The trial of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who faces charges including conspiring to collude with foreign forces, entered its 135th day Wednesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. It marked Lai’s 43rd day of testimony and the prosecution’s 17th day of cross-examination.

During the proceedings, prosecutors questioned Lai about a January 2020 article in which he referenced protest slogans such as “Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times” and “Five demands, not one less.” They asked whether he agreed with the slogans, to which Lai responded that he had not given them much thought at the time.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping pressed further, saying that if Lai had written the slogans in his article, he must have either consciously recalled them or had them ingrained in his mind. Lai reiterated that the slogans were commonly used during protests and that he had not considered whether they were right or wrong.

Prosecutors then suggested that Lai had supported the “Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times” slogan at the time and continued to do so even after the enactment of the National Security Law. Lai denied this, stating that he was aware the slogan became illegal under the law once it was enacted.

The case is being heard by National Security Law-designated High Court judges Toh, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee Wan-tang. Representing the prosecution are Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai’s defense team includes Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcript

16:01 Prosecution Points Out Some Slack Messages Were Edited; Lai Says He Was Unaware

The prosecution asked Lai about his earlier testimony, in which he stated that some Slack messages were written by his secretary, Julie.

The prosecution inquired:

“What kind of content did Julie write?”

Lai responded that Julie handled the organization of “lunchbox meetings”, including arranging details of the meetings and coordinating participants. 

Lai also stated that Julie would sign her name at the end of messages, whereas he personally responded to employee inquiries.

Additionally, the prosecution asked about the Slack interface and pointed out that some messages had been edited or deleted.

Lai repeatedly stated that he was unaware of any such modifications.

14:39 Lai Confirms Secretary Assisted in Setting Up Slack on His Phone; Claims He Did Not Know the Password

The prosecution questioned Jimmy Lai regarding the use of the Slack communication platform at Apple Daily.

The prosecution asked whether it was Lai’s secretary, Julie, who set up Slack on his phone.

Lai confirmed this and explained that he did not have a computer at his office or home, but both Julie and Taiwan Apple Daily secretary Chialing had computers.

The prosecution asked:

“Did Taiwan Apple Daily also use Slack?”

Lai confirmed this, adding that Taiwan Apple Daily also had “lunchbox meetings”, which Julie and Chialing arranged via Slack.

The prosecution asked whether Julie had access to Lai’s Slack account.

Lai confirmed, stating that Julie handled most of the content.

The prosecution further asked:

“Did Julie help Lai respond to employees?”

Lai denied this, stating that he personally handled responses to employees, while Julie mainly helped arrange lunchbox meetings.

The prosecution then presented evidence that Lai had created the “HK Apple Online Chat” Slack group on October 29, 2018, and asked if Julie had access to his account.

Lai confirmed that Julie had both the account and the password.

The prosecution asked:

“Did  you know if Julie ever shared your account and password with others?”

Lai responded that he did not know.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai knew if Chialing had access to his account.

Lai stated that he did not know, but if she had access, it would have been Julie who provided the information.

The prosecution then asked whether, if Chialing had access to his account and password, she might have shared it with others.

Lai responded:

“No, as a secretary, she would not do such a thing.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai’s lawyers prepared the Slack records while he was in custody.

Lai stated that he did not know how his lawyers prepared the Slack records.

The prosecution asked:

“Did you know how to obtain the records included in the document bundle?”

Lai replied that he did not know, nor did he ask, but believed the records were accurate.

The prosecution then asked:

“So before the documents were submitted to the court, had you reviewed the Slack records?”

Lai firmly stated that he had not.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked:

“You did not review the Slack record documents before the trial, but you must have seen the group content on the platform before?”

Lai confirmed that he had.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping then asked:

“Did you give your account and password to your secretary to prepare the document bundle?”

Lai responded that he did not.

The prosecution followed up:

“Are you saying you did not even know your own account password?”

Lai agreed, explaining that he did not need to log in manually—pressing the Slack app automatically granted him access.

