Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses. The case proceeded to its 103rd day of trial on Thursday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court), with Lai making his 11th court appearance to testify. The court was shown an article Lai wrote in June 2020, in which he described the National Security Law as destructive to the rule of law and civilization. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had personally read the provisions of the National Security Law after they were published. Lai indicated he probably had not, but Chan Pui-man and Ryan Law Wai-kwong likely explained it to him.

Furthermore, the defense quoted Lai’s article stating, “The National Security Law not only turns Hong Kong from a city of free rule of law into a typical mainland city without freedom, but it could even make it as horrific as a Xinjiang under the shadow of concentration camps… Britain is compelled to fulfill its responsibilities as a former colonial power.” The prosecution accuses Lai of describing Britain as a “former colonial power” to incite hatred against the government. Lai retorted, “Why? Isn’t that a fact?” Regarding the article’s mention of a “shameless and untrustworthy regime,” Lai confirmed it referred to the Chinese regime, but he denied inciting hatred, emphasizing that he was merely stating facts, pointing out that Hongkongers’ rights under the Basic Law are utterly abolished.

The case is presided over by National Security Law designated judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution team includes Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum; Jimmy Lai is represented by senior counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan, and Marc Corlett, a New Zealand barrister with practising qualifications in Hong Kong.

16: 20 Court Adjourns

15:48 Lai denies persuading Chan Tsz-wah to continue protesting against the National Security Law.

In court, further WhatsApp messages between Lai and Cheung Kim-hung were shown by the defense:

Cheung Kim-hung: 【Hong Kong National Security Law】Ip Kwok-him says ‘washing hands of the golden basin’ will not be pursued, Chan Chi-sum warns the public not to cross the line〉 (News link) 

Cheung Kim-hung: Boss keep it up, Apple keep it up, Hong Kong keep it up 

Jimmy Lai: I hope so, but ‘washing hands of the golden basin’ not protesting anymore is impossible, what’s cooked is eaten, it doesn’t matter, thanks, Lai. Yes, keep it up! 

Cheung Kim-hung: Boss, how much are you and Siu-loy charging for the 4 episodes on the National Security Law in Next Magazine? HK$200 or US$19.99? 

The defense asked if Lai thinks giving up is not possible? Lai said, not just him, but all Hong Kongers feel the same. The defense asked why Lai thinks Hongkongers cannot give up, or that it is impossible for Hongkongers to give up protesting? Lai said because at the time he believed “this wasn’t the end of it. Again, I was too optimistic.” The defense then asked about the fee-based program mentioned in the message. Lai said, Siu-loy is a friend, and their discussion was centered around the National Security Law.

The defense also cited earlier testimony from Chan Tsz-wah, who was asked if he intended to act in violation of the National Security Law after it took effect. Chan had responded that “it depended on who was around him at the time,” and if there were still people “trying hard,” like Andy Li and Jimmy Lai, “people I know who are striving for Hong Kong, I think I would do it in the end.” Chan also mentioned knowing that Lai was still striving for Hong Kong, adding “as far as I was personally concerned, because when I saw Jimmy Lai in June, I had spoken about being scared, wanting to back off, but he persuaded me, so I would continue afterwards.”

When asked if Lai had persuaded him, Lai laughed and denied it, emphasizing that he always reminded people to be cautious, whether they were employees or friends, and even in his articles, it would be absurd for him to persuade someone he was not very close with to do the opposite, that’s ridiculous! Lai said he would never make such a request of Chan Tsz-wah, as it would be like asking Chan to commit suicide.

The defense further asked about the last meeting between Lai and Chan in June 2020, and up to the time Lai was detained, whether Lai had directly or indirectly asked Chan to call for international sanctions against China. Lai denied it, stressing that he had only asked Chan to help calm down the violence from radical protesters. The defense asked again if Lai had asked Chan to continue protesting on the international front. Lai said no, stating he had never discussed this with him.

