Jimmy Lai’s trial is happening now. Follow the latest updates.

Show your support by using the hashtag #FreeJimmyLai

Day 127: February 4, 2025

The Witness: Live Updates | Day 127 of Jimmy Lai’s Trial. Prosecution Questions Lai’s Assessment of Chan Tsz-wah as a Nonviolent Leader

The trial of Next Media founder Jimmy Lai, charged with conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and other offenses, entered its 127th day Tuesday at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, which is acting as the High Court. It marked Lai’s 35th day of testimony, with the prosecution continuing its cross-examination for a ninth day.

Prosecutors questioned Lai about his relationship with co-defendant Chan Tsz-wah, focusing on how he determined that Chan was a “conservative frontline” leader capable of de-escalating violence. Lai argued that Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee would not have introduced Chan if he had been involved in violence. He also said Chan managed a bridging loan for an international crowdfunding campaign, suggesting he must have been a leader to handle such a task.

Separately, Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios raised questions about Lai’s attempted trip to the United States in 2020, particularly a message he sent to his assistant, Mark Simon, after his travel request was denied by the court:

“We just have to do what I can from here.”

The judge asked whether the statement suggested Lai intended to continue lobbying for sanctions from Hong Kong. Lai denied the claim.

The case is being heard 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 Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai is represented by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan Man-wai, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is also licensed to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcription

16:36 Court Adjourns

16:18 Lai Denies Asking Chan to Engage in International Lobbying

The prosecution continued presenting messages from Mark Simon, in which Simon stated:

“Good news in that our friend Waylan (Wayland) has been able to sync up the folks who did the international ads with Sam Chu, so that’s one less competing set of voices in DC (That was not an easy task).”

Judge Alex Lee asked whether Chan Tsz-wah was involved in the international advertising campaign. Lai said yes.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had stated that the Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC) advocated for international support for Hong Kong and asked whether the message showed that Lai knew Chan was engaging in some form of international lobbying. Lai denied this, stating that Chan was only facilitating connections between groups.

The prosecution further questioned whether Mark Simon’s message indicated that Chan was not solely involved in de-escalating frontline violence. Judge Esther Toh also asked why Lai had not inquired about the matter. Lai responded:

“Things come as they come. What am I supposed to ask?”

Judge Lee noted that Mark Simon was closely monitoring Chan’s actions. Lai said this was not the case.

The prosecution then argued that Mark Simon was reporting on Chan’s activities because of Lai’s instructions. Lai denied this.

The prosecution further accused Lai of not only instructing Chan to de-escalate frontline violence but also engaging him in international lobbying efforts. Lai rejected this claim, stating:

“That’s your fabrication.”

Judge Lee then inquired about the progress of the cross-examination. The prosecution stated that they would continue addressing matters related to Chan Tsz-wah, before moving on to topics concerning Apple Daily’s editorial directives and “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai.”

Judge Lee questioned whether these areas had already been covered in previous cross-examinations. The prosecution replied that they would revisit these topics and estimated that cross-examination would be completed by mid-March.

16:00 Lai Denies Organizing Protests but Admits Role as Opinion Leader

The prosecution presented a January 5, 2020, WhatsApp group conversation involving Mark Simon, Lai, and Martin Lee, in which Simon mentioned that he had just returned from Washington. He noted that the White House had taken notice of the District Council elections and quoted then-Vice President Mike Pence, who called it a “great sign.”

Simon also relayed that Pence believed it was important for Hong Kong’s newly elected political figures to discuss Hong Kong’s actions in Washington and to seek guidance from senior figures and opinion leaders.

The prosecution asked whether Lai considered himself a “senior figure.” Lai responded that the message did not mention him specifically. The prosecution pointed out that Mark Simon had previously referred to “veterans of the democracy movement,” including “Martin and Jimmy.” Lai countered that the contexts were different.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai saw himself as a veteran of the democracy movement. Lai said yes, stating that in terms of age, he was. When asked whether he was also a veteran in terms of experience, Lai said yes.

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai considered himself a senior figure or an opinion leader. Lai responded that he did not know, as the message did not explicitly mention him. Judge Esther Toh then asked whether Lai considered himself an opinion leader. Lai responded, “No.”

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai saw himself as a leader. Lai initially denied it but later clarified that he was one of the leaders of the movement. Judge Toh then asked, “Who else were the leaders of the movement?” Lai named Martin Lee, Albert Ho, Lee Wing-tat, and Lee Cheuk-yan, among others.

The prosecution then asked what movement Lai had led after the government withdrew the extradition bill in October 2019. Lai responded that protests continued, as people still had the ‘Five Demands.’ He argued that the movement was ongoing. Lai added:

“I don’t think we led the movement. We considered ourselves leaders because we shared our opinions, but the movement itself came from the people.”

Lai stated that the Democratic Party organized some protests, but most were spontaneous. When asked whether he had personally organized any protests, Lai denied it, stating that he had only participated, talked about the movement, owned a newspaper, and expressed his opinions, which made him one of the leaders.

