Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, remains on trial for “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other charges. Following a three-day adjournment, proceedings resumed Tuesday at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, acting as the High Court, marking the 134th day of hearings. It was Lai’s 42nd day of testimony and the prosecution’s 16th day of cross-examination.

Prosecutors presented messages from June 2019 in which Lai instructed Chan Pui-man, his subordinate, to interview students who had signed petitions, aiming to “inspire” them to join the June 9 march. While Lai previously testified that his focus was on university students, he acknowledged under cross-examination that secondary school students were also included.

The prosecution also referenced Apple Daily’s November 2019 launch of the “Support Students, Resist Tyranny” newspaper subscription campaign, questioning whether the publication had consistently encouraged student participation in protests. Lai denied it was a longstanding practice but said he supported students reading the news and staying informed about current affairs at the time.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why Apple Daily continued using the phrase “Resist Tyranny” in its campaign even after the government withdrew the extradition bill. He questioned whether the campaign had shifted from opposing the bill to targeting the government. Lai responded that the public believed the anti-extradition movement was ongoing and continued to push for the “Five Demands.”

The case is being heard by High Court-designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution is led by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang 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 holds a Hong Kong practicing certificate.

Detailed Transcription

16:29 Court Adjourns

16:07 Lai Denies Intent to Incite Violence, Tells Prosecution: “Don’t Waste Time Fabricating Things”

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s Apple Daily column from December 22, 2019, titled “We Must Persist to Have Hope”, in which he wrote:

“That day, I mentioned to Cardinal Joseph Zen that the valiant protesters must avoid infiltration. He said it was time for them to organize a leadership team because with leadership, they would have principles and a bottom line. This way, infiltrators who engage in excessive actions would be easily exposed, making it harder for them to exploit our movement as ammunition for power struggles. To the valiant protesters, please consider Cardinal Zen’s advice.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai supported Cardinal Zen’s view.

Lai agreed, stating that he wanted to de-escalate violence.

The prosecution asked Lai and questioned that he was not only supporting de-escalation but also supporting the valiant protesters in forming a leadership team.

Lai agreed, explaining that they needed principles and a bottom line.

The prosecution then asked:

“So to maintain a certain level of violence?”

Lai replied that he never said that, only that the valiant protesters lacked principles and a bottom line.

The prosecution asked why Lai had not outright condemned violence.

Lai admitted that he had not condemned violence but stated that he believed it needed to be controlled.

The prosecution pressed further:

“You never explicitly told them to stop the violence?”

Lai responded:

“By telling the valiant protesters to organize a leadership team, I was essentially telling them to stop violence.”

The prosecution asked:

“But you never actually said ‘stop the violence’?”

Lai replied:

“But I did say there must be a bottom line.”

The prosecution challenged him again:

“Wouldn’t it have been simpler just to say ‘stop the violence’?”

Lai argued that if he had said it that way, the valiant protesters would not have listened, making it ineffective.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted to use violent means to oppose the government.

Lai reiterated that there needed to be principles and a bottom line.

The prosecution then asked:

“So you support valiant protesters operating under controlled action?”

Lai agreed, stating that his ultimate hope was to avoid any violence.

The prosecution questioned:

“How can you say you want to avoid all violence while still calling them ‘valiant protesters’?”

Lai explained that valiant protesters had no principles or bottom line, but if they had a leadership team, they wouldn’t necessarily need to resort to violence.

The prosecution pressed further:

“If they’re not violent, why call them ‘valiant protesters’?”

Lai replied that the term was used to distinguish between peaceful and radical protesters.

The prosecution cited Lai’s earlier testimony, where he had said that violent acts were inevitable when protesters confronted the police, so they must be controlled.

The prosecution asked whether this meant that Lai “to some extent, supported protests involving violence, as long as they were controlled”.

Lai agreed, saying that if controlled, it would prevent things from escalating beyond limits.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai intended to incite violence among readers.

Lai denied this, stating:

“I don’t know where you got that from. I was talking about having principles and a bottom line.”

He then accused the prosecution of fabricating claims.

The prosecution responded that Lai should answer the questions simply with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to avoid wasting time.

Lai fired back:

“I think you’d be better off not wasting time fabricating things.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interjected:

“Please don’t argue. That is for the court to determine.”

He instructed Lai to just answer the prosecution’s questions.

