Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses. On Friday (December 6), the trial entered its 104th day at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court), with Lai appearing for the 12th day of testimony. The defense has completed questioning regarding events prior to the implementation of the National Security Law (NSL), and is expected to shift focus to the period after the law took effect.

The defense presented a WhatsApp conversation from the day after the NSL came into force, between Lai and his “apprentice” Simon Lee. In the messages, Lee mentioned that during “this very difficult time,” he still wished to assist Lai but felt it would be better if someone else managed Lai’s Twitter account. The defense noted that Mark Simon had explained to Lai that Simon Lee felt unhappy about others knowing he was managing Lai’s Twitter. Subsequently, Lai messaged Lee, saying, “You staying low-key is right,” and suggested they needed to discuss this serious matter. Lai confirmed in court that the “serious matter” referred to the NSL, explaining that after reading the law’s provisions, he found them extremely harsh. In response to defense questioning, he also confirmed that after the law’s enactment, there was no further talk of sanctions, describing such discussion as “equivalent to Suicide.”

This case is being heard by National Security Law-designated High Court judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution is 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 is 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.

15: 50 Court Adjourns 

15:15 “Taiwan Apple Daily” Reports That Lai Criticized The “Excessively Harsh” Law During A Street Station Appearance, Lai Denies Being Interviewed That Day.

The defense presented a tweet from July 1, 2020, by Taiwan Apple Daily that Lai shared, stating, “Upon the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law, Jimmy Lai appears at the Democratic Party’s street station, criticizing the evil law as ‘excessively harsh'”. Lai clarified that it was Simon Lee who retweeted the post. Asked if he was interviewed at the street station and made the statement that the law was “excessively harsh”, Lai denied it, stating he did not give any interviews that day and suggested that Taiwan Apple Daily was merely connecting his past statements.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if that meant Taiwan Apple Daily fabricated the story? Lai agreed. The defense further asked if Lai was suggesting that Taiwan Apple Daily concocted this part of the story? Lai explained it wasn’t made up from scratch but that the publication had pieced together his earlier Twitter content. Judge Toh probed further, asking if Lai was interviewed at the scene. Lai replied he was not, “To some extent, you could say it was fabricated,” he reiterated that Taiwan Apple Daily compiled his previous tweets and confirmed he did not speak at the scene.

On the same day, Lai was interviewed by Fox Business Network under the title “Hong Kong might not be a financial hub anymore”. In the interview, Lai mentioned he would stay in Hong Kong until the last day, otherwise, he would disgrace himself, discredit Apple Daily, and undermine the solidarity of the democratic movement. He also stated that if he were afraid, he wouldn’t be able to do anything.

When asked if he feared being arrested again, Lai acknowledged the possibility of imprisonment, but said he did not know where the red lines were or what the regime would do next. Since he couldn’t grasp these uncertainties, he chose to disregard them. The host concluded by saying, “Jimmy Lai, you are a brave man, keep doing what you’re doing.”

Lai explained he believed there were no clear red lines because they were opaque. When asked if he knew that calling for sanctions was crossing a red line, Lai acknowledged he was aware. Asked what the red line was, Lai said it referred to not knowing whether his actions constituted a crime.

15:00 Lai Claims After Reading News, Feels National Security Law is “All-Powerful”

The defense presented a WhatsApp conversation between Jimmy Lai and Simon Lee dated July 1, 2020. In the conversation, Lai sent Lee two Apple Daily articles titled “Maleficent Law Takes Effect, Two Systems Dead” and “Tailored Prohibition on Protesting, Four Crimes Can Lead to Life Imprisonment,” stating:

“The details of the National Security Law spell the death knell of HK. They’re worse than the worst scenario imagined. So sad. HK is dead.”

When questioned by the defense about why he sent the two front-page photos to Simon Lee, Lai responded that he believed they were intended as material for Lee’s Twitter posts. However, he added that if there were no related Twitter posts, he did not understand why he sent them to Lee.

The defense then asked Lai how he came to believe that “the National Security Law supersedes our Basic Law and overrides our Legislative Council; its power is boundless and omnipotent.” Lai explained that this belief was based on news reports, such as the Apple Daily articles presented in court.

Regarding the messages between Lai and Mark Simon on the same day that mentioned Simon Lee, the defense inquired whether Lai had found someone to manage Twitter on behalf of Lee. Lai replied that at that time, he was adopting a “wait and see” approach to determine whether Lee, upon returning to the United States, would continue working diligently. When asked when Lee would return to Hong Kong, Lai stated that he did not know. He mentioned that Lee’s family was in the United States and that Lee would stay there for two months at a time, while Lee himself was in Hong Kong during that period.