15:15 In the message, Lai describes himself as a “special case.” Lai explains that he believes he is politically sensitive.

In a WhatsApp conversation on June 26, 2020, between Lai and Cheung Kim-hung:

Cheung Kim-hung: Boss, it should be over by August 

Jimmy Lai: I hope so, but I’m not optimistic 

Cheung Kim-hung: So far, still no retroactive period! 

Jimmy Lai: Even if I am a special case, I don’t care anymore. It’s time to stand tall, and I’m not important anymore 

Cheung Kim-hung: God will protect you, boss. I pray for you every day 

Jimmy Lai: Thank you, I also believe that the Lord will help me, so I am carefree and keep moving forward.

When asked by the defense what Lai meant by “special case,” Lai stated that even if he is a special case, it doesn’t matter anymore. Asked to define “special case,” Lai mentioned it could refer to court cases, his arrests, and charges.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping noted Cheung Kim-hung’s mention of “August court cases”? Lai agreed. The defense inquired further if Lai was referring to the cases in August or other cases? Lai said he didn’t remember what the cases in August involved. Toh noted Cheung also mentioned a woman in Taiwan; Lai stated he couldn’t go to Taiwan to meet her but hoped to arrange for her to come to Hong Kong to meet Cheung Kim-hung and Fung Wai-kong. Toh asked if this matter was related to the “August court cases”? Lai denied it.

Lai also believed that the cases he referred to were not related to criminal intimidation, as that case was concluded, “I may be referring to myself as a case of political sensitivity.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Cheung’s mention of a retroactive period referred to the National Security Law? Lai agreed. Lee noted, so Lai is a special case under the National Security Law? Lai agreed.

Lai reiterated that his mention of “special case” referred to his being politically sensitive.

Regarding Mark Simon telling Lai that he had contacted Lucia to arrange a meeting with Cheung Kim-hung and Fung Wai-kong, Lai said Lucia was part of the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” show staff, originally an employee of his private company, and he was not sure if she later transferred to Apple Daily. Judge Toh asked whose idea “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” was? Lai said it was likely Mark Simon or Simon Lee’s idea.

15:00 Defense shows Lai’s various Twitter posts. Lai: The wording suggests they were written by Simon Lee.

The defense displayed a series of tweets from Lai’s account, where on June 24, 2020, it tweeted, “#CarrieLam said countries offering #HKers right of abode and proposing sanctions are hypocrites. But the Lams are British nationals. Perhaps the #CCP should consider asking the Lams to relinquish their foreign citizenship.” Lai noted that the English phrasing of the tweet seemed to be written by Simon Lee.

In another tweet, Lai retweeted a post by US Republican Senator Josh Hawley. Lai’s tweet stated, “@HawleyMO thank you for #StandingwithHongKong #CCPChina and its puppets should be punished for violating the rightful freedom of #HKers.” Lai indicated that this tweet was also written by Lee, as “rightful freedom” is not a phrase he commonly uses.

14:45 Twitter reposted Wang Dan’s tweet. Lai: It should be that Simon Lee translated and posted it himself.

The defense presented an article from Apple Daily dated June 23, 2020, titled “【Hong Kong National Security Law】Jimmy Lai’s Interview with Japanese Magazine: Implementation of NSL Means ‘Hong Kong’s Death'”. The article mentions that the July issue of Japan’s FACTA magazine featured a three-page interview with Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Digital, in which Lai emphasized that once the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law is officially implemented, fairness and justice would instantly collapse, marking the death of Hong Kong as a society governed by laws. Lai affirmed his genuine belief in the content mentioned in the article.