Lai then replied:

“I’m sorry.”

The prosecution argued that Lai’s article was intended to stir up hatred, contempt, or discontent toward the central and Hong Kong governments.

Lai disagreed.

Meanwhile, noise was heard from the public gallery, prompting Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping to order silence.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked about the trial schedule, inquiring whether the prosecution still planned to finish cross-examination by mid-March.

The prosecution responded that they were moving faster than expected.

Judge Lee then asked about the remaining topics of cross-examination.

The prosecution stated that they would focus on Apple Daily as a platform, Lai’s statements before and after the enactment of the National Security Law, and said these would be the final topic of the cross-examination.

15:58 Lai: Apple Daily Only Published Interviewees’ Statements, Not Conveying Messages for Protesters

The prosecution presented the article “The Dragon-Slaying Squad’s Call: Citizens Join Valiants and Go On Strike”, highlighting the opening paragraph:

“The Battle of No. 2 Bridge at CUHK shocked the city. Those on the front lines braving gunfire were assisted by a legendary ‘true valiant’ squad—The Dragon-Slaying Squad. Over the past five months, countless protesters have been arrested or injured, yet only one of the Five Demands has been addressed. As the movement reaches a bottleneck, four members of The Dragon-Slaying Squad were interviewed by Apple Daily. They believe that to relieve frontline pressure and even achieve victory, people must choose between citizens join valiants or citywide three strikes. ‘Our goal is to awaken more people. There are only a dozen of us—we can’t hold on for long!’”

The prosecution asked whether this article was meant to convey a message to readers through Apple Daily.

Lai responded that the interview was not intended to send a message to the readers but merely to publish what the interviewees said, believing that readers could make their own judgments.

The prosecution pressed further, pointing out that the article suggested choosing between “citizens join valiants” or “go on strike”.

Lai replied that this was merely the emotions of a small group of about ten people and did not reflect the views of Hong Kong people as a whole. He also disagreed with this idea.

The prosecution then asked whether Apple Daily endorsed the proposal and helped communicate this message to the public.

Lai denied this, stating that the newspaper only published the interviewees’ statements and that as a media organization, it was simply reporting their perspectives.

The prosecution cited another passage from the article:

“The Dragon-Slaying Squad was formed in early August. They are the true frontliners, fearless and undaunted.”

The prosecution asked whether this reflected Apple Daily’s viewpoint.

Lai responded that this was merely a description of the four protesters interviewed and was meant to identify who they were, rather than encouraging others to become like them.

The prosecution questioned whether Apple Daily was advocating for readers to become ‘fearless and undaunted protesters.’

Lai denied this, reiterating that the article was only describing the interviewees.

The prosecution then asked whether the article was glorifying the interviewees’ actions.

Lai denied this.

The prosecution then asked:

“Did Apple Daily support protesters becoming valiants?”

Lai responded “No.”

The prosecution stated that the article, on the surface, suggested that valiant protesters were calling for ‘citizens join valiants or go on strike.’

Lai responded that this was merely their sentiment but admitted that he found it a bit extreme.

The prosecution asked whether Lai agreed with this proposal.

Lai responded:

“Of course not.”

The prosecution then asked:

“After reading the article, did you instruct staff to take it down?”

Lai responded that he did not, emphasizing that he did not have to agree with everything Apple Daily published.

The prosecution noted that the article interviewed four valiant protesters and that Lai described them in court as among the most radical protesters.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had instructed his staff to contact these protesters and urge them not to use violence.

Lai responded that he had not.

The prosecution followed up by asking whether Lai had always believed in peaceful protests.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asked:

“Since you knew these were the most radical protesters, and your staff had contact with them, why didn’t you send them a message or instruct your staff to reach out to them?”

Lai replied that he did not, because it was not his responsibility.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had asked Chan Tsz-wah to help de-escalate violence.

Lai responded that Chan was inside the movement, whereas the interviewees were not, making such an effort ineffective.

The prosecution then accused Lai of using the article to incite others to commit violence.

Lai firmly denied this, stating:

“Totally disagree.”

15:33 Break

15:18 Apple Daily Article Mentions “The Regime Forced Me to Evolve”; Lai: Reporting Interviewees’ Views Does Not Equate to Support

The prosecution presented an October 9, 2019 Apple Daily article titled “From Peaceful to Valiant: The Regime Forced Me to Evolve.” Lai stated that he had likely read the article.