The prosecution then presented Slack group chats that were not included in the document bundle, such as “Taiwan Apple Image Chat”, “Taiwan Apple Print Media Chat”, “HK Games Chat”, “HK HR”, “HK Minisite”, “HK Subscription”. 

Lai explained that “Lunchbox Meetings” were meant to follow up on departmental business developments, but these groups were unrelated to those meetings.

“These are not departments; they are just functional groups.”

The prosecution concluded:

“So the Slack record bundle did not include all groups?”

Lai agreed.

14:32 Prosecution Questions Whether Lai Advocated U.S. Sanctions on Election Officers; Lai Says He Cannot Recall Whether Post Was Written by Himself or Simon Lee

The prosecution referred to Lee Yee’s column “Whistling in the Dark”, which stated:

“Last Friday night, not only were these 11 people and their families sleepless, but some of their followers—those who have done things against their conscience—probably couldn’t sleep either. The ‘DQ director,’ corrupt cops, the 18 members of the HKU Council, and even those who consider themselves ‘not patriotic enough’ and were left off the first sanctions list, missing out on this ‘honor,’ were likely uneasy as well.”

The prosecution asked:

“Do you agree with the author’s call for the U.S. to sanction Legislative Council election officers who disqualified candidates (‘DQ directors’), police officers, and the 18 members of the HKU Council?”

Lai responded:

“Ask him, not me.”

The prosecution then presented a tweet from Lai’s Twitter account dated August 8, 2020, which read:

“How about those election officers who disqualified #DQ the candidates’ nominations? Should they be personally responsible for making the decisions?”

The prosecution asked:

“So you also advocated for the U.S. to sanction the election officers who disqualified Legislative Council candidates?”

Lai responded that the tweet did not explicitly say that and claimed that he could not distinguish whether the post was written by himself or his protégé, Simon Lee.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping noted that Lai had previously admitted to writing the post.

The prosecution further pointed out that earlier in court, they had presented evidence showing Lai sending the same content to Simon Lee via WhatsApp.

Lai agreed.

12:20 Prosecution Questions Article by Lee Yee; Judge Inquires Whether Lee Is a Co-Conspirator

The prosecution asked about Apple Daily columnist Lee Yee, questioning whether Lai was aware that Lee was writing opinion pieces for the forum section.

Lai confirmed that he was aware and that he occasionally read Lee’s articles.

The prosecution then asked:

“Did you read articles related to seeking international support?”

Lai responded that it depended on the situation, but he did not believe that Lee wrote about international affairs or politics.

The prosecution pressed further:

“But if an article was related to seeking international support, would you definitely be interested?”

Lai responded:

“Not necessarily.”

The prosecution asserted that Lai had always sought international support to punish the Chinese Communist Party for infringing on Hong Kong’s freedoms.

Lai replied:

“That does not mean I need to read every related article.”

The prosecution challenged this, stating that the theme of international support aligned with Lai’s objectives.

Lai responded:

“Even if it aligns, that doesn’t mean I have to read every article.”

The prosecution then presented Lee Yee’s August 10, 2020, column, titled “Whistling in the Dark”, and asked Lai if he had read it.

Lai stated that he had no recollection of the article, explaining that he would not remember something from years ago.

The prosecution highlighted a passage from the article:

“So, are sanctions setting a trend? At the very least, the Five Eyes alliance is likely to follow. Those saying, ‘I have no assets in the U.S.,’ or ‘I don’t want to go to the U.S.,’ stop deceiving yourselves! That’s why, last Friday night, not only were these 11 people and their families sleepless, but some of their followers—those who have done things against their conscience—probably couldn’t sleep either. The ‘DQ director,’ the corrupt cops, the 18 members of the HKU Council, and even those who consider themselves ‘not patriotic enough’ and were left off the first sanctions list, missing out on this ‘honor,’ were likely uneasy as well. Only fools fail to see the true balance of power and the direction of global trends.”