Judge Toh asked whether Lai was referring to the movement for freedom. Lai agreed, stating that it included the anti-extradition movement.

When Judge Toh asked whether the people continued protesting because they did not accept the bill’s withdrawal, Lai agreed. She then asked, “So you were one of the leaders?” Lai reaffirmed:

“I was one of the leaders of giving opinions.”

15:52 Lai Confirms Contacting Finn Lau Through Chan Tsz-wah for a Meeting

The prosecution presented a conversation between Lai and Chan Tsz-wah on December 31, 2019, before their fourth meeting. In the messages, Chan informed Lai:

“Hi Jimmy, I am back from my fruitful UK trip meeting a helpful family and Ben. The guest is happy to meet you. When will you be available in Taipei? He is available until 8 Jan 2020.”

Lai responded:

“Great! I’ll be in Taipei again on Monday 6 & 8, leave Taipei on Wednesday 9. Thanks. Jimmy”

He then added:

“Before meeting him, can we meet so you can share your fruitful trip with me? Thanks. Jimmy.”

The prosecution asked whether Chan was reporting back to Lai about his meeting with Benedict Rogers. Lai denied this, stating that Chan was merely sharing his trip experience.

On the same day, Mark Simon messaged Lai, saying:

“Jimmy, Waylan (Wayland) reached out to Lam Chou. He can come to Taipei from London anytime between the 2nd and the 8th. Would you be able to see him in Taiwan on one of those dates?”

The prosecution argued that Mark Simon was relaying information about Chan’s contact with Finn Lau, implying that Lai had instructed Chan to reach out to Lau, and Chan then reported back to Simon, who in turn informed Lai.

Lai countered, asking what exactly he was supposed to have instructed Chan to do. The prosecution specified that Lai had directed Chan to contact Finn Lau. Lai acknowledged that he had asked Chan to check whether Lau was available for a meeting but denied giving any direct instructions.

The prosecution then asked whether Mark Simon acted as an intermediary between Lai and Chan. Lai denied this, but agreed that Mark Simon and Chan were in contact.

Finally, the prosecution questioned whether Mark Simon assisted Lai, including in communications with Chan. Lai confirmed this.

15:30 Break

15:00 Lai Denies Introducing Rogers to Chan for International Lobbying

Regarding Lai’s suggestion in December 2019 to introduce “Hong Kong Watch” founder Benedict Rogers and UK House of Lords member Lord Alton to Chan Tsz-wah, the prosecution questioned why Lai specifically mentioned Lord Alton’s advocacy for granting Hongkongers BNO status. Lai responded that it was to show that Alton was concerned about Hong Kong.

The prosecution then asked whether Lord Alton was engaging in international lobbying for Hong Kong. Lai denied this, arguing that advocating for BNO status was not lobbying work. The prosecution pressed further, asking if Lai introduced Chan to Lord Alton in the hope that Chan would engage in similar work. Lai reiterated that he was merely providing information to highlight Alton’s concern for Hong Kong.

Judge Esther Toh then asked why Lai introduced Rogers to Chan as “a very fervent HK freedom fighter and supporter”. Lai explained that Rogers had always been a strong supporter of Hong Kong.

Judge Toh questioned why, if Chan’s role was solely to de-escalate the radical protesters, Lai would introduce him to Rogers. Lai replied that since Chan had asked whether there was anyone he could be introduced to, Lai thought of Rogers and simply introduced him as the founder of “Hong Kong Watch” and a passionate supporter of Hong Kong’s freedom.

Judge Toh then asked whether Lai believed Chan could also participate in international lobbying alongside de-escalation efforts. Lai denied this and stressed that he was only making an introduction.

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios followed up, referencing Lai’s statement that Rogers had previously protested and gone on hunger strikes for Hong Kong. She asked how a hunger strike could help Hong Kong. Lai responded that it could raise awareness of Hong Kong’s situation in London.

Judge Toh then asked what goal Rogers sought to achieve in the UK. Lai answered that it was to draw British attention to Hong Kong.

14:45 Lai Says He Does Not Recall Benedict Rogers Advocating for the Magnitsky Human Rights Act

Regarding Lai’s introduction of Benedict Rogers and Lord Alton to Chan Tsz-wah, the prosecution pointed out that Lai had described Rogers as being part of the “international front” during his direct examination. Lai denied this, stating that he had never said Rogers was part of the “international front” and was unaware that Rogers was lobbying for the Magnitsky Human Rights Act at the time.

Judge Esther Toh asked when Lai became aware that Rogers advocated for the Magnitsky Human Rights Act. Lai replied that he had forgotten where or when he first learned about it, whether it was in court or elsewhere.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was aware of Rogers’ advocacy for the Magnitsky Act in 2019 or early 2020. Lai stated that he did not remember.