The prosecution asked whether the article incited others to commit violent acts. Lai responded that it was simply an interview with a pro-valiant protester.

The prosecution then pointed out that the article included the phrase “The regime forced me to evolve.”

Lai clarified that this was a statement made by the interviewee.

The prosecution asked whether Apple Daily supported this viewpoint.

Lai stated that Apple Daily reported the views of interviewees, but that did not mean it endorsed their opinions.

The prosecution highlighted that the article also included the phrase “[Government oppression forces people to rebel]”, and asked whether Lai agreed with this sentiment at the time.

Lai responded that he had not considered this issue at the time.

The prosecution then presented a November 15, 2019 Apple Daily article titled “The Dragon-Slaying Squad’s Call: Citizens Join Valiants and Go On Strike.”

Lai stated that he did not remember whether he had read the article.

The prosecution insisted that Lai had read it, but he disagreed.

The prosecution then showed a conversation between Lai and Chan Tsz-wah four days later, in which Lai commented:

“So among the four people interviewed by Apple Daily, the one who seems like a leader is actually not a key figure.”

The prosecution argued that this indicated Lai had indeed read the article.

Lai responded that he did not remember.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping found this explanation unreasonable, asking:

“If you hadn’t read the article, why would you ask Chan Tsz-wah that question?”

Lai reiterated that he did not remember whether he had read it.

Under questioning from Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang, Lai acknowledged that after seeing the messages presented by the prosecution, he now remembered reading the article. However, if the prosecution had only shown the article itself, he would not have recalled it.

Lai further stated that while he supported the “go on strike” campaign, he did not support “citizens join valiants.”

15:00 Prosecution Alleges Lai Downplayed Violence in LegCo Storming to Avoid Losing Support; Lai Denies

The prosecution presented messages from Cheung Chi-wai, who sent photos of the July 1, 2019, storming of the Legislative Council (LegCo) to Jimmy Lai on July 1-2, 2019. Lai confirmed that he was aware of the protesters’ violent actions targeting LegCo at the time.

The prosecution then referenced Lai’s speech at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) in the U.S. later that month, where he spoke about the LegCo incident:

“They destroy something, but what they destroyed is very small and the means of destruction is used as a symbolic gesture to protest against the government. It’s not an intention of destruction. They just paint some slogan on the wall, deface some of the photos of the past chairman, and they broke the glasses to get into the building. That’s all they did. If they had intention for destruction, they would have destroyed a lot of things.”

The prosecution questioned why, despite protesters using carts to ram the glass, Lai still stated that “they had no intent to destroy.”

Lai explained that in his discussion, he was clarifying his belief that the protesters’ entry into LegCo was a symbolic act rather than an act of destruction. He argued that protesters even refrained from touching many items, which was his own judgment.

The prosecution pressed further:

“This is not about discussing how or why the protesters entered the building, but rather whether their actions were intended as destruction.”

Lai reiterated that the protesters’ actions were symbolic and that they did not touch many items.

The prosecution then asked:

“Did you claim that the protesters had no intention to destroy because you wanted to tone down the violence to avoid losing international support?”

Lai denied this.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping intervened, asking:

“But you instructed Chan Tsz-wah to de-escalate frontline violence?”

Lai agreed.

Judge Toh followed up:

“Then, after the storming of LegCo, when you gave media interviews, were you not thinking the same thing?

Wasn’t your goal to prevent losing international support, so you considered de-escalating violence to maintain that support? Wasn’t that your mindset?”

Lai responded that his statements during the FDD discussion were factual, reiterating that the protesters did not touch anything valuable and only damaged items with symbolic meaning.

“Maybe the intention to maintain international support was always there, but in the discussion, I was stating the facts.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked:

“What do you mean by ‘only destroying things with symbolic meaning’?”

Lai explained that the protesters damaged very few things, such as posting slogans on walls, defacing past chairmen’s photos, and breaking glass, which he considered symbolic acts.

The prosecution then asked:

“Then what exactly is a ‘symbolic gesture’?”

Lai repeated the same examples as before.

The prosecution followed up:

“Do you agree with or support actions like posting slogans on walls, defacing past chairmen’s photos, and breaking glass?”

Lai denied supporting these actions.

