Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is facing charges of conspiring to collude with foreign forces, among other offenses, in a trial that began Dec. 16 at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, which is acting as the High Court. The proceedings have now reached their 110th day.

Lai testified on the trial’s 18th day. The defense noted Lai was first arrested on Aug. 10, 2020, and, after being released on bail two days later, returned to the Next Digital building. During an interview at the time, Lai said: “If I have to sleep in jail, whatever, I will still choose this path.” In court, Lai clarified that “this path” referred to his participation in the freedom movement. He also said that Apple Daily, the now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper, had often criticized the Communist Party, the government, and its leaders. However, after the National Security Law came into effect, the paper had to exercise caution, scale back its criticisms, and ultimately faced “disintegration.” Lai maintained that he believed they were on “the right side of history.”

Addressing the charges, Lai told the court the police arrest of his two sons was “somewhat strange,” as they had not been involved in any related business or activities. He also said he was unaware that activists Agnes Chow and Andy Li had been arrested at the same time.

The case is being heard by three judges designated under the National Security Law: 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 Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai is represented by senior barrister Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcription

10:04 Court in Session

10:08 Lai Says Twitter Post Regarding US Sanctions on 11 Officials Written by Simon Lee

During inquiries about events from August 2020, the defense presented a WhatsApp conversation from August 7 between Jimmy Lai and his assistant, Simon Lee. Simon messaged Lai saying, “the Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on 11 individuals for undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and restricting the freedom of expression or assembly of the citizens of Hong Kong.”

Simon added, “Treasury is sanctioning Carrie Lam, Chris Tang, Stephen Lo, John Lee Ka-chiu, Teresa Cheng, Erick Tsang, Xia Baolong, Zhang Xiaoming, Luo Huining, Zheng Yanxiong, and Eric Chan.”

Lai replied, “That’s great! Thanks!” The defense questioned whether Lai’s response indicated agreement with Simon’s message, to which Lai affirmed. The defense noted that Lai’s same-day Twitter post was the message Simon had sent him, regarding the US Treasury’s sanctions on 11 individuals undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and limiting the freedom of expression or assembly.

On the same day, Lai retweeted a post by Alvin Lum, which included a screenshot from former Chief Executive CY Leung’s Facebook page, commenting, “What a joke! After all the efforts by @JimmyLaiApple and @civicpartyhk that’s it?” on the US sanctions.

Lai commented, “What a joke #CY Leung is seeking attention, but it seems no one cares about him anymore.”

In court, Lai stated he did not instruct Simon Lee to write the post, but believed that the comment was authored by Lee. The defense asked if Lai followed CY Leung on Twitter. Lai stated he did not follow anyone and was unaware of who Alvin Lum was.

10:20 Lai Agrees Sanction List Exclusion of Electoral Officers Is Surprising

On August 8th, Lai retweeted an Apple Daily Twitter post reporting Hong Kong officials being sanctioned by the US. The defense asked if Lai had requested the sanctions. Lai denied this, stating that the sanctions had already occurred and his retweet was merely presenting the facts.

On the same day, Lai sent Simon Lee a link to an Apple Daily article titled “US drops sanctions bomb on Hong Kong’s Carrie Lam, top cop and 9 others,” questioning, “But how about those election PROs? Should they be personally responsible for DQ candidates for political reasons?”

His tweet from the same day stated, “How about those election officers who disqualified #DQ the candidates nominations? Should they be personally responsible for making the decisions?” This was querying whether the election officers should also be included in the sanction list for their actions, as they were not currently.

The defense asked why Lai messaged Lee this question. Lai explained he was inquiring if these election officers were included in the sanctions list, but it turned out they were not. Judge Esther Toh questioned if it was a genuine inquiry. Lai affirmed he was questioning, believing that these election officers should be on the sanction list. Judge Alex Lee noted Lai’s use of a rhetorical question rather than an actual inquiry, to which Lai responded, “You could say that,” indicating he was just curious if the sanctions included these election officers.

Regarding his tweet using the same message, Lai denied calling for sanctions, reiterating he believed the election officers should be included in the sanction list. Judge Alex Lee then noted Lai’s surprise that the sanctions did not include these officers. Lai agreed. Judge Lee also pointed out that Lai’s Twitter was in English, targeting a foreign audience. Lai confirmed this, stating he wanted to communicate what was happening in Hong Kong through Twitter.

10:45 Lai Comments on Tweet Mentioning “Putting Xi Jinping on the Cross” as Metaphorical

On the same day, Lai’s tweet read, “CCP power is now in grip of HK Catholic church management. Education is the first. But what’s next? Xi’s portray replacing Jesus? Maybe we should put Xi on the cross instead. Hong Kong Catholic diocese asks school to nurture students’ national identities.” 