The prosecution presented a conversation between Lai and Rogers from November 15–16, 2019, in which Rogers sent Lai a link to a Time magazine article titled “Now Is the Time for the U.S. to Stand With Hong Kong”, co-authored by Rogers and Johnny Patterson, the policy director of Hong Kong Watch.

The prosecution pointed out that the article explicitly referenced the Magnitsky Human Rights Act, which Lai acknowledged after reading it in court. However, Lai insisted that he had not noticed the reference at the time.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai typically read articles sent by Rogers. Lai responded that he rarely did, adding that he sometimes glanced at them but did not read that particular article.

The prosecution challenged Lai’s claim, asking how he could be sure he had not read the article. Lai replied that he could tell just by looking at the homepage.

14:31 Lai Says He Sought to Contact Finn Lau After PolyU Incident to Urge De-escalation of Violent Protesters

The prosecution continued questioning Lai’s relationship with Chan Tsz-wah, asking whether the “Fight for Freedom Group” was a group associated with radical protesters. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked whether Chan Tsz-wah was an important figure within the group. Lai agreed, stating that otherwise, Chan would not have approached him for a bridging loan. When asked if Chan had the ability to lead radical protesters, Lai responded that he did not know about his capabilities.

Referring to Chan’s earlier testimony, in which he claimed that Lai had suggested a meeting with activist Finn Lau, the prosecution questioned when Lai had proposed this. The prosecution presented a message from Chan to Lai on December 20, 2019, in which Chan wrote:

“Although I only have a day and a half in London, I want to make the most use of it. Anyone you want me to meet?”

Lai subsequently introduced him to Benedict Rogers, the founder of Hong Kong Watch.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had agreed in his earlier testimony that he sought to reach out to Finn Lau for discussions. Lai confirmed this. The prosecution then asked if Lai had instructed Chan to contact Finn Lau after their third meeting. Lai denied this.

The prosecution pressed further, asking when exactly Lai had attempted to contact Finn Lau regarding de-escalating radical protesters. Lai responded that it was after the PolyU incident, as 40% of radical protesters had dispersed, and he believed it was an opportune moment to engage Lau in forming a leadership group. As a result, Lai and Chan made arrangements to see if Lai and Lau could meet in Tokyo or elsewhere.

The prosecution asked again whether this happened before December 20, 2019, when Chan traveled to the UK. Lai said he did not know, explaining that Chan had simply asked him to introduce people to meet, but he was unaware that Chan went to the UK specifically to meet Finn Lau. Instead, Lai had instructed Chan to try and arrange a meeting with Lau in Kyoto or Bangkok.

The prosecution then presented a message from December 4, 2019, in which Chan informed Lai that Finn Lau had agreed to meet in Japan and that he would also be traveling to the UK to see him.

Lai responded that since Lau had already agreed to meet in Japan, he did not know why Chan needed to go to the UK to meet Lau again.

12:59 Lunch 

12:38 Lai Accuses Prosecution of “Putting Words in My Mouth Again”; Judge Orders Him to Control His Emotions

The prosecution presented a message from Chan Tsz-wah to Lai on December 20, 2019, in which Chan asked if there was anyone he should meet while in London:

“Hi Jimmy, meanwhile my trip in London, although only a day and a half. I want to make the most use of it. Anyone you want me to meet?”

Lai responded:

“Do you want to meet Ben Rogers? He’s founder of HK Watch. A very fervent HK freedom fighter and supporter, though his backing is suspicion-riddled Irene. But he’s doing a good job. If you want I can set it up for you. Hopefully he can also have Lord Alton to come to the meeting. Lord Alton is a member of the House of Lords. He’s working on giving HK people BNO status. Cheers. Jimmy.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai had instructed Chan to meet activist Finn Lau (known as “Lam Chau Ba”) in the UK, as Chan previously testified. Lai denied this, stating that Chan made the decision on his own.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai wanted Chan to seek out Finn Lau to de-escalate frontline violence. Lai agreed but maintained that he had not instructed Chan to go to London specifically for that purpose.

The prosecution then argued that Lai’s recommendation for Chan to meet Ben Rogers and Finn Lau had nothing to do with reducing violence. Lai responded sharply:

“Not every single thing I say or do has to be about de-escalating violence. If I tell him to go to the restroom, does that mean it’s for de-escalating violence too? You’re insane!”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked Lai why he had told Chan to meet Ben Rogers and Finn Lau. Lai explained that he thought Rogers would be interested in meeting Chan and that it was simply polite to respond to Chan’s question, so he introduced Rogers to him.

The prosecution pointed out that Chan’s message specifically asked, “Anyone you want me to meet?” and questioned whether that meant Chan was asking for Lai’s input on who to meet. Lai replied that Chan was simply expressing an interest in meeting people.

The prosecution then asked why Lai had suggested Ben Rogers specifically. Lai responded, “Because I know him.”

The prosecution then pressed further, asking whether Ben Rogers was involved in lobbying efforts in the UK. Lai responded that Rogers was helping Hong Kong and was the founder of Hong Kong Watch.