The prosecution then asked:

“Did you want the protesters to gain public sympathy?”

Lai agreed.

Finally, the prosecution asked:

“At the time, did you know these actions were acts of extreme violence?”

Lai responded that they were acts of violence, but not ‘extreme’ violence.

14:33 Prosecution Argues Live Chat Was Launched with Senior Executives’ Consensus and Was Essentially an Apple Daily Program

The prosecution continued presenting a message from Cheung Chi-wai, sent on July 2, 2020, in the “English News” group chat regarding the Live Chat program.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that the message stated:

“After the Twitter live broadcast, a 3-5 minute highlights clip will be released on the English edition of Apple Daily and Apple Daily’s real-time international news platform.”

The judge asked whether Lai was aware of this arrangement at the time.

Lai responded that he had been aware but could no longer remember the details due to the time lapse.

The prosecution then presented another message from Cheung Chi-wai, sent on July 30, 2020, stating that Live Chat viewership increased when Lai retweeted the broadcast from his personal Twitter account.

The prosecution showed evidence from Lai’s personal Twitter account, which displayed retweets of Apple Daily’s Twitter posts featuring Live Chat. They pointed out that while Lai had 24 episodes of Live Chat, every instance of the program appearing on his personal Twitter account was a retweet—he had never directly posted the broadcasts himself, and he had not retweeted all 24 episodes.

The prosecution then presented messages between Lai and Cheung Chi-wai, where they discussed expanding Live Chat to other platforms beyond Twitter, including YouTube, Facebook, and Apple Daily’s video channel “Guo Ran” (果燃台).

Lai confirmed this.

Additionally, Cheung mentioned plans to add real-time subtitles to the program as a new feature.

On November 19, 2020, Cheung sent another message stating:

“Everyone, the boss’s live discussion with former Israeli Prime Minister and human rights activist Natan Sharansky will be broadcast live tomorrow (Friday)…”

The prosecution pointed out that the message explicitly stated that Apple Daily would promote the program across multiple platforms, including YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and “Guo Ran.”

The prosecution then presented the A3 page of Apple Daily’s print edition from the following day, which featured a full-page advertisement for Live Chat, displaying photos of Lai and Natan Sharansky, alongside the headline:

“Is Hong Kong the pawn in the global chess game?”

The prosecution argued that from topic selection to production, promotion, and distribution, every stage of the program was handled by Apple Daily.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asserted that Lai used Apple Daily’s resources and that the program was launched with the consensus of senior executives.

Lai responded that this was a consensus among members of the “English News” group, not necessarily all senior executives.

The prosecution then directly asked:

“Was Live Chat essentially an Apple Daily program?”

Lai denied this, stating that it was his personal program, but that Apple Daily supported and utilized it.

The prosecution then asked whether it was agreed within the “English News” group that the program would be published on Apple Daily’s platform.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution pressed further:

“So Live Chat was not just your personal program?”

Lai reiterated that it was his personal program but acknowledged that Apple Daily had used it.

The prosecution then pointed out that the decision to produce and distribute Live Chat was made with the consensus of the “English News” group, which included Lai.

Lai confirmed this.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked:

“Did Apple Daily’s senior executives assist in the production of the program, and did you approve them uploading it to Apple Daily’s platform?”

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution again questioned whether the program was related to Apple Daily.

Lai responded that while Apple Daily was involved in publication and technical support, it was still his personal program, not an Apple Daily production.

The prosecution pressed further, asking:

“So the program was related to Apple Daily?”

Lai clarified that it was involved but did not agree that it was controlled by Apple Daily.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had previously testified that he never discussed his program with Cheung Kim-hung, unless it was related to Apple Daily.

“So now, you admit that Apple Daily was involved in Live Chat?”

Lai responded that he believed he never discussed Live Chat or his interview guests with Cheung Kim-hung.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai’s admission that Apple Daily was involved in Live Chat meant that he had also discussed Jack Keane with Cheung Kim-hung.

Lai denied this, emphasizing that he never discussed his personal friends with Cheung.

The prosecution pointed out that Cheung Kim-hung had previously asked Lai whether inviting Jack Keane would be “too sensitive”.

“At that moment, were you discussing Jack Keane with Cheung Kim-hung?”

Lai disagreed with this assertion.