The defense also displayed a tweet from Lai’s Twitter account, where on June 23, he retweeted a post by Chinese dissident Wang Dan. Wang’s original tweet was “Fighting a trade war with the US, a legal battle with Canada, a spy war with Australia, a stone-throwing fight with Indians, a spitting match with the Japanese, a psychological war with the Taiwanese, and street fighting with the people of Hong Kong. Sooner or later, the CCP will exhaust itself to death.” Lai’s retweet summarized this as “#CCP has a trade with American, legal battle with Canadians, fist fight with Indians, psychological warfare against Taiwanese, and street fight with #HKers.” The defense noted that Lai’s tweet was an English summary of Wang’s content, to which Lai agreed, stating it was likely that Simon Lee independently translated it and posted it on Twitter.

14:31 Messages show Lai directed editorial work regarding the National Security Law. Lai: It was just advising staff to be cautious.

The defense displayed a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and his assistant, Mark Simon, from June 21, 2020, where Mark Simon sent him a screenshot of an email titled “Next Digital- private Session immediately after the Board Meeting (22 Jun 2020).” The email discussed a meeting with Lai and other Independent non-executive directors.

The messages indicated that after sending the screenshot, Mark Simon said, “just as FYI, I spoke with Gordon and Mark, also communicated with Kim Hung & Rosyton. Primary discussion for the private session will be on implications of National Security Law on Apple operations. Over the last few weeks, I’ve been in communication with Kim Hung and Royston on implication, and I know from that you’ve given guidance on the editorial operations once the law comes into effect.”

Lai stated that the Mark mentioned in the messages is Independent non-executive director Mark Clifford, and Gordon Crovitz is also an independent non-exec director. The defense noted that the messages mentioned Lai had provided guidance on editorial work. Lai responded that he simply instructed staff to be cautious, also noting that the staff themselves were already quite cautious, and that they would arrange for lawyers to explain and prepare. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping further inquired, so Lai did provide guidance? Lai confirmed that his guidance was to be careful and cautious, and that he had also been invited to attend legal briefings to prepare for the National Security Law.

12:53 Lunch

12:38 Lee Cheuk-yan tweeted that international pressure delayed the implementation date of the National Security Law.

The defense presented a WhatsApp conversation from June 20, 2020, between Lai and Lee Cheuk-yan, in which Lee sent Lai a tweet:

“Although there are more details on #NSL, it doesn’t come with definite deadline for the enactment. But why the delay? Certainly pressure from the international community plays a role. There might be a divide in #CCP connecting the move.” 

Lai indicated that the tweet was authored by Lee Cheuk-yan, sent to him merely for reference, not for approval. Judge Lee Yee Teng inquired if Lee Cheuk-yan’s stance in the tweet differed from earlier mentions in WhatsApp? Lai speculated that Lee Cheuk-yan might have read other announcements.

The defense asked what role the “pressure” mentioned in the tweet played? Lai guessed it delayed the implementation date of the National Security Law.

12:35 Lai denies having said “the US and UK would not stand idly by” if arrested, calling such a statement presumptuous

Regarding earlier statements by Yeung Ching-kee, who mentioned attending a dinner at Lai’s mansion on June 23, 2020, where the National Security Law was discussed, Yeung claimed that there was concern over Lai possibly being arrested. “Lai said he wasn’t afraid, asserting that if he were arrested, it would further prove the CCP and the Hong Kong government’s oppression of human rights and press freedom. He believed that the US, UK, and Europe would not stand idly by,” and would impose sanctions, which would overall help improve the human rights situation in Hong Kong.

In court, Lai responded that many people and friends shared the same concerns but denied ever saying “believe the US, UK, and Europe would not stand idly by and would impose sanctions, which would help improve the human rights situation in Hong Kong.” Lai considered such statements to be presumptuous, suggesting that it might be a figment of Yeung’s imagination or that Yeung thought he had made such statements. Lai acknowledged Yeung’s honesty but suggested that something else might have triggered his “so-called memory.”

Lai emphasized that assuming his arrest would trigger significant international concern was overly presumptuous, possibly stemming from a discussion among Yeung and other colleagues about the potential consequences of his arrest.