14:36 Lai: Interviewed Post-National Security Law, Asserts The Fight For Democracy Continues, Albeit By Different Means.

Addressing an interview with the Associated Press on July 1, 2020, Lai remarked, “It’s worse than the worst scenario imagined. Hong Kong is totally subdued, totally under control,” referring to the effects of the National Security Law.

The article mentioned that “he will continue fighting for democracy, but it will now have to be in a ‘very different way.'” Lai confirmed this statement, indicating that actions and approaches would need to change under the new law.

The defense then asked about his thoughts at the time, Lai stated, “I just felt the whole thing was different. At that time, I had not given up fighting for democracy, but I knew that it was going to be very different if that’s going to be a continued fight.”

When the defense inquired if he intended to use illegal methods to fight, Lai denied it, emphasizing “other ways” instead. He metaphorically described those still fighting for democracy as, “We will have to see how many of us are left in the fighting camp.”

Regarding his assertion in the article, “We will have to stand up and be the backbone of the movement’s integrity, and the integrity of Hong Kong’s justice,” 

Lai explained that those remaining in the fight would be the backbone of the movement, insisting on different methods of resistance than those used before the National Security Law was enacted.

The report mentioned that “Lai declined to elaborate on how the pro-democracy movement will continue, saying that discussions are needed on how to move forward.”

When asked what discussions were necessary, Lai referred to those still involved in the resistance. Confirming his interview statement that “The details (of the law) are very draconian but also very vague,” Lai acknowledged he was referring to the National Security Law.

As for his comment, “I cannot (leave). If I leave, not only do I disgrace myself, I’d discredit Apple Daily, I’d undermine the solidarity of the democratic movement,” Lai agreed he could not leave Hong Kong. He noted other potential methods to leave, including illegal ones, though he never considered leaving.

The defense added that on June 18, 2020, Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang dismissed Lai’s application to leave Hong Kong related to a criminal case.

12:18 Lai: Never Review Interviews, Doesn’t Remember Content

In response to a question about an interview Lai gave to the Associated Press on July 1, the defense asked what Lai had said during it. Lai stated he could not remember. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Lai had watched the interview after it was published. Lai responded that he had not, questioning, “Why would I?”, and noted that he never reviews his interviews. The defense asked if it was an oral interview. Lai clarified it was likely a video interview, not conducted over Zoom or phone, but done at his residence.

The defense mentioned that the Associated Press interview took place at 9 AM, and on the same day, a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Martin Lee showed that Lee had sent Lai a link about legal scholar Cheung Tat-ming. Lai had asked, “Martin, is the lawsuit against Ta Kung Pao being proceeded? So I’ve no need for the lawyer?” Lai testified that he did not remember the content of the link.

12:08 Lai Says He Became Careful After the National Security Law Took Effect, Aware That a Conviction Could Lead to Life Imprisonment

The defense questioned Lai about how he learned the details of the National Security Law. Lai said he must have read it online. When asked whether it was in Chinese or English, Lai stated he could not recall and that it made no difference to him.

The defense mentioned Lai’s interview with the Hoover Institution on June 8, 2020, during which Lai said, “I think the US should sanction China, should punish China before that’s hopeless.”

The defense asked if Lai realized that had this interview occurred after July 1, it could have constituted a criminal offense. Lai replied that he did not think about that at the time, reiterating that he was very careful afterwards. Asked why, Lai responded, “Because of the National Security Law,” noting that such remarks would be considered a criminal act. When inquired about the penalties, Lai acknowledged, “Can be life [imprisonment].”

12: 25 Break

11:00 Lai Confirmed That After the National Security Law Took Effect, He Went to a Fundraising Booth But Opted Not to Distribute Posters After Consulting Apple Daily Executives

The defense continued presenting Lai’s conversation records. On June 29, 2020, Lai messaged Lee Wing-tat of the Democratic Party, stating, “Brother Tat, on July 1, I will distribute the three-thousandth and above posters at your fundraising street booth. Please tell me which booth.”

On July 1, 2020, Lai separately messaged Chan Pui-man, Ryan Law Wai-kwong, Cheung Kim-hung, and Lam Man-chung, saying, “Pui-man / Wai-kwong / Kim-hung / Man-chung, after reading the details of the National Security Law, I’m shocked at how outrageously harsh it is. Hong Kong will have no rule of law or freedom, and the government will act with impunity, leaving the pro-democracy camp with no room to move. We must think carefully about our strategy and must not act rashly. Today, I’m going to help at the fundraising booth, but I won’t hand out posters. What do you think? Thanks, Lai.”