12:55 Lunch

12:37 Prosecution States That Lai’s First Three Live Chat Episodes Were Not Broadcast on His Personal Twitter

The prosecution continued citing messages between Jimmy Lai and Cheung Chi-wai, questioning whether Cheung had provided Lai with prepared questions for his discussions with viewers.

Lai responded that this only happened once, stating that in later episodes, the questions became more spontaneous. He also explained that the program later shifted to Lucia relaying audience questions for him to answer.

The prosecution then pointed out that on July 16, Cheung again provided Lai with a set of questions for the show. Lai confirmed this. The prosecution also cited messages indicating that on the following day (July 17), Cheung informed Lai about some technical issues regarding the program. Lai also confirmed this.

The prosecution presented further messages from the “English News” group chat on July 17, in which Cheung informed the group that Apple Daily’s breaking news push notification had promoted the program with the message:

“Jimmy Lai goes live on Twitter, real-time interactions with global netizens.”

The prosecution argued that these messages showed that Cheung informed the group, including Lai, that the show would feature live audience participation, with viewers interacting with Lai. Some participants even asked questions via Zoom on media platforms.

Lai stated that he did not remember this.

The prosecution then asked whether this was arranged by Cheung Chi-wai. Lai confirmed.

The prosecution further inquired whether Lai was informed about the program arrangements. Lai confirmed that he had delegated these responsibilities to staff and was not personally involved in the details. However, when asked if Apple Daily was involved in the program, Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then asserted that the first three episodes of Live Chat were not broadcast from Lai’s personal Twitter account.

Lai responded that he did not know.

The prosecution presented a July 30, 2020 message from Cheung Chi-wai to Lai, in which Cheung mentioned the viewership numbers for the fourth and fifth Twitter Live sessions. Cheung speculated that the increase in viewership was due to Lai’s personal Twitter account sharing the live stream.

When asked whether he was aware of this, Lai again stated that he did not know.

12:13 Lai Confirms That Apple Daily Promoted and Published Highlights of Live Chat Premiere

The prosecution continued presenting evidence from the “English News” group chat on July 9, 2020, the day of Live Chat‘s premiere.

During the broadcast, Cheung Chi-wai sent a message to the group:

“Everyone, the boss’s Twitter Live is now streaming.”

He included a link to the live stream, which directed to Apple Daily’s Twitter account, as well as a screenshot of the program with the caption “Live Q&A with Jimmy Lai.”

The prosecution pointed out that several senior executives commented on the program. For example, Fung Wai-kong remarked that the broadcast was smooth but felt more like a monologue.

Lai responded:

“We should change to conversation with followers next time.”

Cheung Kim-hung then suggested a discussion format between Fung and Lai.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had proposed engaging in conversations with Twitter followers in future episodes. Lai confirmed. The prosecution then presented messages between Lai and Cheung Chi-wai, where Cheung suggested having Lucia act as a host for the program. Lai also confirmed this.

The prosecution further noted that after Live Chat launched, Apple Daily actively promoted the program. The promotion included a headline:

“Pro-democracy media tycoon vows to stay and fight for Hong Kong.”

Additionally, Apple Daily’s mobile app featured a content summary highlighting the program. Lai confirmed this but stated that he had not paid attention to it at the time. He explained that someone might have informed him about it via WhatsApp, but he had not been focused on it.

The prosecution then pointed out that after the July 9 premiere, the program was posted across various social media platforms, but not on Lai’s personal Twitter account.

Lai insisted that the program should have been posted on his Twitter account.

The prosecution countered, stating that the broadcast was actually posted on Apple Daily’s Twitter account, not Lai’s personal account.

11:05 Lai States That Live Chat Was His Own Project, Employees Only Provided Assistance

The prosecution presented a message from Cheung Chi-wai on July 2, 2020, in the English News group chat, which stated:

“Boss, Mr. Cheung, everyone, I have discussed the boss’s Twitter Live with Lucia. The live stream will start next Thursday (July 9) at 10 AM. The goal is to interact with international readers, engage in international advocacy, and promote the English edition of Apple Daily. The plan is as follows:

1. A weekly broadcast every Thursday at 10 AM.
2. A push notification in the English edition to remind readers and direct them to the Twitter Live link.
3. The boss’s Twitter account will also share the live stream.
4. The program will be filmed in the boss’s office for a more personal feel, with each session lasting about 15-25 minutes.
5. Two staff members will assist during the live stream—one from the production team handling technical matters and another from the international desk monitoring viewer comments and facilitating interaction (this person will remain off-camera).
6. Starting Monday (July 6), the English edition of Apple Daily will run continuous promotional content for the Thursday Twitter Live.
7. A 3-5 minute highlights video will be released after each Twitter broadcast.
8. The July 9 Twitter Live topic will focus on Hong Kong’s National Security Law.”

