The trial of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who faces charges including conspiracy to collude with foreign forces, entered its 136th day Thursday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. It marked Lai’s 44th day of testimony and the prosecution’s 18th day of cross-examination.

Prosecutors cited one of Lai’s opinion articles, referencing a passage that stated: “Once the Extradition Bill is amended, they can arrest and imprison you at any time—what a miraculous power.” Another excerpt read: “The deep-seated distrust did not form overnight. The contempt that top government officials have for us stems from the disdain and abandonment they have absorbed from Beijing officials—it is a conditioned reflex.”

The prosecution argued that these statements reflected Lai’s bias rather than an objective assessment. Lai responded that his article was a personal evaluation of the reality at the time. Prosecutors then suggested Lai was projecting his personal emotions onto a broader audience. Lai countered that he was simply expressing his true thoughts in writing, saying, “I write from my heart.”

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

16:30 Court Adjourns

16:04 Judge Tells Lai He Only Needs to Respond to Prosecution’s Allegations, Not Challenge Them

The prosecution continued questioning Lai about another of his opinion pieces, “Authoritarian Regime’s Crackdown Will Not Extinguish Our Spirit,” published on April 26, 2020. Referring to the excerpt, “The CCP has struck, tearing apart the Basic Law and dismantling Hong Kong’s special status under One Country, Two Systems. The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office, which have no legal authority to interpret the Basic Law, have now blatantly reinterpreted it, claiming that they are not ‘departments of the Central People’s Government’ as defined in Article 22 of the Basic Law.”

The prosecution asked Lai on what basis he stated that the CCP had “torn apart the Basic Law” and “dismantled One Country, Two Systems.” 

Lai responded that he was merely stating facts. When pressed further to clarify which facts he was referring to, Lai explained that he was commenting on how these government offices were able to intervene in Hong Kong affairs, though he admitted that he could not recall the exact sources of his claims. The prosecution then questioned whether there was any evidence at all to support his assertions. Lai insisted that his statements were based on official sources, though he could not remember which ones.

Judge Esther Toh interjected, asking whether Lai was suggesting that official sources explicitly stated that “the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office had reinterpreted the law without authority.” Lai said he could not recall the exact content but maintained that these two entities were not directly subordinate to the central government, yet still held the power to intervene in Hong Kong’s affairs. 

The prosecution then accused Lai of inciting hatred against both the Hong Kong and central governments, which Lai denied. When further pressed, the prosecution alleged that Lai was attempting to alter Hong Kong’s legal structure through illegal means. Lai dismissed this as the prosecution’s own interpretation, stating, “I cannot agree with an argument based on imagination.”

The prosecution then said that Lai should simply confirm or deny their claims to save the court’s time. Lai replied, “But if you state the fact, it will be more simple also.” At this point, Judge Toh intervened firmly, saying, “Mr. Lai, we said to you many times, Mr. Chau has to put his case to you. And if you disagree, you disagree. You do not have to argue each time with him, because he’s only putting his case to you as possible.”

Lai responded, “But his case has no reference to facts. So why do we have to go through all this evidence?” 

Judge Toh raised her voice, telling Lai that the prosecution had a duty to present its case, even if he found it frustrating. Lai insisted he was not frustrated. Toh then stressed that if the prosecution’s arguments were irrelevant, the court would intervene, but since the judges had not done so, the prosecution had the right to question him and present its case. She instructed Lai to confirm or deny allegations rather than challenge them, and when Lai asked whether he had the right to question the prosecution’s claims, Toh responded, “No! You do not. Understood?” She then instructed Lai to listen to the prosecution’s questions and answer them directly to avoid wasting the court’s time.

The prosecution resumed, quoting another passage from Lai’s article: “This time, the CCP has truly launched an attack, signaling the beginning of the end for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. They are stripping Hong Kong of its rule of law and freedoms. Without freedom, how can you still be yourself? How can you pretend that nothing is happening? No, disaster is upon us!” The prosecution asked whether this was Lai’s speculation. Lai replied that it was his opinion. The prosecution then pressed further, questioning whether Lai was deliberately spreading his own ideas to influence readers. Lai responded that he was merely expressing his opinions. The prosecution challenged him, arguing that his statements were entirely unfounded, which Lai disagreed with.

Another section of the article stated: “Today, we know trouble is coming. The CCP’s attack will inevitably lead to mass purges and crackdowns—punishing dissidents, dismantling the legal system and mechanisms left behind by British colonial rule that protected Hongkongers’ freedoms, and turning Hongkongers into mere puppets of Emperor Xi. Therefore, we will continue to resist to the very end. We hope that as Xi faces crises at home and abroad—being devastated by the Wuhan virus epidemic and an economic collapse—foreign nations, especially the United States, will hold China accountable and impose partial sanctions, forcing the CCP to restrain itself in its persecution of Hong Kong.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was advocating for foreign sanctions against China. Lai responded that it was his wish for foreign nations to hold China accountable. The prosecution further pressed whether this was Lai’s hope at the time, which he confirmed.