The prosecution then directly accused Rogers of lobbying for sanctions and taking hostile actions against Hong Kong. At this, Lai raised his voice in frustration:

“No. That’s what you said. You’re putting words in my mouth again and again and again. You’re so free of shame and integrity.”

At this, Judge Esther Toh interrupted:

“Mr. Lai, kindly refrain from making statements without answering the question. You are here only to answer questions. I will not allow a witness to unnecessarily criticize counsel for asking questions in my court.”

Lai attempted to respond:

“If the prosecutor keeps sneaking words into my mouth—”

Judge Toh cut him off immediately:

“No, that is not for you to say. Mr. Lai, kindly restrain yourself.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also intervened, telling Lai:

“Mr. Lai, you must understand, the prosecutor is not putting words in your mouth. He is simply presenting the case to you and seeing whether you agree or not.”

Lai confirmed that he disagreed with the prosecution’s characterization, to which Judge Lee responded, “Okay, thank you.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then addressed Lai:

“I believe you are well aware that the prosecution has a duty to present the case to you. I understand that you may not like the way they do so, but this is their responsibility in court. I understand that you may feel irritated or emotional, but that is part of their duty.”

She then said:

“And you must make an effort to control your emotions and understand that this is their responsibility.”

Lai responded:

“Even if what they say is not true?”

Judge Remedios replied:

“Yes, you simply need to say that you disagree.”

12:30 Prosecution Accuses Lai of Supporting Violence and Inciting Lawlessness in His Articles; Lai Denies the Allegations

The prosecution continued referencing Lai’s article, “This is a Battle of Conscience,” citing its opening paragraph:

“The night was silent, empty. Fully armed police officers stood in formation, waiting impatiently for an enemy to appear. No tear gas, no pepper spray, no rubber bullets, no batons swinging wildly—yet, they were already restless. Across the street, a young man in a white shirt stood alone on the sidewalk and asked: ‘Sir, have you lost your conscience?’ Even though he was unarmed and alone, the ‘enemy’ had appeared. Without hesitation, a group of police officers charged at him. Several officers threw him to the ground, pinning him down and beating him until blood gushed from his head. These conscience-less people were filled with hatred, reflexively searching for an enemy. Even though the young man posed no threat, even though he had only spoken a heartfelt question, he became the target of their hate.”

The prosecution asked how Lai knew about the described events. Lai responded that he had read about them in Apple Daily news reports.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai did not cite any sources in the article. Lai responded that there was no need to.

The prosecution then pressed Lai, noting that he did not provide the date, location, or identity of the “young man in the white shirt”. Lai confirmed this omission.

The prosecution further questioned whether the public would know why “fully armed police officers stood in formation” since Lai did not explain why they were there. Lai countered by asking, “How do you know why the police were there?”

The prosecution asked Lai who he was referring to as the “enemy” in the article. Lai responded that the young people were being treated as the enemy.

The prosecution challenged Lai, arguing that his article lacked context and did not explain the background of the events. Lai replied that his article provided sufficient information.

The prosecution accused Lai of deliberately crafting a narrative that incited hatred. Lai rejected the claim, insisting that he was merely stating the facts.

The prosecution then accused Lai of fabricating the event. Lai denied the accusation, challenging the prosecution to verify the facts themselves.

The prosecution further claimed that Lai’s article supported violence and glorified “martyrdom.” Lai refuted this, arguing that martyrdom is not violence but self-sacrifice in response to injustice.

The prosecution questioned whether martyrdom involved harming or destroying others. Lai disagreed.

The prosecution asked whether this was an example of the “lam chau” (mutual destruction) concept. Lai denied it, asserting that “martyrdom” refers to a willingness to sacrifice oneself for truth.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai’s article was titled “This is a Battle of Conscience,” and asked whether he was encouraging readers to “fight for their conscience.” Lai responded, “What’s wrong with fighting for conscience?”

The prosecution accused Lai of promoting his own version of “conscience.” Lai countered, “No, this is everyone’s conscience.”

The prosecution then accused Lai of inciting others to use violence. Lai dismissed this as “a mere assumption by the prosecution.”

The prosecution escalated the accusation, claiming that Lai was inciting violence against the Hong Kong government and the central government. Lai disagreed.

Finally, the prosecution accused Lai of inciting people to disobey the law. Lai firmly denied this claim as well.

12:19 Prosecution Questions Why Lai Did Not Contact “Valiant” Protesters Directly to De-escalate Violence Despite Apple Daily’s Interviews

The prosecution asked why Lai continued to meet with Chan Tsz-wah after their third meeting. Lai responded that Chan never said he could no longer contact the radical protest leaders.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Chan had explicitly said during that meeting that he could not reach the radical protest leaders. Lai replied, “I seem to have a feeling that he might have said something like that.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked whether Lai now had an impression that Chan had said, ‘I cannot contact the radical protest leaders’. Lai responded, “It seems he said something similar.”