Lai explained that he reads various news sources and believes that Hong Kong schools are being manipulated by the CCP, stating that fostering national identity means teaching students to be patriotic. He mentioned that “putting Xi Jinping on the cross” was a metaphorical expression, meant as satire and humor, and denied advocating literally crucifying Xi Jinping.

On the same day, Lai forwarded an Apple Daily link to Simon Lee, “China should work with other countries to break through US financial blockade: former Chongqing mayor.”

Lai’s subsequent tweet stated, “It is not about working with other countries to bypass the blockade. #CCP has a ‘value problem’ and it is isolating itself from the world. Solution: further liberalization of the market, reform of the political institutions, and embrace universal values.” Lai believed he had read the mentioned Apple Daily article. The defense asked what the “financial blockade” referred to by the former mayor of Chongqing meant. Lai said he had forgotten the details of the article but believed the mayor was suggesting that China should work with other countries to break through the US’s financial blockade. Lai stated he disagreed with this as a solution, arguing that the issue was the difference in values between China and other countries, which could not be resolved by merely working with other nations.

The defense asked if the “solution” mentioned in the tweet differed from the message Lai sent to Lee. Lai indicated that Simon Lee added that line, as he had always discussed external situations, with China’s approach to international trade being a value problem, but this solution was an internal issue, suggesting Lee went too far.

The defense asked how Lai understood the universal values mentioned in the tweet. Lai responded that international and international trade have adopted Western values. The defense then asked if Lai agreed with the tweet’s statement that “China is isolating itself from the world.” Lai partly disagreed, clarifying that the CCP maintains a distance from the world rather than complete isolation, which would mean no contact at all, which is not the case. He added that it is precisely because of this distance that conflicts occur.

11:00 After his arrest, Lai messaged Jack Hazlewood and Martin Lee; Lai: Considered hiring Hazlewood but ultimately did not

The defense presented a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Luke de Pulford, a founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), from the evening of August 9, 2020. At the time, de Pulford sent Lai a press release with a contact email for “Jack Hazlewood Researcher,” which Lai did not open. De Pulford also messaged, “Hi Jimmy. Please do pass this on. Thank you. We need all the help we can get on this! I want those cops to answer for their crime in the UK. The evidence is good.” Later, de Pulford messaged, “Just seen the news praying for you.”

The defense then showed a conversation from the early morning of August 10, between Lai and former editors Ryan Law and Chan Pui-man, in which Lai forwarded de Pulford’s message and file, stating, “It’s from Luke. Please decide for yourself.” Lai confirmed in court that he had forwarded the message to both Law and Chan.

The defense continued, noting that police arrived at Lai’s residence at 7 AM on August 10 to arrest him, and he was not released until midnight on August 12. The defense also showed a Signal conversation Lai had with his assistant Mark Simon during his arrest, in which Lai said, “I’m arrested for collusion with foreign power.” Simon responded, “OK. I understand. They are also moving on Kith. I will handle his lawyers.” When asked who Kith was, Lai did not remember, suggesting Kith was one of the employees.

The defense also displayed a conversation between Lai and former chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, Paul Harris, where Lai mentioned his arrest. Lai added in court that Harris was not his lawyer, though he had intended to hire him but ultimately did not. Another conversation was shown between Lai and the founding chairman of the Democratic Party, Martin Lee, on the same day, where Lai also mentioned his arrest and requested, “Please arrange Paul Harris to come. Thanks.”

11:10 Lai was unaware that Andy Li was also arrested on the day of his arrest

The defense showed the front page of Apple Daily from August 11, titled “200 police search Next Media, arrest Jimmy Lai.” The defense then zoomed in on the bottom right corner of the page, which listed the “charges of arrested persons,” including Lai Gin-yan, Lai Yiu-yan, Cheung Kim-hung, Royston Chow, Wong Wai-keung, Kith Ng Tat-kong, Andy Li, Wilson Li, and Agnes Chow. The defense asked if Lai was aware on August 10 and 11 that Andy Li had also been arrested. Lai indicated that he had not seen the news at the time. Lai mentioned that Kith referred to Ng Tat-kwong, the general manager of Next Media’s animation company. The defense asked if, during his detention, the police or anyone else had informed Lai that others were arrested that day. Lai said no. The defense noted that the arrested included Agnes Chow, asking if Lai had noticed. Lai said he was unaware of others being arrested at the time and later learned that his two sons and employees were arrested.