Another passage referred to the arrest of Martin Lee: “Even the elderly and highly respected Martin Lee has been publicly arrested. The intention is clearly to intimidate Hongkongers, to make them afraid to protest in the future. The peaceful protesters—the vast majority of Hongkongers—are the biggest threat to the CCP. By arresting well-known moderate democrats, the CCP aims to terrorize the broader population, to subdue Hong Kong, and to suppress the city’s rebellious spirit. What the CCP fears most is the massive power of the people. If the peaceful majority is too afraid to take to the streets, the remaining militant faction will be easy to deal with. If the moderate majority is silenced, the militant faction will lose the broad public support that once shielded them. Their morale and courage will be diminished, and the CCP will crush them easily. Our movement may not end entirely, but it will come to a standstill.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted the anti-government movement to continue. Lai replied that he wanted the protests to continue. The prosecution then suggested that Lai supported the combination of peaceful and militant protesters to sustain the movement. Lai clarified that “the greatest force is non-violence.” 

The prosecution pressed him further, questioning whether Lai was concerned that without sufficient public support, the militant protesters would weaken. Lai responded that they would be crushed. The prosecution then asked if Lai wanted more support for militant protesters to prevent their decline, which he denied. He explained that he hoped peaceful demonstrators would not be intimidated from taking to the streets, stating, “When the morale and courage of violent protesters are weakened, the CCP can easily suppress them.” The prosecution asked if Lai did not want the CCP to suppress them easily. Lai reaffirmed that he did not want peaceful demonstrators to be intimidated, as that would make it easier for the authorities to target the militant faction.

The prosecution then accused Lai of inciting violence through his writings, which Lai strongly denied. He emphasized that he had always argued that non-violence was the most powerful force and questioned how the prosecution could interpret this as promoting violence. The prosecution further alleged that Lai intended to stir up hatred against the Hong Kong and central governments, provoke public contempt and rebellion, and sow discord between different social groups in Hong Kong. Lai categorically denied all accusations.

15:58 Prosecution Questions Whether Lai Said ‘Go All the Way, No Retreat’; Lai Acknowledges Possibly Mentioning It in Other Contexts

The prosecution pointed to a passage in Lai’s article that stated, “We cannot give up showing them that to protect our homeland, we will go all the way and resist to the end.” The prosecution suggested that this wording was similar to the testimony of former Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung, a key prosecution witness.

Cheung had previously testified that Lai had told him that a guest on his program was “very powerful,” referring to retired U.S. General Jack Keane. When Cheung expressed concerns about the sensitivity of the timing, he claimed that Lai had responded, “Having been in business for decades, my instincts tell me that if they are coming after me like this, I have to go all the way—I have no way to back down.”

Lai reaffirmed that he never discussed his friend Jack Keane with Cheung. The prosecution then directly asked whether Lai had said, “If they are coming after me like this, I have to go all the way—I have no way to back down.” Lai responded that he may have mentioned similar sentiments in other contexts but not in relation to Jack Keane. The prosecution pressed further, asserting that Lai had made such remarks in conversation with Cheung. Lai disagreed.

15:00 Prosecution Calls Lai’s Views Subjective and Biased; Lai Says He Merely “Wrote From the Heart”

The prosecution cited another passage from Lai’s column article, Considering Emigration or Protesting, in which he wrote, “Once the Extradition Bill is amended, they can arrest and imprison you at any time—what a miraculous power.” The prosecution accused Lai of making unsubstantiated claims, to which Lai responded that the statement was based on his own views. The prosecution then suggested that Lai aimed to incite contempt and disaffection among Hong Kong residents, which Lai denied.

Another excerpt from the article stated, “The deep-seated distrust did not form overnight. The contempt that top government officials have for us stems from the disdain and abandonment they have absorbed from Beijing officials—it is a conditioned reflex.” The prosecution challenged Lai, arguing that this claim was unfounded and merely his assumption. Lai responded that it was his interpretation of the situation at the time. The prosecution countered that this was his personal bias rather than an objective assessment, to which Lai agreed that it was his subjective evaluation and personal sentiment. However, when asked if he was trying to project his personal emotions onto a broader audience, Lai insisted that his article was simply an honest reflection of his own thoughts, stating, “I write from my heart.”

The prosecution then cited another passage: “There are plenty of mainlanders waiting to come to Hong Kong. If you Hongkongers are such a hassle, you might as well leave early. In their minds, we have long been abandoned, and their desire to see us leave is written all over their faces. Their contempt for us is as obvious as discarding an old shoe, and contempt is often the psychological factor that drives despair.”