12:25 Lai states he does not believe the CCP will keep its promise of non-retroactivity in the National Security Law

The defense referenced a conversation Lai had on June 18, 2020, with American priest Robert Sirico during an online dialogue, in which Lai mentioned the U.S. government’s threats to boycott and punish China for spreading the virus. The defense asked if Lai had called for a boycott and punishment of China, to which Lai denied. In the interview, Lai also mentioned that he believes the Chinese people should be granted freedom of speech, suggesting that with free speech, the pandemic could be better controlled. Lai clarified in court that he was giving an example to support his view that the Chinese people should have freedom of speech.

Regarding the conversation between Zhang Jianhong and Lai about the National Security Law, Zhang mentioned that the law “should not have retroactive power.” Lai responded at the time, “It would be best, but the CCP can’t be trusted.” Lai indicated in court that he does not trust the CCP to keep its promises. The defense asked if Lai believed at the time that he could be prosecuted for his actions and speech before the implementation of the National Security Law. Lai said he was uncertain, explaining that as an optimist, he always looks for the best outcome. The defense noted that the National Security Law currently has no retroactive power, to which Lai responded, “I hope so.”

12:10 Lai denies asking employees to join the protest: “Their lives are more important than Apple Daily”

In court, a video from June 18, 2020, of Lai speaking at the 25th anniversary of Apple Daily was played:

“We’ve never had smooth sailing, (haha) either we’re accused of being sensational, or our advertising is blocked, or we’re attacked, and now the National Security Law is upon us, really don’t know how to proceed, just honestly, it’s up to you guys, you must continue to persevere, but I only ask one thing, our approach to the National Security Law is that you use your responsibility to yourself, your social responsibility, your family responsibility, to do this job. No one will force you how to do it, no one will force you to become martyrs, but you take your conscience, your own conscience, your social conscience to work, I won’t tell you how to do it. Apple Daily has become what it is today because of you (laughs and applauds), it’s not about me, working at Apple Daily really isn’t a good job, you get lots of doors closed on you, they won’t let you interview, there are problems if you go to Macau, problems if you go to mainland China, this job, I really appreciate what you have done up to now, I can only thank you, keep it up.”

The defense noted that Lai mentioned “No one will force you to become martyrs, but you take your conscience…” and contrasted it with Lai’s statement from an RFA interview on June 10, where he said, “Many people will stay here and choose to resist, and I will stay with these people and resist to the end.” The defense asked if there was a contradiction between these two statements. Lai said no, because this is their life, and while he is aware of his own life, he can’t assume he can dictate others’ lives; they have the right to choose their own paths.

The defense further asked if Lai had requested his employees to join him in the protest. Lai denied it, adding that he wouldn’t want to as “their life is more important than Apple Daily.” The defense asked if there was any agreement among the senior management of Apple Daily to continue the struggle to the end. Lai said there never was.

11: 26 Break

11:00 Lai once told Cheung Kim-hung that the “National Security Law” might not be implemented as scheduled; Lai says it was just wishful thinking

On June 18, 2020, Cheung sent Lai a link from Xinhua News Agency via WhatsApp about the “Draft of the People’s Republic of China’s Hong Kong Special Administrative Region National Security Law” that explicitly defines four types of crimes that endanger national security and their criminal responsibilities. Lai replied, “Nothing new.”

The defense asked if Lai knew at the time that the National Security Law included collusion with foreign forces. Lai said it was just speculation by people. When asked if his comment “Nothing new” was because he knew the contents of the National Security Law, Lai denied it, saying it was just a general impression formed from rumors and reports. The defense asked about Lai’s comment to Cheung that “I don’t see it necessarily being implemented as scheduled,” questioning if this was his sincere belief. Lai explained that it was his wishful thinking.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further inquired if Lai’s statement about the National Security Law possibly not being implemented as scheduled was based on rumors and reports. Lai reiterated, “I just said that as an optimist, that was my wishful thinking.”

