Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” among other accusations. The trial resumed for its 106th day on Tuesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court) with Lai making his 14th court appearance.

The defense displayed conversations from the Apple Daily’s Slack workspace, showing Lai inquiring about recent challenges faced by the team. Lai added in court that it was important to discuss these challenges, whether individual or general, before meetings to facilitate discussions and responses during the meetings. The channel, he noted, was used for managing “lunchbox meetings.” The defense asked if the National Security Law was discussed during these meetings; Lai confirmed that the discussions were primarily about the impact of the law.

The case is being heard by designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. Representing the prosecution are Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum; 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.

14:55 Lai Confirms Switching Some Communications to Signal with Disappearing Messages

The defense quoted a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Mark Simon, in which Lai mentioned, “Mark, I found some unusual things on my WhatsApp. I don’t know what it is. To be safe, I’ve deleted all the communication on our WhatsApp group with Jim. I think we’d better change to Signal and set it at message disappearing 1 hour after viewing.”

The defense asked, Lai mentioned deleting conversations, but can these conversations still be seen now? Lai pointed out that he noticed unusual activities and might have deleted them to avoid misspeaking, as the red lines are very blurry, “whatever can get rid of, will get rid of, to be honest, even if I didn’t say something wrong.” Lai then suggested in the messages that Mark Simon switch to Signal for communication and set a timer for the messages to disappear; Lai confirmed.

The defense then displayed a Signal group named “Jim/Jimmy/Mark Group,” where the disappearing message timer was changed from 6 hours to 1 hour. The defense further asked if Lai remembers his conversations with Mark Simon and James Cunningham; Lai said he does not recall. The defense also inquired if their conversations after July 9 mentioned sanctions, blockades, and hostile actions? Lai stated no, because he would avoid discussing these topics.

14:45 Lai to Employees: We Shouldn’t Worry Too Much About Breaking the Law

The defense displayed a conversation from July 7 on the work platform Slack, where someone raised concerns, “The National Security Law authorizes the police to eavesdrop at will, and frontline colleagues also worry about becoming targets of eavesdropping. Therefore, currently during meetings and storytelling, some groups avoid bringing mobile phones to prevent leaking information when discussing sensitive stories…” Lai responded in the group, “We should not worry too much about breaking the law since we cannot commit illegal acts, but it is necessary to take good security measures, we’ll discuss this later.” Lai explained in court that since Apple Daily employees cannot engage in illegal activities, there’s no need to worry. The defense noted that Lai had previously expressed concerns because he was unsure about the red lines under the National Security Law? Lai stated that they have tried their best to avoid breaking the law.

The defense also cited a message from Ryan Law Wai-kwong on Slack concerning the “Impact of the National Security Law,” listing several points, including “switch to using Signal when communicating with columnists or external contacts.” The defense asked if these issues were discussed in the meeting? Lai stated that it was too long ago to remember, but believed they were discussed at the time based on these records. The defense continued, citing from the same message under “Impact of the National Security Law,” another point mentioned, “When interviewing, if photos related to Hong Kong independence or ‘Liberate Hong Kong’ are captured, they can be published as long as it’s purely reporting and does not advocate or promote, and further legal advice will be sought.” Lai noted that he had discussed these issues with colleagues at the time.

14:34 Lai: Called for Sanctions Before the National Security Law, Ceased Calls After Implementation

The defense presented a conversation between Lai and Martin Lee, where Lee remarked:

Duowei: Article 29, Section 5 of the National Security Law stipulates “inciting hatred against the Central People’s Government or the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government through various illegal means that may lead to serious consequences.” Understanding what “inciting hatred” means.

Tian Feilong: This is copied from Hong Kong law. Before the handover, the Hong Kong Criminal Offences Ordinance had provisions for (British) monarchy treason, which after the handover, according to the Handover Ordinance, changed “the Queen” to “the Central People’s Government.” Lai responded with “Terrifyingly effective!” On the stand, Lai noted that he thinks Lee wanted to remind him to be more cautious.

The defense also displayed a message from Lee stating, “This new Law appears to give effect to the Central Government’s intention to penalize different individuals and groups of HK people who did certain things during the last 12 months that it does not like.”

The defense further questioned whether Lai had engaged in any behaviors before the implementation of the National Security Law that became illegal afterward. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping interrupted, questioning whether the defense was sure they wanted to ask this. The defense stressed the relevance of this question to their case. Lai indicated that, to his knowledge, he had called for sanctions before the National Security Law was implemented and ceased such calls afterward.

12:59 Lunch

12:20 Lai’s communications with James Cunningham indicated that establishing international connections in Hong Kong could be construed as collusion with foreign forces.