The defense further inquired if Lai knew Agnes Chow. Lai acknowledged knowing her, having met her in his office because she used to explain Hong Kong events in Japanese on her social media platform. Lai learned of Chow’s arrest later. Judge Esther Toh asked when Lai met Chow. Lai said he met her a few months before his arrest when Chow visited his office to greet him. The defense also asked about Wilson Li, listed among the arrested; Lai said he did not know Wilson Li at that time.

The defense showed a tweet from Lai’s account on August 12:

#WeAreNotAlone

A friend sent me this picture. I don’t know who the illustrator is. I am very grateful for all the love. Please send him my regards.

And thank you to everyone who #StandWithHongKong 

The tweet included an illustration depicting Lai’s arrest. The defense asked if Lai had made any arrangements with Simon Lee regarding Twitter after his release. Lai said no arrangements were needed because Lee knew how to handle it. Regarding the tweet, Lai said the wording was quite personal, but he did not remember seeing the illustration. He also wouldn’t use “#StandWithHongKong,” suggesting it was likely written by Simon Lee, and “#WeAreNotAlone” was also not written by him.

11:23 Break

12:10 Lai’s Interview After Arrest: “I would choose this path even if it means going to jail”

The defense mentioned that after Lai was released, he returned to the Next Media building, where he was welcomed by staff and interviewed by reporters; Lai confirmed this. The defense then displayed the front page of Apple Daily from August 13, showing Lai hugging Cheung Kim-hung and someone presenting Lai with flowers, which Lai confirmed was given by Cheung. The report showed Lai’s statement during the interview, “I would choose this path in the future, even if I have to sleep in prison, whatever.” Lai confirmed he had made such a statement. The defense asked what “this path” referred to at that time. Lai explained it referred to the path he took, the path of Apple Daily, the path of the freedom movement he was involved in. The defense further inquired what he meant by “freedom.” Lai explained that “freedom” was their core value, including freedom of speech, hoping to maintain a free system, rule of law, and freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

The defense noted Lai’s statement about choosing “this path” even if it meant imprisonment and mentioned that Lai had been detained for two days for collusion with foreign forces. They asked if “this path” referred to the arrest. Lai reiterated that he had not colluded with foreign powers; it was the path he had followed in the past. The defense asked if it was the path since the establishment of Apple Daily in 1995. Lai said it was the path since the Tiananmen Square incident.

Regarding the report that Lai had said “Apple Daily will definitely keep going,” Lai clarified in court that it meant until the end of its operations. “Keep going” meant continuing regardless of the difficulties, with Apple Daily continuing to operate. The defense asked if it meant operating legally or illegally. Lai responded, “How could it continue if it were illegal?” Apple Daily had to adapt to the circumstances at the time to continue operating.

The report also quoted Lai as saying, “When it comes, it comes; when it’s cooked, eat it!” Lai explained in court that this meant he would face whatever happened. As for his interview comments about “not being as brave as before” and “being more careful with what I say,” Lai added that it meant adapting to the conditions of the National Security Law.

The defense asked what made Lai feel more “valiant” before the National Security Law. Lai explained that the legal environment was more open then, and he didn’t consider himself “valiant,” just more “carefree.” Lai confirmed that “not being as brave as before” and “being more careful with what I say” meant the same thing. The defense asked what Lai had said before the National Security Law that he considered “valiant.” Lai replied that there was freedom of speech then, and he could speak his mind.

The defense further asked about statements Lai made before the National Security Law that would now be considered “valiant.” Lai said he couldn’t provide specific examples; it was generally about being more cautious and careful before speaking.

12:30 After His Arrest, Lai Said Apple Daily Needs to “Break Down into Pieces” — Asserts Trust in Standing on the Right Side of History

The report mentioned that Lai had said, “We can’t be too extreme; the more extreme, the less sustainable. We need to be a bit more cautious, a bit more creative, and even break things down more, the more peaceful, the more we can persist.” Lai explained that “extreme” meant “push to the limit” and that “we” referred to Apple Daily. The defense inquired if Apple Daily had been too extreme before. Lai stated that from the perspective of the National Security Law, yes. The defense asked Lai to specify what activities Apple Daily engaged in before the National Security Law that were considered “too extreme” afterward. Lai added that Apple Daily was previously protected by the rule of law and freedom of speech, but now it must be very careful. Previously, Apple Daily could criticize the Communist Party, the government, or leaders, but now it must be cautious.

The defense asked if, to Lai’s knowledge, Apple Daily continued to criticize the Communist Party, the government, or leaders. Lai thought not, noting that Apple Daily was very cautious. “Creativity” meant expressing things that one knows cannot be explicitly stated, in creative ways to avoid breaking the law. Regarding Lai’s mention of “even break things down more,” he meant reducing intensity.