Chan responded, “If your intention is to appear publicly as a gesture, not handing out posters won’t affect the outcome.” Law replied, “Since the fundraising booth is approved and not illegal, it’s better that you just show up to raise funds, do nothing else, and not distribute posters. The law is extremely harsh, so a cautious approach is better, just my suggestion.”

Cheung replied, “Boss, good morning. Not distributing posters is fine.” Lam replied, “Sorry, I finished work at 3 a.m. and just woke up, and saw you’re already at the Causeway Bay booth. Not distributing posters is indeed playing it safe. I agree with your decision. The National Security Law is not only evil, but also very harsh. We must study the clauses targeting the media carefully. I’ll share anything I find with you.”

Lai then replied to Chan, “Okay, I’ll go help fundraise at the booth for a while and then leave. The CCP has gone crazy. We also need to carefully plan what to do going forward. Kim-hung has a plan. Thanks, Lai.”

After consulting with Apple Daily’s senior executives, Lai told Lee Wing-tat, “Having seen the details of the National Security Law, it’s outrageously harsh. Hong Kong will have no rule of law or freedom, the government will act with impunity, we are completely paralyzed, unable to move. We really need to think carefully about our future strategy. The street booth for fundraising has been approved, it’s not illegal. You should only fundraise, do nothing else, and not distribute posters. Better to be cautious given the severe terms of this bad law. Consider this a piece of advice… Brother Tat, the above is Ryan Law Wai-kwong’s opinion. Thanks. Lai.”

In court, Lai explained that Ryan Law Wai-kwong had sent him the key points of the National Security Law, and that day he intended to help fundraise for the Democratic Party. The “posters” mentioned were Democratic Party posters, though Apple helped with printing. The defense asked if “posters” referred to Lai’s personal posters. Lai denied this, reiterating that he was only helping to distribute posters for fundraising. He added that he ultimately did not distribute any posters because others advised him to be cautious.

Lai also mentioned that around July 1, Apple hosted a legal seminar. The defense asked if anyone reported the content of the seminar. Lai said, “I don’t think that was necessary because they knew I was going to be very careful,” noting the seminar was primarily related to editorial and therefore he didn’t need to know.

Regarding Lai’s comment to Chan that “the CCP has gone mad, we need to carefully plan our future actions,” Lai clarified that he was referring to how unexpectedly harsh the National Security Law was, sure to destroy Hong Kong.

The defense noted that Lai had not claimed that he thought the National Security Law would not be implemented or that its effects would be diminished if it were. Lai reiterated that it was just wishful thinking on his part.

On the same day, Lai forwarded Ryan Law Wai-kwong’s opinion to Lee Cheuk-yan, vice-chairman of the Labour Party, who responded, “It’s so harsh, I don’t think you necessarily need to be there. You haven’t always attended July 1 events, and your role in the media is most important,” to which Lai replied, “It should be no problem for me to help with fundraising legally… we’ll talk more, I have an AP interview now.”

Lai explained that he was seeking Lee Cheuk-yan’s opinion. The defense asked what “AP interview” referred to. Lai identified it as a news organization, and when asked if it meant the Associated Press, Lai agreed.

10:34 Lai Confirms He Initially Planned to Publish an Article in the Wall Street Journal if Jailed, Then Discarded the Idea

The defense presented a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Wall Street Journal editor Bill McGurn. Bill McGurn told Lai, “Jimmy, Mark, I went through the op-ed Jimmy sent me a while ago, to run if he gets put in jail. If you have any changes, might be best to make them now. I believe it very powerful.” He also sent a draft titled “Letter from a Hong Kong Jail.”

Lai replied, “Mark, I think you are the best judge of it, please make changes you think needed. I just read the details of the National Security law. They’re very draconian and a severe attack on HK’s rule of law and freedom. So sad. HK is dead. Cheer. Jimmy.”

The court displayed the letter, which read, “When you read this article, it means I’ve already been imprisoned, a gift from the CCP’s judiciary… But I have good companions here, and in some ways, I feel freer here than outside… When the powers that be see defending truth and rule of law as a crime, where else can honest people stand?… I’m old now, nothing much matters to me personally; the future belongs to the young… But the ‘masters in Beijing’ are determined never to let them taste freedom… Hong Kong people aren’t trying to overthrow the Beijing government, they just wish not to be harassed and to live like the past one and a half centuries, contributing to China through trade, investment, and technology. Without a doubt, it is Beijing that has destroyed everything.”

Another part read, “What can friends like the United States do? Most importantly, remember, we unarmed citizens of Hong Kong are standing on the same side fighting for the same principles. If this is how China treats its citizens in Hong Kong, the most prosperous and innovative group in its history, can you really expect it to treat you any better, especially as it grows stronger? I have always admired America, to my American friends, I say this now from prison. We Hong Kongers are being crushed by China because we embrace the same values as America. In our time of need, please don’t forget your friends.”