The defense showed group conversations between Lai, Martin Lee, Mark Simon, and former U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong, James Cunningham. Cunningham, during July 3-4, sent encouraging messages and on July 9 stated, “let’s work on other ways to go on. How to limit PRC, and it looks like Lam and company as well, use the law.” Lai responded, “that’s right. What’s your view?” indicating he didn’t fully understand the message nor knew how to limit China or utilize the law, asking for Cunningham’s opinion.

Cunningham replied, “Good question. I’m thinking about it. Somehow a way needs to be found to create an internationally based protest movement, government and popular, to constrain the HK Govt and the security apparatus. popular pressure on say. HSBC, assets that China values, coupled with coordinated pressure from the govts, in the past US could organise that. Not now.”

Lai responded, “The danger of this outside movement is collusion with foreign influence, a serious crime under national security law. We can’t be connected with it here. Whatever it’s has to be independent with us.”

Martin Lee agreed with Lai, stating, “This Law is effective until set aside, and all the people of Hong Kong are subject to it. So we must not do anything that is caught by it. Period. And this applies to any WhatsApp or other group that we belong to.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by his response. Lai clarified that these actions involved collusion, and they could not be involved in these movements, nor was he encouraging Cunningham to participate on his own. Later, Martin Lee left the group, likely feeling that these discussions were too risky, as they were a ‘red flag’ for him. As to why Lai remained in the group, he noted that he and Cunningham were friends, and unlike Lee, he was not as cautious and did not want to be rude, so he stayed in the group.

12:11 Lai is shown in the program stating that protesters must face reality and protest in different ways without violating the National Security Law.

The defense presented transcripts from the first episode of the “Livechat” program. In it, Lai mentioned, “Well, a lot of protesters are intimidated. Even some of the more prominent dissidents or activists have left town.⋯⋯This is the only hope we have, yes the protest movement is going to be very different and we will have to see what the National Security Law in fact is, after a while that protesters will have to have different strategy to protest. We can’t use the way that we protest in the past. That’s the new reality we have to face.” The defense noted that the prosecution accused Lai of calling on Hong Kong people to continue protesting. Lai denied this, confirming that he was suggesting protesters use different methods of demonstration that do not violate the National Security Law.

Lai also mentioned the Apple Daily English edition during the program: “we have a great impact as a protection politically to our media because under the NSL, definitely the business , operation as a media is a very dangerous business, so the greater for the international reader are reading us, are subscribing to us, the greater protection we have politically.” In court, Lai explained that when people speak out on their behalf, foreign politicians become aware of Hong Kong’s situation. “When people speak up for us, foreign political figures pay attention and respond to the public.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “voice out.” Lai replied it meant “speak up, support us.” The defense pressed further: Did it include taking action? Lai said the other party would decide on whatever actions they found effective. The defense then asked if it included sanctions, blockades, and hostile measures. Lai said he did not have any specific actions in mind at the time, believing that the other side would consider what was effective.

11:33 Break

11:18 Judge questions why Lai mentioned officials need protection money; Lai: This happens in China.

Addressing previous statements by Lai doubting the protection of free speech under the National Security Law, Lai reaffirmed that the law does not guarantee the rule of law. The defense asked if Lai intended to incite hatred against the central government through his program. Lai denied this, stating he was merely explaining the effects he understood from the National Security Law.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping noted Lai’s mention in the program, “We have no protection, and those doing business here face danger without it. The only way they get protection is by seeking it from officials, which means Hong Kong will be as corrupt as China. Officials won’t protect you for free; they need protection money.”

Toh asked how Lai came to this view, to which he responded, “This idea is what is happening in China.” Toh clarified, “No, you were talking about Hong Kong. Where did you get the idea that officials wouldn’t protect people without payment?” Lai explained it was under a lack of rule of law.

Toh persisted, “I just want to know, you said you need to pay officials for protection. Where did you get this idea? Is it just your conjecture?” Lai answered, “It’s not conjecture; it’s a fact what happened in China,” and added, “If there is no rule of law in Hong Kong, it will become like China and will be just as corrupt.”

Toh pointed out, so Lai was not stating what he knew as a fact but transposing what he believed happened in China onto Hong Kong, which had not yet occurred. Lai replied, “I just know it’s not happening in Hong Kong yet. I’m projecting from the facts.”

Toh further asked, so it’s your deduction? Lai confirmed it was his opinion. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai anticipated the program could incite hatred. Lai denied this, reaffirming he was merely stating facts.

The defense asked if Lai realized the program might cause listeners to hate China. “I think they will be more careful. They may be frightened by what I said, but it doesn’t mean they have to hate.”

