summoned to testify, which is expected to take at least a week.

Judges Esther Toh, Alex Lee, and Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios stated in their judgment that the prosecution and defense did not dispute the prosecution’s expert witness Wang Guiguo’s qualifications in US law. The prosecution will use the reports to confirm the US sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials and explain the time limit and legal consequences of the sanctions, etc.The defense disputed that the expert’s reports have nothing to do with the elements of two counts of conspiracy and collusion. The judge pointed out that the prosecution did not need to prove whether the foreign countries actually imposed “sanctions”, and if they did, it would provide circumstantial support for the crime of conspiracy.

The judgment continued that the court has no judicial function to explore the reasons behind the sanctions and does not intend to do so. As the prosecution argued, foreign law “the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” was considered an area requiring expert testimony, and Wang’s testimony could help the court determine whether the U.S. measures amounted to seeking sanctions. The judge reiterated that allowing Wang’s expert reports to be presented to court does not mean accepting Wang’s evidence. If the evidence is not helpful to the court, it will ultimately not be accepted.

Defense barrister Steven Kwan argued during his speech that the expert reports failed to prove the causal relationship between the defendant’s behavior and the imposition of sanctions, and did not reflect Lai’s mentality as the prosecution alleged. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang responded that the defendant’s communication records and the “Apple Daily” articles repeatedly mentioned foreign sanctions laws. The reports can help the court understand the background and consequences of the sanctions, but it will not rely on the reports to prove that the defendant’s actions directly caused the sanctions. Furthermore, the prosecution does not need to prove there is a causal relationship.

The Witness: The 10th day of Jimmy Lai’s trial | Judges approved expert reports to be presented in court. The prosecution will summon Cheung Kim-hung to testify on Wednesday

Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and three companies related to Apple Daily were charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other crimes. The case entered its 10th day on Tuesday (January 16) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (Provisional High Court) trial. The defense argued that expert reports have no connection with the elements of the two national security crimes. The prosecution’s expert witness has not seen the defendant’s communication records, and his report only mentions sanctions taken by foreign countries. The prosecution said that it does not need to prove that the defendant’s behavior ultimately led to foreign sanctions.

The judges issued their verdict (on the admissibility of expert reports) immediately and approved the submission of two expert reports to the court. They believed that the testimony of expert witness Wang Guiguo would help the court understand the United States’ actions against the central government and the Hong Kong government, and also help the court understand whether the relevant actions constituted the sanctions or blockade, or other hostile activities mentioned in the “national security law”. The case will resume on Wednesday (January 17), and the prosecution’s “accomplice witness” Cheung Kim-hung will be called. The prosecution expects that the main examination will take a week. Senior counsel Robert Pang of the defense, who earlier applied for absence from the hearing due to private matters, is expected to participate in the hearing next Monday (January 22).

The defense objected the submission of part of the testimony on the consequences of sanctions 

The case was heard by Esther Toh, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee, judges designated by the National Security Law of the High Court. The prosecution was represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior public prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum; Jimmy Lai was represented by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, Barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

It was revealed earlier in court that the prosecution’s expert witness Wang Guiguo, a professor at CityU’s School of Law, will testify on the legal effects of the sanctions. The defense disputed that the expert testimony has no relevance to the elements of the two national security charges. Barrister Steven Kwan pointed out that the expert testimony only mentioned the sanctions and legal impacts taken by foreign countries, and failed to prove the defendant’s state of mind.

Steven Kwan also pointed out that there is no causal relationship between the defendant’s request for sanctions and the sanctions taken by foreign countries. For example, he pointed out that the United States’ Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act came into effect as early as November 2019, that is, before the national security charges in this case. He also added that the prosecution’s expert witness did not see the defendant’s communication records. Judge Alex Lee interrupted Kwan, saying that there is no need for expert witnesses to review relevant records. The court will decide whether the conduct involved in the case is a “sanction” under the National Security Law.

Judge Esther Toh also pointed out that the expert witness does not need to explain the content of the defendant’s request for sanctions, and described his testimony as not “biblical” and does not need to be accepted in its entirety. The court will evaluate whether to accept his testimony. Steven Kwan reiterated his opposition to the presentation of some parts of the reports related to the consequences of sanctions.

Finally, Steven Kwan quoted the conclusion of the expert report that says the US’s “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” will seriously affect the stability of Hong Kong as an international financial center, and reiterated that the legal consequences of related actions have nothing to do with this case.

Prosecution: No need to prove defendant’s behavior eventually led to foreign countries imposing sanctions

Prosecutor Anthony Chow said that according to Article 29 of the National Security Law, the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant’s behavior ultimately led to foreign sanctions. He said that the prosecution will not rely on the testimony of expert witnesses to prove that there is a causal relationship between the two. But he also emphasized that the prosecution’s position does not mean that the two are not related, and it also needs to hear the testimony of other witnesses.

Chaow continued that according to the defendant’s communication records, Twitter content, and other “Apple Daily” publications, the U.S. ‘s “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” was extensively mentioned. Expert testimony can assist the court in understanding the legislative background and consequences of the sanctions.

Ruling: Wang Guiguo’s testimony on the US actions is admissible in court

The judges issued the verdict immediately. The judgment includes the defense’s stance that argues expert reports had nothing to do with the charging elements of the national security crime, and the fact that neither the prosecution nor the defense disputed Wang’s qualifications as an expert in American law. The prosecution also confirmed that it would not rely on Wang’s testimony against countries other than the United States. The judgment mentioned that Wang’s two reports were written on November 17, 2022 and November 15, 2023 respectively. The contents explained the US sanctions against central government and Hong Kong government officials, and explained their legal effects and timeliness.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the court ruled that Wang Guiguo’s testimony about the United States’ actions could be presented in court. The verdict mentioned that the elements of the national security crime involve the defendants conspiring to request foreign sanctions, and therefore the prosecution does not need to prove that there are actual sanctions.

Judgment: a foreign country has no right to interfere with the way in which Hong Kong strives to preserve its core values

In addition, according to previous rulings, the court will consider international mutual respect (comity) and will not make judgments on the internal affairs of other countries. The defense argued in this case that the court had no jurisdiction to review foreign sanctions.

However, the three judges disagreed, saying that foreign countries have no right to interfere with the core values ​​and rule of law that Hong Kong strives to uphold. If foreign countries impose sanctions in order to interfere in Hong Kong’s internal affairs, the original international mutual respect (comity) will no longer exist, regardless of whether the courts review these actions. The judgment continued that it is up to Hong Kong’s laws to determine whether the relevant sanctions are lawful. According to Article 36 of the National Security Law, “an offence shall be deemed to have been committed in the HKSAR if an act constituting an NSL offence or the consequence of the offence occurs in the Region.”

The court believed that Wang Guiguo’s testimony would help the court understand the U.S. actions against the central government and the Hong Kong government, and also help the court understand whether the relevant actions constitute “sanctions, blockades or other hostile actions” under the National Security Law.

The verdict finally reiterated that the court is simply considering whether to approve Wang’s testimony to be presented in court. Whether to accept his testimony or not will be decided after hearing the testimony. As professional judges, they will not be affected when making rulings.