The prosecution pointed out that the article mentioned “DQ director” and “corrupt cops”, suggesting that this language was similar to a post on Lai’s Twitter, where he had called for sanctions against a ‘DQ director.’

Lai stated that he did not remember.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked the prosecution:

“Is Lee Yee a co-conspirator in this case?”

The prosecution denied that Lee Yee was a co-conspirator.

12:05 Lai Denies Avoiding Condemning Violence to Sustain Anti-Government Movement

The prosecution questioned Jimmy Lai regarding accusations that he deliberately refrained from condemning violence between 2019 and 2020 to ensure the continuation of the anti-government movement.

Lai disagreed.

The prosecution then asked:

“During the same period, did you want to control the violence because you didn’t want to lose international support?”

Lai disagreed.

The prosecution presented a full-page Apple Daily advertisement from October 12, 2019, which featured the phrase:

“Who killed him, her, him, and her?”

Lai said he did not remember seeing this advertisement, explaining that he was not in Hong Kong at the time and was seeing it for the first time in court.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked:

“Did you have any involvement with this advertisement?”

Lai responded:

“No.”

The prosecution then asked:

“Did Apple Daily advertisements require your approval?”

Lai replied:

“No, they did not.”

The prosecution challenged Lai’s claim, stating that immigration records showed he was in Hong Kong at the time.

Lai reiterated that he did not remember seeing the advertisement.

The prosecution then questioned Lai’s habit of reading newspapers, asking whether he usually looked through the paper.

Lai agreed but stated that he did not focus on advertisements.

The prosecution then presented:

• A Next Magazine article from October 9, 2019, titled “Female Protester Tortured Inside Police Station: Choked, Groped, Humiliated, and Deprived of Sleep”
• A November 25, 2020, editorial in Next Magazine by Yeung Wai-hong (pen name Gu Lap), titled “The Coming Days of Police Brutality Disappearing”

Lai said he had not read these articles.

The prosecution then asked:

“Have you read Yeung Wai-hong’s articles before?”

Lai replied:

“Of course, he wrote once a week.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping followed up:

“Since Yeung’s column was weekly, did you regularly read his articles?”

Lai responded that he read them most of the time.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then asked:

“What is the difference between articles in Next Magazine and Apple Daily?”

Lai explained that Yeung Wai-hong’s column in Next Magazine mainly focused on everyday life.

10:55 Article Claims “CCP Indoctrinating Students”; Lai Says It Was a Prediction Based on His Experience, Denies Incitement

Lai’s article “2020: Moderates and Militants Must Continue Supporting Each Other” stated:

“Education is an important battleground in our future struggle. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has shifted the blame for the protest movement onto the education system, turning the education sector into a scapegoat for the government’s policy failures… This resistance movement is pushing the CCP to intensify its indoctrination of students. Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung has already applied Cultural Revolution-style pressure on the education sector, stating that if schools find no issue with teachers involved in the anti-extradition movement, then the school or principal’s stance may itself be ‘problematic.’ If a principal is deemed unfit, their qualification can be revoked. The CCP’s intensified indoctrination of students is already underway.”

The prosecution asked whether this was merely Lai’s speculation.

Lai disagreed, stating that he was citing statements made by then-Education Secretary Kevin Yeung Yun-hung.

The prosecution asked:

“Did Kevin Yeung ever say that the CCP is indoctrinating students?”

Lai replied that Yeung stated that if a school believed an anti-extradition teacher was ‘not a problem,’ then the school’s or principal’s stance could be deemed problematic.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai used the term “indoctrination” (換頭洗腦, literally “brainwashing and replacing minds”).

Lai confirmed that this was his own wording.

The prosecution asked on what basis Lai made such a claim.

Lai responded that, following the anti-extradition movement, Hong Kong introduced so-called “patriotic education,” which he considered a form of indoctrination.

“Patriotic education is enforced through the education system—that is wrong.”