Lai stated he couldn’t remember if the article was published. The defense noted they couldn’t find this article. They asked if Mark Simon had drafted the article. Lai said he simply made Mark Simon and Bill McGurn aware of each other for easier communication. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked why Bill McGurn mentioned Mark Simon. Lai thought he might have wanted to notify Simon.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired, “What is an ‘Op-ed’?” Lai explained it is a column usually in newspapers like the New York Times, and that his lawyers would know. Lee seemed puzzled, and the defense added, “Our barrister, Huang Ya-bin, used to be a journalist.”

The defense further inquired if, according to his conversation with Bill McGurn, Lai thought he would be jailed. Lai said it was his expectation. They asked if Lai intended to inform the public about something after he was jailed. Lai responded, “That was what I intended to do, but later I requested not to publish the article, and it ultimately was not published.”

The defense asked if the article represented Lai’s thoughts as of July 1. Lai said the article was written before July 1 and it was not a call for sanctions, blockades, or any other hostile actions.

10:20 Lai Confirms No Discussions of Sanctions After National Security Law Took Effect: “It Would Be Equivalent to Suicide”

In court, a message Lai sent to Mark Simon was displayed, stating, “Actually I(it) was me who said he manages my Twitter just to give him credit. Kim Hung and Wai Kong etc. have nothing to do with it. The details just came out is very draconian and severe beyond belief. It is a severe attack on HK. With these harsh terms, I’m sure a lot of people and companies will depart soon. So sad. HK is real dead.” Lai explained that the “very harsh details” referred to the National Security Law, which he had read by then, although he couldn’t recall who had sent it to him.

On the same day, Lai discussed the National Security Law with former Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho, describing the details of the law as “extremely harsh, making Hong Kong devoid of rule of law and freedom, with an out-of-control government. We are paralyzed and unable to move. We really need to think clearly about our strategy going forward.”

Lai also sent the same message to Mark Simon and Simon Lee, “The details of the National Security Law just came out. They are very draconian and a severe attack on HK’s rule of law and freedom. So sad. HK is dead.”

Additionally, Lai told Lee, “You’re right to stay low profile. A couple of days later let’s talk a bit more. This is serious stuff.”

The defense asked if Lai was aware on July 1, 2020, that requesting sanctions was a criminal act. Lai acknowledged this, saying, “As I mentioned in the message, the terms were draconian.” The defense inquired if Lai had subsequently mentioned or requested sanctions. Lai responded that he did not, “as it would be equivalent to suicide.” When asked what “serious stuff” he planned to discuss with Simon Lee, Lai said it concerned the National Security Law.

10:06 On the Day After the National Security Law Took Effect, Simon Lee Suggested Someone Else Manage Lai’s Twitter

The defense presented Jimmy Lai with charges of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.” The charges involve conspiring with Apple Daily executives Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Ryan Law, Lam Man-chung, Fung Wai-kong, and Yeung Ching-kee, as well as others like Chan Tsz-wah, Mark Simon, Andy Li, Finn Lau, Luke de Pulford, Shiori Yamao, and Bill Browder, to request foreign institutions, organizations, or individuals to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile actions against the Hong Kong SAR or the People’s Republic of China, both before and after July 1, 2020.

Lai denied all these charges, reiterating that he does not know Shiori Yamao.

The defense then questioned about the day following the implementation of the National Security Law, displaying a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and his “disciple” Simon Lee: “Boss, thanks for the opportunities you’ve given me in the past 15 years. Everything I have today wouldn’t be possible without these opportunities. I wish I could help you, especially during this very difficult time. But I think it’d be better if your presence on Twitter will be managed by someone else. I talked to Mark and he said he would find someone. Meanwhile, I will do what I can to help.”

The defense continued, noting that Lai forwarded Simon Lee’s message to Mark Simon, who replied that Lee was unhappy about others knowing he managed Lai’s Twitter. The defense asked Lai if he had told anyone that his Twitter account was managed by Simon Lee, to which Lai said no. When asked who knew that Simon Lee managed his Twitter account, Lai responded that it was known among the staff he worked with, “it was public.”

The defense asked besides Cheung Kim-hung and Ryan Law, who else knew about Simon Lee managing the Twitter account? Lai said that once those two were informed, they would tell other staff, and Lai had no intention of keeping it a secret.

09:59 Attendee Shouts “Happy Birthday” to Jimmy Lai

Sunday, December 8, marks Jimmy Lai’s 77th birthday. As Lai left the defendant’s dock and walked toward the witness stand, an attendee shouted “Happy Birthday” to him. Lai smiled and nodded in response.

The Witness