The prosecution then asked, if that were the case, why did Lai continue to meet with Chan? Lai responded that he believed Chan could still reach the radical protesters.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had previously acknowledged meeting with former student activist Sunny Cheung, questioning why he did not ask Cheung to help de-escalate frontline violence. Lai explained that he did not believe Cheung was in the right position to do so. He reiterated that Chan had been introduced to him by Martin Lee, had reached out to him for a bridge loan to fund newspaper advertisements, and thus, Lai believed Chan held some level of influence among the radical protesters.

The prosecution then referenced Lai’s article from September 8, 2019, titled “This is a Battle of Conscience.” In the article, Lai wrote:

“Once, I had a conversation with more than ten young radical protesters. Three of them, who were just over 20 years old, privately told me that they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives to protect Hong Kong.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had tried to de-escalate violence among radical protesters during this conversation. Lai replied that he had not, explaining that the protesters had been interviewed by Apple Daily, and he had only spoken with them when they met.

Lai added that he did not know whether those individuals were from the more violent faction or the more moderate one.

The prosecution questioned this, asking, if someone declares they are willing to sacrifice their life for Hong Kong, wouldn’t they likely be part of the radical faction rather than the moderate one? Lai responded that they could be either because protesters on the frontlines faced police violence, and anything could happen. Even those who were originally moderate could end up injured.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had the opportunity to meet with these individuals when they expressed willingness to sacrifice their lives—did it not occur to him to try to de-escalate their violence? Lai reiterated that he did not know whether they were moderate or violent.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned why Lai, as the owner of Apple Daily, never asked what these young people were actually doing. Lai responded that he had only been told they were part of the “valiant” faction.

The prosecution then asked, since Apple Daily had direct contacts with radical protesters, why did Lai not reach out to them directly to de-escalate the violence? Lai replied that he had never done so and had never asked journalists for the contact details of interviewees.

12:19 Prosecution Questions Why Lai Did Not Contact “Valiant” Protesters Directly to De-escalate Violence Despite Apple Daily’s Interviews

The prosecution asked why Lai continued to meet with Chan Tsz-wah after their third meeting. Lai responded that Chan never said he could no longer contact the radical protest leaders.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Chan had explicitly said during that meeting that he could not reach the radical protest leaders. Lai replied, “I seem to have a feeling that he might have said something like that.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked whether Lai now had an impression that Chan had said, ‘I cannot contact the radical protest leaders’. Lai responded, “It seems he said something similar.”

The prosecution then asked, if that were the case, why did Lai continue to meet with Chan? Lai responded that he believed Chan could still reach the radical protesters.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had previously acknowledged meeting with former student activist Sunny Cheung, questioning why he did not ask Cheung to help de-escalate frontline violence. Lai explained that he did not believe Cheung was in the right position to do so. He reiterated that Chan had been introduced to him by Martin Lee, had reached out to him for a bridge loan to fund newspaper advertisements, and thus, Lai believed Chan held some level of influence among the radical protesters.

The prosecution then referenced Lai’s article from September 8, 2019, titled “This is a Battle of Conscience.” In the article, Lai wrote:

“Once, I had a conversation with more than ten young radical protesters. Three of them, who were just over 20 years old, privately told me that they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives to protect Hong Kong.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had tried to de-escalate violence among radical protesters during this conversation. Lai replied that he had not, explaining that the protesters had been interviewed by Apple Daily, and he had only spoken with them when they met.

Lai added that he did not know whether those individuals were from the more violent faction or the more moderate one.

The prosecution questioned this, asking, if someone declares they are willing to sacrifice their life for Hong Kong, wouldn’t they likely be part of the radical faction rather than the moderate one? Lai responded that they could be either because protesters on the frontlines faced police violence, and anything could happen. Even those who were originally moderate could end up injured.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had the opportunity to meet with these individuals when they expressed willingness to sacrifice their lives—did it not occur to him to try to de-escalate their violence? Lai reiterated that he did not know whether they were moderate or violent.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned why Lai, as the owner of Apple Daily, never asked what these young people were actually doing. Lai responded that he had only been told they were part of the “valiant” faction.

The prosecution then asked, since Apple Daily had direct contacts with radical protesters, why did Lai not reach out to them directly to de-escalate the violence? Lai replied that he had never done so and had never asked journalists for the contact details of interviewees.

12:10 Prosecution Questions Lai Forwarding U.S. Senate Support for Hong Kong Protesters to Chan Tsz-wah

The prosecution presented a message exchange between Jimmy Lai and Chan Tsz-wah on November 20, 2019. Lai had sent the following message:

“Senate Unanimously Approves Measure Backing Hong Kong Protesters.”

Chan responded:

“Yes. I was told. I hope it can put some pressure on the government.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai saw this as international support for Hong Kong from the global community. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted Chan to understand that this was the kind of international support people had been calling for. Lai responded that he had not explicitly said that, adding that he had also forwarded the same message to pan-democratic friends.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was simply providing information. Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked whether Lai was sharing his own views with others. Lai denied this, stating that he was only sharing information, not his personal opinions.