The prosecution asked whether this message indicated that Apple Daily was involved in all aspects of the Twitter Live program, including production, setup, and promotion. Lai responded:

“They did all this for me for the sake of my program.”

The prosecution challenged this, arguing that the entire plan was deeply connected to Apple Daily. Lai insisted that only two Apple Daily employees assisted with the live broadcasts.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping pointed out that the message specifically stated, “The boss’s topic will focus on the National Security Law,” suggesting that employees also contributed to the selection of discussion topics. Lai argued that this was likely because he had previously informed them about what he planned to discuss, rather than the employees suggesting topics for him.

Judge Toh pressed further, asking whether Lai himself suggested the topics to the employees. Lai replied that he had merely informed them about his planned content.

The prosecution then presented a message where Lai had replied to Cheung Chi-wai:

“I need you and Lucia to give me feedback.”

Lai had also mentioned that Fung Wai-kong could potentially host a weekly news discussion program.

The prosecution asked whether “I need you” referred to senior executives at Apple Daily. Lai denied this but acknowledged that he had suggested Fung Wai-kong host a program, though it never materialized.

The prosecution then displayed another message from Cheung Chi-wai, sent on the same day, in which he forwarded a list of suggested discussion topics from Lucia to Lai. These topics included:

• Thoughts on the National Security Law
• How the National Security Law would affect Apple Daily and other media organizations
• The objectives of Apple Daily’s U.S. edition

Lai explained that Lucia was responsible for collecting audience questions, and these were her suggested topics, but he rejected the suggestions and responded to Cheung that viewers should be allowed to ask their own questions spontaneously.

The prosecution then showed a message from Cheung Chi-wai on July 6, confirming that Twitter and Facebook promotions had already been launched for Lai’s live stream. The next day, Cheung messaged Lai about the broadcast arrangements, mentioning that Corita would also assist.

The prosecution asked, “Who is Corita?” Lai replied that she was another Apple Daily employee who assisted with the live stream along with Lucia.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lucia had prepared questions in advance. Lai responded that Lucia collected audience questions and then forwarded them to him.

The prosecution questioned whether the live discussion topics had been pre-arranged. Lai denied this, reiterating that viewers asked questions spontaneously and that he had not pre-planned discussion topics.

10:38 Prosecution Questions Apple Daily Executives’ Involvement in Lai’s Live Chat Program, Contradicting Lai’s Testimony

The prosecution began questioning Jimmy Lai about his program, Live Chat with Jimmy Lai. They cited testimony from Cheung Kim-hung, the former CEO of Next Digital and a cooperating witness, who stated that Lai had once told him:

“Recent guests have been quite prominent, including Jack Keane, a retired U.S. general.”

Lai allegedly described Keane as “very influential.” In response, Cheung asked:

“Wouldn’t it be sensitive to invite a retired general at this time?”

According to Cheung, Lai replied:

“Having been in business for decades, my gut instinct tells me that since they’re targeting me like this, I have to go all the way. I have no way out.”

Lai refuted Cheung’s testimony, stating that he had never mentioned his personal friends to Cheung, so Cheung would not have known about Jack Keane’s participation in the program. Regarding his remark about having “no way out”, Lai admitted that he might have said this in another context but insisted it was not related to Jack Keane.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had previously testified that he never discussed his personal friends with Cheung and that his business activities were separate from Next Digital. Lai also claimed that his Twitter Live program was unrelated to Apple Daily. He confirmed these statements in court.

The prosecution further questioned whether Lai had ever granted permission for Apple Daily executives to launch Live Chat on the newspaper’s platform or had given them any instructions to do so. Lai confirmed that he had not.