The prosecution pressed further:

“How do you know Kevin Yeung applied Cultural Revolution-style pressure on the education sector?”

Lai reiterated that Yeung had stated that schools or principals who did not penalize anti-extradition teachers could face consequences.

The prosecution pointed out:

“But Kevin Yeung never mentioned the CCP?”

Lai countered that indoctrination-style education was enforced by the CCP.

The prosecution asked:

“So this is your speculation?”

Lai agreed but argued that it was based on supporting evidence.

The prosecution then accused Lai of inciting hatred against the central government.

Lai denied this.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang quoted from Lai’s article:

“The CCP’s indoctrination aims to instill hatred and evil through class struggle.”

He asked:

“Are you suggesting that the CCP, through the Education Bureau, is creating class struggle and spreading hatred in Hong Kong?”

Lai responded that this was a prediction based on his personal experiences in mainland China.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked how long ago those experiences took place.

Lai replied:

“The 1960s.”

Judge Lee Wan-tang then asked:

“So, you are predicting that the CCP will do the same in Hong Kong?”

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then suggested that Lai was trying to share his emotions with readers, hoping they would feel the same way.

Lai responded:

“I was trying to warn readers about what might happen.”

The prosecution alleged that Lai’s article incited hatred and dissatisfaction toward the central and Hong Kong governments, encouraged illegal means to change Hong Kong’s legal system, provoked discontent among residents, and incited violence and lawlessness.

Lai completely disagreed.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had ever condemned violence between 2019 and 2020.

Lai replied that he could not recall, but he emphasized that he had always condemned violence, including in interviews and articles.

The prosecution pressed:

“So you say you don’t remember?”

Lai explained:

“I don’t remember where or when I condemned violence, but my stance has always been against violence.”

The prosecution accused Lai of not condemning violence because he wanted international support.

Lai questioned the logic of this claim.

Judge Lee Wan-tang also questioned the inconsistency in the prosecution’s argument.

The prosecution stated that they would revisit the question after a break.

10:50 Lai: Advocating Amnesty Was an Indirect Way to Condemn Violence

The prosecution cited a passage from Jimmy Lai’s article, which stated:

“The police’s brutality against citizens has made them the greatest enemy the people face.”

Lai explained that this reflected the general public sentiment at the time.

The prosecution then asked:

“Was this also your personal feeling?”

Lai responded that he was merely describing how Hong Kong people felt and that the statement illustrated the worsening police-public relations.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai’s article also mentioned advocating for amnesty and questioned:

“Because you were advocating for amnesty, is that why you did not condemn violence at the time?”

Lai responded:

“I have always condemned violence.”

The prosecution then asked:

“But your article did not mention condemning violence?”

Lai replied:

“I did not condemn violence, but I was proposing an amnesty for the young people who did violence.”

He reiterated that this was his indirect way of condemning violence, similar to how his article had also expressed doubts about the black-clad individuals smashing storefronts.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai did not explicitly condemn violence in his article.

Lai agreed but added:

“I also did not advocate for violence.”

10:35 Article Questions Whether Police Disguised as Protesters to Incite Riots; Lai Denies Inciting Hatred Against Police

The prosecution continued questioning Jimmy Lai about his column “2020: Moderates and Militants Must Continue Supporting Each Other”, highlighting the passage:

“Yes, with such young people who despise evil, Hong Kong is truly a blessed land.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was referring to “hatred toward evil”.

Lai responded that it meant young people detest evil.

The prosecution then asked:

“Who is ‘evil’?”

Lai replied that it referred to those the protesters were opposing.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai’s definition of ‘evil’ referred to the police.

Lai responded that it could be, but he also mentioned that at the time, people were not only opposing the police but also opposing infringements on their freedoms, which he considered evil.

The prosecution then cited another passage from Lai’s article:

“We do not know whether the black-clad individuals ‘renovating’ HSBC were our valiant brothers, but the two black-clad men who smashed the glass of a China Life storefront were highly suspicious.”