The prosecution asked why Lai shared this information with Chan specifically. Lai replied that Chan was interested in it.

At this point, Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios raised her voice, clarifying that the prosecution’s question was about why Lai shared it with Chan specifically (singular), not “them” (plural). Lai corrected himself, stating that he shared it because Chan was interested.

The prosecution then compared this to Lai previously forwarding the Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC) Twitter screenshot to Chan, to which Lai agreed.

The prosecution pointed out that this message had nothing to do with Chan’s supposed role in de-escalating frontline violence. Lai responded that Chan was still interested in Hong Kong’s situation.

The prosecution asked whether Lai and Chan’s conversations focused solely on de-escalating frontline violence. Lai agreed, except for Chan’s request for a bridge loan.

The prosecution then referenced Lai’s testimony during direct examination, where the defense had asked about his third meeting with Chan on November 27, 2019. The defense had noted that Chan claimed he was unable to contact the leaders of the more radical protesters (“valiant faction”), and at the time, Lai had testified that he had no choice but to take Chan at his word and could neither confirm nor deny it.

In today’s testimony, Lai stated that Chan may have said he could not contact the radical protest leaders, but he was not certain.

The prosecution immediately challenged this, asking how Lai could now remember that Chan said he could not contact the radical protest leaders. Lai responded:

“From my sense, from my body, from my mental state.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping summarized the issue, pointing out that during direct examination, Lai had claimed he did not remember whether Chan told him he could not contact the radical protest leaders, whereas today, Lai was saying that Chan might have mentioned it during their meeting.

Lai responded that Chan might have told him, but he was not certain.

Judge Toh pressed further, asking whether Lai was now saying that Chan had actually never told him he could not reach the radical protest leaders. Lai replied:

“I did not say that Chan never told me. I’m just not sure. At different times, I have different mental states.”

11:21 Break

11:00 Prosecution Questions Why Lai Claims Not to Know “HKDC” Despite Traveling to the U.S. with Samuel Chu

The prosecution presented a WhatsApp conversation from November 15, 2019, two days after Jimmy Lai had dinner with Chan Tsz-wah and pan-democratic figures. Lai first forwarded a screenshot of the Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC)’s Twitter post, which discussed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. He then messaged:

“Rubio taking the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to the floor of the Senate. Means it gets a vote as early as today or next week. Hard to see it not passing. Excellent news.”

Lai confirmed that at the time, he was providing Chan with updates on the bill, as well as forwarding the information to other pan-democrats, believing that Chan would be interested in Hong Kong affairs.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had forwarded the information to encourage the pan-democrats to engage in international lobbying. Lai denied this, stating that none of the recipients were involved in international lobbying, listing Albert Ho, Lee Wing-tat, and Lam Cheuk-ting as examples. He emphasized that he was merely sharing information with friends.

Under further questioning, Lai said that Lee Cheuk-yan had engaged in international lobbying, primarily in European countries. The prosecution pointed out that Lee Cheuk-yan had sent a message about traveling to the U.S. to push for sanctions against key figures related to the anti-extradition movement. Lai responded that he did not recall details about Lee’s activities in the U.S.

The prosecution then questioned Lai’s knowledge of HKDC, to which Lai reiterated that he did not know what HKDC stood for because he did not pay attention to it. The prosecution pointed out that during direct examination, Lai had said he “did not remember” HKDC, rather than “did not know” it. Lai responded, “I don’t remember because I didn’t know.”

The prosecution then referenced an Apple Daily interview transcript, where Lai mentioned “Hong Kong Democracy Council,” questioning why he now claimed not to know that HKDC stood for “Hong Kong Democracy Council.” Lai responded that at the time, he had not paid attention to the name and had not realized it was HKDC. He reiterated that he did not know what “Hong Kong Democracy Council” was.

The defense interrupted, arguing that the interview narration mentioned “Hong Kong Democracy Council”, and Lai may not have been present at the time of recording.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then noted that the interview mentioned that Lai was in the U.S.. Lai responded that he had traveled around the U.S. with Samuel Chu at the time.

Judge D’Almada Remedios pressed further, asking whether Lai knew about HKDC at that time. Lai insisted that he did not know “Hong Kong Democracy Council”, only that Samuel Chu was the founder of an organization that supported Hong Kong.

Judge D’Almada Remedios then questioned how Lai could have traveled in the U.S. with Samuel Chu and not known that he was part of HKDC. Lai repeated that he did not know.

The prosecution asked what Samuel Chu’s organization supported in Hong Kong. Lai responded that he only knew the organization generally supported Hong Kong, and at the time, the anti-extradition movement was ongoing. Lai stated that he did not ask Chu about it, nor did Chu explicitly state it, but he was aware that Chu was the son of Reverend Chu Yiu-ming.