The prosecution then asked whether Apple Daily only published the Live Chat program after Lai had posted it on his Twitter account. Lai stated that this was a logical assumption, but he was uncertain whether they were published simultaneously. The prosecution reiterated that Lai had described Live Chat as his personal program, separate from Apple Daily. Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then presented a message from the “English News” group chat on June 30, 2020, in which Cheung Chi-wai, then director of Apple Daily’s news video platform, wrote:

“Boss, Mr. Cheung, everyone—Boss is planning to do a Twitter Live to interact with international readers and engage in international advocacy. I propose the following plan:

1. A weekly show, every Thursday at 9:20 AM
2. A push notification to remind readers to watch
3. The live stream will be broadcast simultaneously on both the boss’s personal Twitter and Apple Daily’s Twitter
4. The program will be filmed in the boss’s office for a more personal feel
5. Only two staff members will assist during the broadcast: one from the production team for technical support and another to relay reader comments for interaction.

The show could start on July 9 or 16, depending on the boss’s availability.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai was aware of the live broadcast plan at the time. Lai confirmed but said he had forgotten about it. Judge Toh then pointed out that the message clearly stated:

“Boss is planning to do a Twitter Live to interact with international readers and engage in international advocacy.”

Toh asked whether this indicated that the program was not purely Lai’s personal show but was connected to Apple Daily. Lai insisted that it was his personal program and had nothing to do with Apple Daily.

The prosecution noted that the plan included “push notifications to remind readers to watch,” suggesting that the show was being promoted through Apple Daily. Lai confirmed. Additionally, when asked whether the program was filmed in his office, Lai confirmed that it was at the Apple Daily office. However, he added that while he sometimes filmed at home, most of the time it was done in the office.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned whether the Live Chat program had been discussed within the “English News” group chat. Lai acknowledged that Cheung Kim-hung had expressed interest. Judge Lee further asked whether this meant that Lai had, in fact, discussed the matter with Cheung. Lai reiterated that he never discussed his personal friends with Cheung.

Judge Toh then cited another message, in which Cheung Kim-hung had asked:

“Is the show starting the day after tomorrow? The draconian law has just taken effect.”

In response, Cheung Chi-wai replied that the team would be ready in two days.

Judge Toh questioned whether this conversation indicated that Apple Daily executives were actively involved in organizing the show. Lai denied this, stating that only Cheung Chi-wai was involved in coordinating two employees to assist with production and that the discussion in the English News group was merely for informational purposes.

The prosecution then presented a message from Lai:

“I’m okay with this. But I want to talk to Lucia to have her input and get more understanding. Kim-hung, can you alert her and ask her when would be the best time for a video call? Thanks. Jimmy.”

The prosecution asked whether this constituted an instruction from Lai to Cheung Kim-hung. Lai responded that he did not have Lucia’s contact information, so he asked Cheung for assistance.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether Apple Daily staff were responsible for posting Lai’s Live Chat program on his Twitter account. Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then questioned why, if Live Chat was a personal project, Lai had discussed it within the “English News” group. Lai explained that he recorded the show in the office and that employees assisted with production. He also stated that he informed the “English News” group because they were senior staff members.

The prosecution challenged Lai’s explanation, suggesting that he had not merely informed senior executives but rather that the entire senior leadership team was actively involved in the production of Live Chat. Lai reiterated that only Cheung Chi-wai and two staff members were involved and that Cheung Kim-hung was merely concerned about potential issues related to the implementation of the National Security Law. He insisted that other senior executives were only informed about the program but were not involved in its production.

10:20 Lai Agrees During Cross-Examination That Apple Daily Aimed to Encourage More Students to Participate in Protests

The prosecution presented a conversation between Jimmy Lai and Chan Pui-man on June 3, 2019, regarding the upcoming June 9 protest:

Lai: We should find some petitioning students for interviews to inspire other students to come out on June 9.
Chan: We have some, will look for more. Thanks.
Lai: The main focus should be interviewing them—not targeting ‘senior students’ but rather inspiring other students to come out. Thanks, Lai.
Chan: Understood.

Lai previously acknowledged that he had instructed his subordinates to encourage more students to participate in protests, specifying that the petitioning students referred to university students. When the prosecution presented the messages again in court, Lai clarified that he was merely assuming the petitioning students were university students, but he was not certain.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai believed the petitioning students could also include secondary school students. Lai responded that they could, but it was only speculation. The prosecution then asked whether Lai’s message was intended to encourage more students to participate in the June 9 protest. Lai confirmed.