The defense noted that Lai seemed to express different attitudes towards the National Security Law, including saying to Chan Tsz-wah on June 16 that the law would not be too harsh, and two days later telling Cheung Kim-hung, “I don’t see it necessarily being implemented as scheduled,” and telling Simon Lee, “Since Hong Kong is about to perish, revoking its special status makes no difference.” Lai explained that these statements were made in different contexts.

Lai clarified that he was responding to Simon Lee that if the National Security Law were enacted, Hong Kong would perish. Regarding his reply to Cheung, Lai stated that events were progressing, hence his response.

10:45 Lai confirms awareness from newspapers about Finn Lau joining international efforts, but was unfamiliar with IPAC at the time

Regarding the Apple Daily report on June 15, 2020, titled “Ears Through the Wall: CCP Threatens Global Democracy and Freedom, Lam Chau Bar Joins International Coalition in Resistance,” Lai said he might have seen the headline but does not remember it now. He also mentioned that he might have learned about “Lam Chau Bar” Finn Lau joining international efforts from the headline. When asked if he was aware of the “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China” (IPAC) at that time, Lai said he did not know about it, only learning about it during the court proceedings.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had stated that international support was very important, and this article was precisely about international support movements? Lai responded that at the time he read the article, he only thought of Lau himself, not the international support. The defense asked if Lai’s hope for Chan to calm the violent actions of the militant factions had been fulfilled, to which Lai admitted he did not know.

The defense mentioned that the day after the report was published, Lai met with Chan Tsz-wah for the sixth time. Lai said that Chan had arranged the meeting and mentioned an incident where Lau was attacked in the UK. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired if Lai recognized other national representatives mentioned on the page, including Japanese then-MP Shiori Yamao, former Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani, Canadian IPAC co-chair MP Garnett Genuis, and Australian IPAC co-chair Kimberley Kitching; Lai confirmed he did not know them.

Regarding the Apple Daily report on October 24 of the same year, titled “March Surrounded, Narrow Escape Reveals Identity, Lam Chau Bar’s Close Call,” the defense asked Lai if he knew about IPAC and SWHK by then. Lai reiterated that he only learned about IPAC during the court proceedings and might have seen the name SWHK but had no recollection of it.

10:35 Lai denies that his article incites hatred, reiterates it merely states facts

Regarding Lai’s article mentioning that “our educational system has become a brainwashing machine,” Lai points out that currently all books in libraries must undergo censorship, and he was merely providing examples in his article, which is his right. He also has no intention of inciting hatred towards the government, merely stating facts to explain why Hongkongers are emigrating.

Lai’s article also touches upon his case of allegedly criminally intimidating a journalist from the Oriental Daily. He notes, “Before the National Security Law was even implemented, there were signs threatening judicial decisions, accusing me of criminal intimidation. Initially, I was not allowed to leave the country, but after an appeal, I was permitted to apply for a court permit for each departure… However, the prosecutor recommended that the judge deny my exit permit, and the judge agreed, unsurprisingly, who would want to take a political risk under the fiery scrutiny of the National Security Law?” Regarding “who would take a political risk under the fiery scrutiny of the National Security Law,” Lai says this was his opinion. The defense asks if Lai intended to incite public hatred or contempt for the judiciary. Lai responds that if someone thinks that, they are overthinking it, emphasizing that he was merely stating facts.

The defense inquires if Lai was referring to that particular judge or the court, noting that according to records, the relevant judge was Alex Lee Wan-tang. Lee immediately denies any involvement with that Magistrates’ Court case, noting he had approved Lai’s bail. Lai also states that the presiding judge in the relevant case was a female. The defense further asks if Lai’s article was intended to incite hatred against the court’s decisions. Lai denies this, stressing that his case was political because he himself was considered ‘political’.

Upon reviewing the judgment, Lai had applied to the High Court on June 12, 2020, to amend his bail conditions to lift the travel restrictions. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang heard the submissions and rejected Lai’s application the same day, issuing the reasons for the decision on June 18.