Lai also said, “Even breaking things down more, the more peaceful we are, the more we can persist. Time is on our side, there’s no need to be too aggressive and ‘burn with them’.” In court, Lai asserted that they must believe they are on the just side of history and wait; “burn with them” could mean “staking everything on one throw,” reiterating that it’s better not to take risks and to be patient, because they stand on the right side of history.

12:45 Lai Says Sons Unrelated to Case, Finds Police Arrest Puzzling

Regarding a subheadline stating “accuses political prosecution like exterminating nine generations,” the defense asked if Lai was involved in writing this headline. Lai denied involvement. The defense asked if Lai used this term during the interview? Lai responded, “I don’t know when I used this term, but indeed, that’s how I was treated.”

The defense asked what he meant by that. Lai explained, “because my two sons had nothing to do with this (and were arrested).” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted that Lai mentioned during the interview “it implies exterminating nine generations,” to which Lai affirmed it was a “hint” of such.

Judge Esther Toh stated she did not understand the term “exterminating nine generations,” and Lai explained, “it’s like if one person is guilty, the whole family is deemed guilty.” Judge Alex Lee also clarified, “it involves not only your direct family members but also your relatives.”

Regarding Lai’s remark in the report stating “seeing their (the charges) accusations against everyone was a bit peculiar, this possibility is not without,” Lai defined “peculiar” as “weird.” The defense noted that Lai mentioned “everyone”? Lai said because the police arrested his two sons, he found it strange as they had never been involved, whether in business or otherwise. Lai also noted that the arrest of the president of the animation company, who was also unrelated to the incident, was puzzling to him.

The defense asked if Lai knew about the arrests of Agnes Chow and Andy Li? Lai said he did not know. Judge Alex Lee asked how Lai knew about the arrest of other colleagues? Lai stated that his colleagues and Mark Simon informed him. The defense asked if Lai learned about Andy Li after two weeks of his arrest, during the report of 12 Hong Kong people fleeing? Lai agreed.

12:58 Lunch

14:37 Court Inquires About Lai’s Arrest and Police Questioning Process

The defense continued to focus on the headline from the August 13 edition of Apple Daily, “Jimmy Lai’s Detention Reflections: ‘I would choose this path even in prison,'” where Lai mentioned in an interview, “Is it equivalent to telling the US and other countries: ‘Don’t interfere with our matters, the more you interfere, the more we will suppress through actions’?” The defense asked if the US and other countries were intervening in Hong Kong’s affairs at the time? Lai stated he wouldn’t call it “intervention,” but rather speaking out and supporting the Hong Kong movement.

Regarding “Don’t interfere with our matters,” Lai meant that foreign countries should not interfere in Hong Kong’s affairs. In the interview, Lai mentioned, “It would feel like Europe and the international community supporting us is our only hope in Hong Kong, and while saying this, of course, some sentences might imply (like) you are asking foreign countries to do something, everyone understood it!” The defense asked what Lai meant by “Europe and international.” Lai referred to international support, such as paying attention to the situation in Hong Kong.

The defense asked about Lai’s statement in court, suggesting an appeal to foreign intervention in Hong Kong, and he quipped, “What to do, I really don’t know how to say it, man!” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai made these comments before the National Security Law was enacted? Lai agreed.

The defense further asked about Lai’s statement, “everyone understood it!” Lai explained, “to support Hong Kong is to censure China or accuse China of suppression.”

The defense asked if the police mentioned the timeframe of the charges when Lai was arrested for colluding with foreign powers? Lai said no. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if the police specified whether the collusion occurred before or after the National Security Law? Lai said the police did not specify. Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked for Lai’s opinion, to which he responded, “What do I think? I haven’t considered this because they didn’t explain it, just that it involved collusion.”

Judge Alex Lee then asked if Lai was given a police warning, and if the police specified the charges? Lai said it was for collusion with foreign powers. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai had told Simon Lee that collusion with foreign powers was a crime? Lai reiterated that he did not collude with foreign powers.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked about the 48 hours Lai was detained; did the police not question him? The defense noted that Lai slept in the detention room, and Lai added that the police did question him with a lawyer present. The defense asked if the police mentioned the charges during the questioning? Lai said it was for collusion with foreign powers but didn’t recall how long the questioning lasted. The defense asked if Lai signed any records at that time? Lai did not remember.

The defense asked if Lai was in a room with video recording equipment during the questioning? Lai said he didn’t remember if it was during his first arrest or a subsequent one.

15: 35 Break 

The Witness