The prosecution then asked why Lai met with Samuel Chu. Lai explained that Chu had introduced him to U.S. senators.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether the organization supported Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. Lai confirmed that it did.

The prosecution then referenced another Apple Daily interview, in which Lai said:

“Violence has really escalated, and they are very concerned. They want us to maintain the struggle in a way that is not too violent.”

The prosecution asked who Lai was referring to as “they.” Lai responded that he was referring to U.S. senators.

The prosecution then asked whether these senators wanted protesters to be “less violent.” Lai explained that since the senators were very concerned, they hoped the movement could be sustained without excessive violence.

10:30 James Cunningham Stated That Elections Should Not Be Seen as Validation of Continued Violence

The prosecution presented a November 13, 2019 message Jimmy Lai sent to Mark Simon before his meeting with Chan Tsz-wah, in which Lai wrote:

“Mark, Got ‘What to be done.’ I agree with Jim. The difficulty is that we don’t know how to stop the violence of the protesters in reaction to escalating violence of the police.”

The prosecution asked whether this message referred to advice from former U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong and Macau, James Cunningham. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely expressing uncertainty about how to stop the violence and added that he believed Cunningham also found the situation alarming.

Lai also told Mark Simon:

“Meanwhile, I’m seeing a few people tonight to urge them to form a young people’s leadership. The leadership will have the support of the Pan-Democrats, who will be part of the leadership group to open negotiations with the government.”

The prosecution asked whether the Pan-Democrats were also organizing a leadership group. Lai responded that this was his idea, suggesting that the Pan-Democrats could offer advice to the young leaders, but that the young leadership team would not allow them to take control.

The prosecution pointed out that Mark Simon replied, “Thanks, will forward.” The prosecution then asked to whom Simon was forwarding the message. Lai believed it was to James Cunningham. However, the prosecution suggested that Simon had actually forwarded it to the U.S. government. Lai denied this, maintaining that it was only sent to Cunningham.

The prosecution then presented a November 25, 2019 group chat that included Lai, Martin Lee, James Cunningham, and Mark Simon. In this chat, Cunningham wrote:

“As I said in the ‘What to be done’ note, knowing the balance of force/leverage will be crucial. If the election comes to be seen as a validation of continued violence in demonstrations, I fear that will be a huge strategic mistake. The goal should be acquiring political power over the establishment and bringing elements of it along. That cannot be imposed as a defeat. Beijing will not allow that. The goal now should be a path to getting inside the CE process.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai agreed with Cunningham’s recommendations in the “What to be done” note. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked whether Cunningham was advocating a course of action in response to the anti-extradition movement. Lai responded that this was not explicitly stated in the message.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether “CE” referred to “Chief Executive.” Lai replied that if it meant “Chief Executive,” then the suggestion would be unreasonable.

Judge Lee pointed out that Cunningham’s message mentioned political reform. Lai responded that Cunningham was only suggesting reducing violence to avoid damaging the elections.

Judges Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios and Esther Toh Lye-ping pressed Lai further, asking what “CE” referred to. Lai said he did not know.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai agreed with Cunningham’s advice. Lai confirmed that he did.

10:13 Prosecution Questions How Lai Could Be Certain That Chan Tsz-wah Was a Leader and Nonviolent

The prosecution continued questioning Jimmy Lai about his understanding of Chan Tsz-wah. The prosecution noted that Lai had given three different descriptions of Chan:

  1. During direct examination, Lai testified that Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee told him that Chan was a “young person on the front lines”, without using the term ”  valiant”.
  2. During cross-examination, Lai described Chan as a “conservative within the front lines.”
  3. Later, Lai stated that Martin Lee had told him that Chan was conservative and that Lai could use him to calm violence on the front lines.

Lai denied that these were three different versions, insisting that they all meant the same thing. He explained that he might have interpreted “radical” as “frontline”, adding that some frontline activists were violent, but not all of them.

The prosecution then asked, according to Lai’s understanding, did Chan engage in violence? Lai replied no, stating that if Chan had been violent, Martin Lee would not have introduced him. The prosecution followed up, asking if Chan was therefore nonviolent. Lai responded that this was what he had been told and how he understood it.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked how Martin Lee had described Chan in Chinese at the time. Lai replied, “Conservative, relatively conservative, peaceful—one of the more conservative ones on the front lines.”

The prosecution asked whether this was Lai’s final version of events. Lai responded that there was no final version, and that all his statements were consistent, adding, “But it doesn’t matter.”

The prosecution then asked whether Martin Lee told Lai that he could use Chan to de-escalate frontline violence. Lai responded that he believed Chan was one of the leaders, which is why he could help reduce violence.

Judge Toh pressed further, asking whether Lai was certain that Martin Lee had told him he could use Chan to de-escalate violence. Lai agreed that he was not entirely certain, but emphasized that Martin Lee’s purpose in introducing Chan was to help quell frontline violence.