10:20 Lai once wrote about the “shameless regime”, confirmed in court to refer to the Chinese regime

The defense presented an article written by Lai on June 14, 2020, in his column “A Laugh in Success and Failure” titled “Hong Kongers Choking: Flee or Resist”. The article described how the National Security Law would destroy Hong Kong’s rule of law, its civil values, and its status as an international financial center. Lai mentioned that these issues were commonly discussed in society at that time. According to news reports at the time, the public was very concerned about the National Security Law, and Lai’s integration of information roughly matched what eventually happened, which was consistent with his impression at the time. Lai added that he had read news from Apple Daily and some overseas English news sources like The Washington Post and The Financial Times, though he did not remember the exact content.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had personally read the text of the National Security Law after it was published. Lai indicated he probably had not, but Chan Pui-man and Ryan Law Wai-kwong likely explained its content to him.

The defense continued quoting Lai’s article: “The National Security Law not only turns Hong Kong into a typical mainland city devoid of freedom under the rule of law but could even make it as oppressive as a concentration camp under the grim shadow of Xinjiang… The US government is considering revoking Hong Kong’s special status, taking into account the convenience of visas for Hong Kongers living in the US. Britain, compelled by its responsibility as a former colonial power, granted the right to live in the UK to three million BNO holders.” The defense asked if the prosecution’s charge that Lai described Britain as the “former colonial power” was intended to incite hatred against the Hong Kong government? Lai responded, “Why? Isn’t that a fact?” He also pointed out that Britain allowed three million BNO holders to immigrate to the UK because Britain once held sovereignty over the colony and was fulfilling its responsibility.

Lai’s article also mentioned a “shameless and untrustworthy regime,” which Lai confirmed in court referred to the Chinese regime. However, he denied that by using this description he intended to incite hatred against the central government. Lai emphasized that he was merely stating facts, indicating that the rights of Hongkongers guaranteed under the Basic Law had completely disappeared.

10:05 Lai: Seeking mainland writers is an overall goal for the English edition

During the court session on Wednesday, a segment of Lai’s interview was played, and someone in the public gallery applauded and was then escorted out of the courtroom. On Thursday, as soon as the court session began, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping pointed out that Lai had been rudely interrupted while testifying, emphasizing that the courtroom is a solemn place and interruptions are not permitted. If similar incidents occur, the individual will be removed from the courtroom and taken to another courtroom to watch a broadcast.

Today, the defense questioned the testimonies of the forum manager and former chief editorial writer Yeung Ching-kee. The defense displayed messages between the two, in which Yeung stated, “Boss, I’ve found Gao Yu from Beijing and Chang Ping, former chief editor of Southern Metropolis Daily, to write real-time commentaries for the English edition. I’ll discuss the details with Lu Feng.” The defense asked Lai if he had instructed Yeung to find writers from mainland China. Lai responded that if it isn’t recorded in the messages, he believes it was an overall goal of the English edition, and the former executive editor Fung Wai-kong (Lu Feng) and others were trying to enhance the content of the English edition.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had verbally made such requests to Yeung. Lai denied this, noting they rarely met and he seldom participated in “lunch box meetings,” believing that such requests were just a general direction.

The messages between the two showed Lai had asked, “Li Ping, try to find writers who can provide substantial insider information, not just thoughts but actual insights. Thanks, Lai.” and “Li Ping, can you find someone to analyze the overt power struggle between Xi and Li? Thanks, Lai.” Lai explained in court that he thought the “Xi-Li power struggle” was a very important issue at the time, but ultimately Yeung or other staff members couldn’t find relevant writers. The defense then asked why Lai wanted foreign readers to read articles about the “Xi-Li power struggle”? Lai said that it was important and newsworthy to foreign readers.

Regarding the message where Lai said he wanted more than just thoughts but actual insights, Lai explained in court that some analytical articles are quite plain and do not resonate with readers, but if someone writes with passion, the articles become more interesting.

The Witness