The prosecution asked whether by saying “our valiant brothers,” Lai was associating himself with them.

Lai responded that “valiant brothers” were also part of the movement and that everyone was within the same movement.

The prosecution then asked:

“So, you were part of this team?”

Lai denied this, stating that he was speaking from a movement perspective and that it was natural to use “our” when referring to valiant protesters.

“Otherwise, what should I call them?”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai considered “valiant brothers” to be an appropriate term.

Lai replied:

“It has always been a matter of ‘no distinction between moderates and militants.’ This is how you interpret it, but it does not mean you can impose that view on me. I am explaining from a movement perspective.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai hoped for unity among different protest factions.

Lai agreed, adding that there should be no violence.

The prosecution then asked:

“If that’s the case, why did you associate yourself with valiant protesters?”

Lai replied that he did not associate himself with them and reiterated that his use of “our valiant brothers” was from a movement perspective.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai considered himself part of the movement.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution then referred to another passage in Lai’s article:

“We do not know whether the black-clad individuals ‘renovating’ HSBC were our valiant brothers, but the two black-clad men who smashed the glass of a China Life storefront were highly suspicious. If these two were undercover police officers, their goal was to frame protesters. If this assumption is correct, then the police’s objective was to incite riots. By doing so, they could use police brutality to intimidate peaceful demonstrators and deter them from future protests.”

The article continued:

“Of course, this is a conspiracy theory that assumes the police have malicious intentions. But at this point, if we still refuse to acknowledge that the police are full of lies and conspiracies, then we are truly being naïve.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was uncertain about the identity of the individuals involved in vandalism.

Lai confirmed that he was unsure, saying that he was merely suspicious of their identities.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai’s doubts were based on information he had received rather than personal experience.

Lai agreed, stating that otherwise, it would have been speculation, and that his knowledge came from news reports.

The prosecution then accused Lai of intending to claim that the police disguised themselves as protesters to vandalize stores and incite riots.

Lai denied this, stating that he was only raising a question, not making a definitive claim.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was attempting to incite hatred toward the police.

Lai disagreed.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai used the word “renovation” (裝修) to make the events seem less severe.

Lai responded that it was a commonly used term at the time and that he had put it in quotation marks.

Judge Remedios then asked why, when describing “the two black-clad men smashing the China Life storefront,” Lai did not use the term “renovation”.

Lai explained that this was because he suspected those individuals were not valiant protesters.

10:20 Prosecution: Did Writing About “Liberate Hong Kong” Mean Lai Agreed With the Slogan? Lai: “I Didn’t Consider Whether I Agreed or Not at the Time”

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s January 5, 2020 column, titled “2020: Moderates and Militants Must Continue Supporting Each Other”, and asked whether Lai had chosen the title himself. Lai confirmed this. The prosecution cited Lai’s previous testimony, where he stated that his articles were meant to comment on and predict future events and their consequences. Lai had also previously stated:

“No matter what I write, I must take responsibility because these are my thoughts.”

The article described how, on January 1, 2020, Lai participated in a protest march with Martin Lee and Albert Ho, during which he witnessed a 14-to-15-year-old girl shouting:

“Death to the families of corrupt cops!” and “Hong Kong police, f* your mother!”**

Lai recounted telling Albert Ho:

“With young people like this, we cannot lose.”

During earlier testimony, Lai acknowledged that he regretted this comment, stating that he had been influenced by the atmosphere at the time. He also agreed that his statement was in bad taste and offensive.

The prosecution asked:

“Why do you consider your statement ‘With young people like this, we cannot lose’ to be in bad taste?”

Lai replied that he was commenting on the girl’s use of profanity while still saying ‘we cannot lose’.

The prosecution then asked:

“So, do you disagree with the girl saying ‘Death to corrupt cops’ families!’ and ‘F* your mother’?”**

Lai agreed, stating that the girl’s remarks were crude and offensive.

The prosecution then asked:

“Do you agree with the slogan ‘Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times’?”