The prosecution asked if this was Lai’s subjective assessment and personal feelings, which Lai confirmed. When asked if he sought to promote his personal views, Lai denied this, maintaining that he was merely expressing his own thoughts and had no intention of persuading readers to share his perspective.

Further, the prosecution referenced another passage where Lai wrote, “Why must we take to the streets? Because action is what yields results. Opposing something through words or voices alone is too abstract and fleeting… As the above examples show, if we only voice opposition through words, Carrie Lam and her officials will persist in their preconceived stance on the Extradition Bill. However, if we march in great numbers to protest, no matter how scheming they may be, they will have to face our resolute opposition to this draconian law, and they may cower and compromise. We cannot give up showing them that to protect our homeland, we will go all the way and resist to the end.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai was advocating for action, to which Lai confirmed that he was referring to protests, which he acknowledged as a form of action. When pressed on whether this was to oppose the government, Lai agreed. The prosecution then asked if the protests were directed against the central government, but Lai reiterated that they were against the government in general. The prosecution argued that Lai was encouraging readers to adopt his views and take action against the government, but Lai explained that his aim was to urge the public to protest as a demonstration of their commitment to defending their home.

The prosecution also cited a line where Lai wrote, “I say, there’s no need to talk about resistance in such heavy terms; at least standing up and marching as a last effort is still possible, right?” The prosecution asked whether Lai framed the protest as a ‘last effort’, to which Lai responded that it was at least something people could do. The prosecution suggested that Lai was escalating the situation to an emergency level, but Lai maintained that he was simply urging the public to protest and protect their home. The prosecution then asked whether he was inciting immediate action against the government, to which Lai reiterated that he was calling for public participation in demonstrations. The prosecution further pressed whether he sought to stir hatred and hostility toward the government, which Lai denied, insisting that there was no hatred involved.

The prosecution accused Lai of disregarding constructive dialogue with the government, to which Lai retorted, “What form of dialogue?” Both Judge Esther Toh and the prosecution pointed out that Lai’s article did not mention the possibility of constructive dialogue. Lai responded that no such constructive dialogue existed at the time, questioning how he could have mentioned it in his article. The prosecution concluded by asserting that Lai’s article was intended to incite hatred, contempt, and disaffection against the Hong Kong government, but Lai denied the allegation.

14:32 Lai Says Lunchbox Meetings Were Held Weekly; Judge Questions Incomplete Meeting Records

The prosecution continued its questioning on the Slack records, presenting logs related to “Lunchbox Meetings.” The first recorded meeting was on November 8, 2018, while the second was on September 26, 2019—a 10-month gap with no records in between. The prosecution asked whether Lai was aware of any meetings held during this period. Lai responded that he did not remember.

The prosecution then cited another record showing a meeting on June 20, 2019, with the next entry appearing only on January 15, 2020—a seven-month gap. When asked if he recalled whether meetings took place during this time, Lai again said he did not remember.

Focusing on the “HK Apple Newspaper Chat” channel, the prosecution noted that the second recorded meeting was on January 4, 2019, and the next was just six days later, on January 10, 2019. The prosecution asked whether Lai regularly met with the same department just days apart. Lai responded that it was unlikely and could not explain why a meeting was held again so soon.

The prosecution further pointed out that after the January 10, 2019 meeting, the next recorded meeting was on March 13, 2020—a 14-month gap. When asked if he knew the reason for this long interval, Lai replied that he did not know, stating that different departments took turns in holding meetings. The prosecution asked whether he had an independent memory of the discussions during these meetings, to which Lai responded no.

Judge Alex Lee observed that based on the records, Lai did not appear to have attended Lunchbox Meetings weekly. Lai clarified that meetings could be canceled occasionally, but they were generally held once a week. Judge Lee pointed out that records suggested no meetings took place between February 15 and March 12, 2019. Lai responded that if he, Cheung Kim-hung, or Chan Pui-man were on leave, the meetings would not take place.

Judge Lee then asked whether, given Lai’s claim that meetings were held weekly, the provided list of meetings was incomplete. Lai said he did not know. Judge Lee followed up, questioning whether meetings were held but no records were kept. Lai disagreed, stating that each meeting resulted in actionable suggestions, which were documented.

12:53 Lunch

12:40 Lai Says Meeting Notes Were Taken by Cheung Kim-hung and Others for Feasible Suggestions

The prosecution continued questioning the Slack records, specifically referring to a screenshot from the “HK Apple Online Mid-Level” channel. The image showed Lai responding to employee suggestions, but his actual reply was not visible in the screenshot. Lai stated that his response was on the right side of the screen, though it was not displayed in court.