The prosecution asked why Lai was sure that Chan was a leader. Lai explained that if Chan were not a leader, he would not have been able to help reduce violence, and Martin Lee would not have introduced him.

The prosecution then asked whether this was Lai’s speculation. Lai responded that Chan had contacted Martin Lee to request a bridge loan, which convinced him that Chan was a leader. When the prosecution pressed multiple times, Lai eventually agreed that it was his speculation.

Judge Toh asked whether Martin Lee had explicitly stated that Chan was one of the leaders. Lai admitted that Martin Lee had not said so directly, but reiterated that since Chan handled the bridge loan, he must have had the capability to do so.

The prosecution then asked why a conservative, peaceful person would have the ability to de-escalate frontline violence. Lai responded that if Chan was conservative and peaceful, and had his own stance and financial resources, then he had a reason to be a conservative figure and the ability to reduce violence.

The prosecution asked whether someone had told Lai this directly. Lai replied that it was his own speculation.

The prosecution then asked why violent frontline activists would listen to a peaceful figure. Lai responded:

“We had to do everything we could to calm the violence at the time because it was hurting the movement.”

The prosecution then asked whether this meant that Chan had the ability to reduce frontline violence. Lai responded that whether or not Chan was able to de-escalate violence, that did not stop him from trying.

10:05 Lai Denies Continuing Lobbying Efforts with Mark Simon in Hong Kong and the U.S. in 2020

Before the prosecution resumed questioning regarding co-defendant Chan Tsz-wah, Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked Jimmy Lai about his attempted trip to the U.S. in 2020, which had been discussed in court the previous day.

The prosecution had presented a June 12, 2020 conversation between Lai and his aide Mark Simon, where Lai wrote:

“Mark, I’m sure you know already. I was refused by the court to travel. Sorry. Jimmy.”

Mark Simon responded:

“Yes, I’m sorry about that. I just pulled in from two days in Washington. I saw the guys at the NSC, as well as had breakfast with Mary, and then I had some meetings on Capitol Hill. I’ll have a cuppa tea and then I will write you a report very quickly.”

Simon then added:

“Again, I’m sorry you’re not making it over there.”

Lai replied:

“It’s okay. We just have to do what I can from here.”

Judge D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai was trying to comfort Mark Simon with his message. Lai replied that by “we,” he was referring to those on his side—those who wanted to save Hong Kong.

Judge D’Almada Remedios then asked whether Mark Simon was included in “we.” Lai responded that since Simon was in the U.S. at the time, it was difficult to say “we” included him.

Judge D’Almada Remedios pressed further, asking what Lai meant by “we just have to do what I can from here.” Lai explained that the “I” in his message should have been “we”, meaning “we just have to do what we can from here.”

Judge D’Almada Remedios questioned why Lai used “I” instead of “we.” Lai responded that it was a mistyping. When asked what exactly he intended to do, Lai said he had no specific plans and that it was just something he said.

Judge D’Almada Remedios then asked whether what Lai was doing in Hong Kong was the same as what he would have done in the U.S. Lai replied, “Of course not. How could it be? If I had gone there, I would have met with those people.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai and Mark Simon were aligned in their efforts, each working from different locations. Lai countered, asking what “direction” the prosecution was referring to, adding that they could not be doing the exact same thing but reiterating that his statement simply meant “we just need to do what we can.”

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had previously agreed that Mark Simon acted on his behalf. Lai agreed, but clarified that Simon was in the U.S. at the time.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai and Simon were each working separately, one in Hong Kong and one in the U.S. Lai agreed.

Judge D’Almada Remedios then asked if they were continuing to lobby for sanctions. Lai denied this.

The prosecution then presented another message from Mark Simon to Lai, stating:

“We can get a lot done. As FYI, Monday night Father Sirico has a Zoom with you, a recording for his function, where you were supposed to get an award. He does have a good mailing list of Catholics, legislators, and even Pelosi will see it, as this is the one event that she pays attention to.”

Lai responded that he believed this was Simon’s speculation, questioning how Simon could know Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s level of attention to the event.

The prosecution again referred to Lai’s message about “we just have to do what we can from here,” suggesting that Lai and Mark Simon were engaged in lobbying efforts separately, in Hong Kong and the U.S.. Lai denied this, stating that he was not lobbying but merely participating in an interview with Father Sirico, which he had already seen and did not contain lobbying content.

The prosecution then asked whether it was fair to say that both Lai and Simon were doing the same type of work. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked whether they shared the same objective. Lai agreed.

10:02 Court in Session

Today marks the seventh day of the Lunar New Year, known as “Renri” (Human Day). Before the court session began, a member of the public in the gallery called out “Happy Birthday” to Jimmy Lai, to which Lai responded with a wave.

The Witness

Stand up for Jimmy Lai

In a democracy, every voice matters. Click below to add your voice and share this message.

#FreeJimmyLai

#FreeJimmyLai

#FreeJimmyLai

#FreeJimmyLai