The prosecution presented a group chat created by Lee Cheuk-yan on June 6, 2019, related to the June 9 protest, in which Lai was a member. In the chat, Lee mentioned a campaign called “One Person, One Photo”, urging people to join the protest. He specifically mentioned encouraging secondary and university students to participate. The prosecution asked whether the goal was to have more secondary and university students join the protest. Lai replied that it was not the sole purpose of the campaign, as the protest was intended for all people to join.

The prosecution also showed another message from the group, where Lai quoted Martin Lee’s opinion:

“Martin suggested that we need a few more young people to join, to show an inter-generation image. Anyone has good candidates to recommend?”

Lee Cheuk-yan responded:

“There will be secondary students arriving?”

The prosecution asked whether Lai agreed with Lee’s idea. Lai confirmed. The prosecution then asked whether the intent at the time was to have secondary school students participate. Lai confirmed. The prosecution further asked whether the goal of the campaign was to have more secondary and university students participate in the June 9 protest. Lai confirmed.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned Lai about his conversation with Chan Pui-man, particularly regarding the message:

“We should find some petitioning students for interviews to inspire other students to come out on June 9.”

He asked whether Lai had instructed Chan to interview students to inspire others to join the protest. Lai confirmed.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping further questioned whether, based on the messages, the “petitioning students” Lai referred to were logically secondary school students. Lai responded that he had not specified this in the message. Judge Toh pointed out that Lai had written, “not targeting ‘senior students’” (師兄, 師姐). Lai explained that, logically, this referred to high school students and that the goal was not to focus on university students. He added that there had been disputes between university and secondary school students at the time, and he did not want the interviews to be divisive.

The prosecution then asserted that Apple Daily sought to encourage more students to participate in protests against the government. Lai agreed.

The prosecution further referenced a November 19, 2019, initiative by Apple Daily called “Support Students, Resist Tyranny”, which promoted newspaper subscriptions. Lai stated that the campaign aimed to encourage more donations to help secondary school students access newspapers. The prosecution asked whether this initiative encouraged students to subscribe to Apple Daily. Lai confirmed. The prosecution then asked whether it was intended to encourage students to participate in protests. Lai responded that, at the very least, it was meant to help students stay informed about current events. The prosecution argued that Apple Daily had “all along” encouraged students to protest. Lai disagreed, saying that the newspaper did not “always” do so but that, at the time, it supported students’ access to news and awareness of current affairs.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why Apple Daily used the phrase “Resist Tyranny” in its campaign when the Extradition Bill had already been withdrawn. He questioned whether this meant the initiative was no longer about opposing the bill but rather targeting the government. Lai responded that, at the time, many citizens believed the anti-extradition movement was not over and that they continued to demand the “Five Demands”.

10:10 Lai Confirms Instructing Subordinates to Publish the English Version of News on Pompeo’s Meeting with Tiananmen Survivors

The prosecution cited an email from Mark Simon, an assistant to Lai, sent on June 4, 2020, in which he forwarded a message from then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s team to Lai. The message stated:

“The Secretary met with Tiananmen survivors. First time to our knowledge that the massacre anniversary was marked in such a way.”

Mark Simon also mentioned that the message came from Pompeo’s team, adding:

“She hopes Apple can give it some publicity that we can show Pompeo.”

Lai confirmed that he forwarded these messages to then-Deputy Publisher Chan Pui-man and then-Chief Editor Ryan Law Wai-kwong.

The prosecution asked whether Lai intended to publish the news in the English edition of Apple Daily. Lai confirmed that he had notified his subordinates, but the news had already been published using other sources. The prosecution further questioned whether Lai had also instructed his subordinates to republish the news and post an article on the opinion page. Lai confirmed.

The prosecution presented messages between Mark Simon and Lai from June 4, 2020. Mark Simon wrote:

“And thank you on the coverage in Apple. Mary thrilled will get to Pompeo.”

Lai responded:

“That’s great to hear! Thanks.”The prosecution argued that this constituted an instruction from Lai to publish the news in Apple Daily. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely forwarding the message, as his subordinates had already published the news before he relayed it. The prosecution then pointed out that, aside from the initial publication, Lai had also instructed the news to be republished in the English edition and an opinion piece to be written. Lai confirmed.

The Witness