The defense also asked if Lai intended for officials to listen to the program. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned the relevance of the question, noting it was broadcast worldwide. The defense explained that under the Criminal Offenses Ordinance, section 9 (2), it specifies situations not intended to incite. Toh then asked how this related to whether Hong Kong or Chinese officials were listening, to which the defense noted it includes pointing out errors or faults in the government or constitution.

Lee stated that the program was broadcast worldwide, accessible to anyone, and the defense ceased further questions on this point.

Moreover, regarding Lai’s comment in the program about the Chinese Communist Party infringing on freedoms and his belief in international concern, Lai said he only hoped for international awareness, denied inciting hatred towards the regime, and added, “I just cautioned people to be concerned when they do business there.”

11:10 Lai Denies Incitement in ‘Live Chat’ Program, Asserts National Security Law’s Supremacy Over Basic Law as Fact

The defense focused on Jimmy Lai’s first episode of “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai.” Lai explained that the purpose of the show was to inform people about what is happening in Hong Kong. When asked if he was referring to an international audience since he spoke English on the show, Lai agreed, emphasizing that “So people still take notice of Hong Kong, so that Hong Kong will not be disappearing from the screen.”

The defense questioned whether Lai intended to use the platform to call for sanctions, blockades, and hostilities. Lai denied ever using such terms and insisted that he could not possibly commit crimes through the platform.

Lai mentioned on the show about “promoting our English edition to the international community,” referring to the English edition of Apple Daily. When asked if this was another objective, Lai agreed.

The defense asked, “Who was the host of the show?” Lai responded that he couldn’t remember, suggesting it might have been former South China Morning Post editor Mark Clifford, but the defense said that was not correct and asked, “Wasn’t it Lucia?” Lai thought it unlikely. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios indicated that if there was no dispute over the identity of the host, they should just state the name. The defense admitted they had forgotten who it was, and the prosecution said they needed to check their records; ultimately, Lai confirmed that the host was indeed Lucia.

The defense pointed out Lai’s critical stance on the National Security Law from his responses, to which Lai affirmed his previous comments. When accused of incitement in the episode for stating that the National Security Law supersedes the Basic Law, Lai insisted it was a fact, supported by statements from the Bar Association and the text of the law itself.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang clarified that the Basic Law is not merely a local law, leading to an exchange where the defense reminded Lai of his lack of legal training and emphasized that the Basic Law is a national law. Lai queried “Which country?” to which the defense replied “Our country,” referring to China, leading Lai to acknowledge understanding.

11:00 Lai Acknowledges Simon Lee’s Continued Role as Twitter Manager After Returning to the US

The defense presented further conversations between Lai and his assistant Mark Simon. In these messages, Lai stated, “Simon goes back to US today. If he can continue to handle Twitter for me confidentially, let him. He reads Chinese is a convenience for me.” Mark Simon later replied, “I have spoken extensively with him and discussed on how to handle it.”

As for Lai’s reference to Simon Lee as his “mentee,” Lai explained that about 10 to 15 years before his arrest, Simon Lee had sought Lai’s advice on economic issues, and Lai had provided guidance. Lai messaged Mark Simon about this because, if Simon Lee could no longer manage Twitter, Mark Simon would have to take over, but Mark Simon does not know Chinese.

10:50 Lai’s Twitter post claimed NSL is becoming tool of police suppression

The defense showed a WhatsApp conversation from July 7th between Lai and Simon Lee, in which Lai messaged, “With the National Security Law in place, law in HK is no longer a protection of the governed but the tool of suppression of the people by the police, whose actions are above the law. Lawless HK is the reason people are fleeing.” On the same day, Lai’s Twitter posted a message accompanied by a report from Apple Daily titled “Raiding homes, restricting exits, confiscating property, secret surveillance, and the police flaunting their power in national security cases.”

In another message from Lai to Cheung Kim-hung, Cheung sent Lai a link to an article written by writer Andrew Shuen titled “See You Later!” to which Lai responded that even someone living in London feels “the terror of the National Security Law” and anticipated that more writers would give up writing.

Additionally, the defense showed another tweet from Lai on the same day, which read, “Freudian slip? The Secretary for Food and Health announces new round of social control measures with #NSL as the backdrop.” The defense noted that they could not find any related conversation between Lai and Simon Lee about this tweet, to which Lai responded that he believes the other party wrote the tweet.

10:40 Judge Questions Lai’s Claim of Unawareness about IPAC; Lai: IPAC Tweets Managed by Simon Lee

The defense displayed a WhatsApp communication between Lai and the founder of the “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China” (IPAC), Luke de Pulford, from July 7, 2020. De Pulford sent Lai a Twitter link stating, “BREAKING @MPIainDS calls for Carrie Lam to be sanctioned under the UK’s new Magnitsky sanctions regime. @DominicRaab doesn’t rule it out.”