Lai replied:

“I didn’t think about that question at the time.”

He added that the slogan was frequently used at protests.

The prosecution then questioned:

“You weren’t actively participating in protests, yet you associated yourself with people shouting ‘Liberate Hong Kong’ and ‘Five Demands, Not One Less’?”

Lai agreed.

The prosecution followed up:

“So, you agreed with these slogans?”

Lai replied:

“I didn’t think about it at the time.”

He emphasized that the entire environment was surrounded by these slogans.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios pressed Lai for a clear answer:

“So, did you agree or disagree with the slogans?”

Lai reiterated:

“I didn’t think about it at the time.”

The prosecution argued that since Lai published his article just four days after the protest, it was clear that these slogans had deeply influenced him, or he wouldn’t have written them in his article. Lai responded:

“You can interpret it through psychology if you like, but I disagree.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping followed up:

“When you wrote the slogans in your article, you must have thought of them, or they must have been deeply embedded in your mind.”

Lai repeated that these were commonly used slogans, and at the time, he didn’t consider whether they were right or wrong. Judge Toh clarified:

“I’m not asking whether you thought the slogans were right or wrong. Are you saying that you never thought of the slogans again?”

Lai repeated that they were common phrases used at the time.

The prosecution pointed out:

“You clearly thought of the slogans.”

Lai responded:

“You can think whatever you want—I disagree.”

The prosecution continued:

“At the time, you agreed with the slogan ‘Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times,’ and you still agreed with it even after the National Security Law took effect.”

Lai strongly disagreed, stating that he was aware that the slogan became illegal after the enactment of the National Security Law.

10:05 Lai: “Valiant Protesters” Are Not All Violent, Just a Term for Young Frontliners

The prosecution, before continuing with questioning on Lai’s stance on controlling violence, first raised additional questions regarding the Live Chat program.

They pointed out that on July 30 and August 6, 2020, Lai’s personal Twitter account shared Apple Daily’s Twitter posts about “Live Q&A with Jimmy Lai.”

The prosecution further noted that while Lai shared those Apple Daily Twitter posts, the word “Retweet” was not visible. According to expert testimony, this meant Lai had used a “quote tweet” instead of a standard retweet.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping chuckled and remarked:

“I learn something new every day.”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai agreed that Apple Daily had first published these tweets, and he later quote-tweeted them.

Lai replied that he was not entirely clear on the technical aspects but believed that was correct.

The prosecution then resumed questioning Lai on his stance on controlling violence.

They cited Lai’s previous testimony, where he had categorized protesters into peaceful demonstrators and valiant protesters.

Lai agreed but clarified:

“Valiant protesters are not necessarily violent, not all of them are violent. ‘Valiant’ is just a term for young frontliners.”

The prosecution asked:

“So, if not all valiant protesters are violent, does that mean some are peaceful?”

Lai responded:

“The protesters at the back are peaceful and nonviolent. The frontliners need to run.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping followed up:

“So, you classify frontliners as violent and backline protesters as peaceful?”

Lai clarified:

“I did not categorize them— the movement itself classified them.”

The prosecution then asked:

“How would you classify your own role?”

Lai responded:

“I am peaceful and nonviolent.”

The prosecution pressed further:

“Do valiant protesters use violence?”

Lai acknowledged that some do.

The prosecution then asked:

“Would you consider nonviolent valiant protesters as peaceful?”

Lai disagreed, stating:

“No, because they are still valiant protesters.”

He referenced the previous day’s evidence, where Apple Daily had interviewed four members of the ‘Dragon-Slaying Squad’ (屠龍隊), describing them as the most radical among valiant protesters.

“When the police arrive, they run. Some are less extreme than others.”

The prosecution then asked:

“If a protester participates in a riot, engages in vandalism, or attacks the police, would you consider them ‘valiant’?”

Lai replied:

“I would consider them radical or extremely radical.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked:

“Are valiant protesters young people?”

Lai agreed.

The Witness