De Pulford messaged further: “Organized for this to happen today. Actually not impossible now. Hope you’re OK Jimmy.” Lai replied, “I’m ok for now.” In court, Lai mentioned he never clicked on the link sent by de Pulford, so he was unaware of the specific details of “Organized for this to happen.” Lai added that de Pulford frequently sent him links for posting, and the message “Hope you’re OK” was the only personal note related to him.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted that Lai had previously stated he was unaware of IPAC, yet he responded “you are welcome” when thanked for retweeting IPAC’s post. Lai explained that his response was merely polite, as the retweets were managed by Simon Lee, reiterating he did not pay serious attention to Luke’s messages and was just trying to “get him off my back.” When asked by judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios why he didn’t simply block the sender, Lai responded that since the individual was doing something beneficial for Hong Kong, he couldn’t just block him. The defense noted that Lai’s Twitter account tagged ‘IPACGlobal’ in a post on June 13, which Lai confirmed was handled by Simon Lee.

The defense queried why de Pulford kept sending links to Lai. Lai explained he had forwarded one of de Pulford’s articles to Chan Pui-man, allowing them to contact each other directly, although de Pulford also contacted Lai directly, likely believing it increased the chances of his articles being published.

10:30 Court Displays Columnist Deming Gu’s Retirement Article

The defense showed another WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Cheung Kim-hung, with Cheung informing that “Deming Gu has ceased writing.” Lai described Gu in the message as “nitpicking.” Lai stated that Gu was a columnist who wrote for the features section and ceased writing due to the National Security Law, a phenomenon that other writers also experienced at the time. Lai referred to Gu as “nitpicking” because he often criticized others’ linguistic abilities.

Regarding an article written by Gu on July 6, 2020, titled “Under the National Security Law, One Can Only Cease Writing,” the opening sentence states, “On June 30, the CCP passed the ‘Hong Kong National Security Law,’ effectively placing a straitjacket on the Basic Law. Having started writing monthly reviews on the forum pages since April 1999, I now find myself compelled to cease.” Lai noted that he reads the feature articles daily. Regarding the writer Ngan Shun-kau (Fang Yuan), Lai previously testified that he had invited Ngan to write. Lai added that he is a very good writer, with excellent style and knowledge.

The defense noted that Cheung consistently referred to Lai as “boss” in their conversation. Lai mentioned this was Cheung’s usual practice, although he did not know the reason why.

10:10 Lai: Asked Simon Lee to Continue Managing His Twitter Confidentially

The defense presented Lai’s WhatsApp conversation with his secretary, Julie, dated July 6, 2020, regarding the July 10 “Lunch Box Meeting,” including details of the time, location, and attendees.

The lunch box meeting— “HK Apple Online News Dialogue”—was as follows:
 Date: July 10 (Friday)
 Time: 12:30 pm
 Location: 5/F, VIP room
 Attendee list (10 people)
 …
The defense then showed conversations from the Apple Daily Slack platform in the “HK Apple Online News Dialogue” channel. In this channel, Lai asked everyone about recent difficulties they might be facing. In court, Lai explained that whether these difficulties were personal or otherwise, staff should bring them up so he could understand in advance and discuss or respond to them at the meeting. Lai mentioned that this channel was used to prepare for the lunch box meeting.

At the time, the Apple Daily online news director, Cheung Chi-wai, replied on Slack that after the National Security Law took effect, many Hongkongers were contemplating emigration. The defense asked if the NSL was discussed during the meeting. Lai said they mainly discussed the impact of the NSL.

Additionally, Lai’s apprentice, Simon Lee, had previously messaged Lai stating that it might be better for someone else to handle Lai’s Twitter. Lai testified that afterward, he failed to find a suitable candidate. The defense showed another WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Lee, in which Lai sent Lee a link to an Apple Daily column “Lee Bat-fong” and wrote, “利世民封筆 肥佬黎：唔好意思再要佢處理 Twitter 嘅事” (Lisiman ceases writing; Jimmy Lai: Sorry to ask him to handle Twitter affairs again). Lai then messaged, “Simon, Maybe you can continue to manage my Twitter if we can keep it confidential.” Lee replied “Thanks.” Lai explained in court that he promised Lee to keep it on “Lee Bat-fong” (the column). Since he couldn’t find a replacement at that time and since Lee was in the United States, Lai thought if it remained confidential, Lee could continue handling the Twitter account, as Lee didn’t like others knowing about it.

10:05 Court Session Begins

The Witness