The prosecution asked if Lai could recall what he had written. He responded, “Of course, I don’t remember”, adding that he would usually say things like “I agree” or “let’s discuss this later.” Judge Esther Toh instructed Lai not to speculate, prompting him to state that he did not know.

The prosecution then asked why Lai’s responses could not be found in the records. Lai suggested that not everything had been captured in the screenshot. When the prosecution pointed out that this meant the records were not complete, Lai agreed.

The prosecution further questioned whether Lai had held meetings with mid-level staff. Lai confirmed this, adding that Cheung Kim-hung or Chan Pui-man would likely have kept meeting records. He explained that only feasible suggestions would be documented, whereas those that were rejected would not.

When asked whether his own proposals—even those deemed unfeasible—would be recorded, Lai responded that if his ideas were considered significant, staff would be required to follow up on them.

12:23 Prosecution Asks Lai to Determine Whether He Had Read 161 Implicated Publications

The prosecution noted that the first two charges in the case involved Apple Daily publications and proposed providing Lai with all relevant materials, including articles and content from his “Live Chat” program, during Friday’s adjournment. This would allow him to review them, particularly the articles not authored by him, to help expedite court proceedings. The defense did not object to this proposal.

Judge Alex Lee stated that the case involved 161 publications in total. The prosecution clarified that Lai only needed to determine whether he had read the materials between 2019 and 2020. Defense counsel Steven Kwan responded that the process would be swift and suggested that Monday afternoon’s adjournment would be a more appropriate time for the review. Judge Esther Toh noted that 133 of the publications were not authored by Lai and questioned how much time the review would take.

In response, Lai stated in court that he likely did not remember whether he had read most of the implicated publications at the time and would have to mark them with a question mark. He agreed that reviewing them on Monday would be preferable, as he might forget details again after the weekend. He estimated that he could complete the review within two hours. The court ultimately decided to allow Lai to review the publications on Monday.

11:38 Break

11:07 Lai Confirms Holding ‘Lunchbox Meetings’ with Mid-Level Staff to Discuss Subscription Model

The prosecution presented another Slack channel, “Apple Daily Online Mid-Level”, which was created on March 6, 2019. They asked whether the channel was permanent or established for a specific purpose. Lai responded that it was related to business development at the mid-management level. When asked whether all eight channels in the list were linked to business development, Lai confirmed that they were. He explained that the purpose of this channel was similar to the supervisors’ channel, except that it involved different ranks of employees and was linked to the implementation of the subscription model. The prosecution then asked if Lai had held lunchbox meetings with mid-level staff. Referring to the records, Lai confirmed that he had, and that these meetings were related to the subscription model.

Judge Esther Toh asked whether Lai had any independent recollection of holding these meetings with mid-level staff. Lai replied that he did not, relying instead on the records. He added that the meetings were not regularly scheduled but held occasionally, and he did not recall how many had taken place.

Judge Alex Lee inquired whether Slack records would document these lunchbox meetings. Lai stated that no formal meeting records were posted on Slack, but it was possible to check whether any existed. Judge Lee then asked whether the prosecution had found any such meeting records. The prosecution confirmed that no records had been found.

Regarding the “Apple Daily Online Mid-Level” channel, Lai stated that it was related to the subscription model and that a meeting had taken place six days after the channel was created. He also noted that a message from Cheung Chi-wai at the time was related to subscriptions. Judge Alex Lee then asked whether, without checking the records, Lai would know how many lunchbox meetings had been held. Lai confirmed that he would not.

10:20 Prosecution Questions Slack Conversation Records on Work Platform

The prosecution continued presenting evidence from Apple Daily’s Slack work platform, specifically the “Apple Daily Online Chat” channel. They highlighted that the channel contained messages from October 2018 to January 2020, but noted a 10-month gap with no message records. The prosecution then asked Lai whether he remembered holding “lunchbox meetings” with this department. Lai replied that he could not recall, nor did he know how many times he had met with this department. The prosecution pointed to records indicating that the department had conducted a lunchbox meeting on January 9, 2020. Lai stated that, given the time that had passed, he could not remember the meeting or its details.

The prosecution then shifted focus to another Slack channel named “Hong Kong Apple Newspaper Supervisors”, with records dating back to February 2019. Lai commented that this channel was not frequently used and was likely “ad-hoc” (temporary and used only in special circumstances). However, he acknowledged that if it was listed among the eight Slack channels, it was probably a permanent channel. The prosecution then asked if Lai knew who had decided to include these eight channels in the list. Lai responded that no one had specifically made that decision, stating that all eight channels were related to lunchbox meetings, which explained their inclusion in the list.

In the “Hong Kong Apple Newspaper Supervisors” channel, the prosecution presented a message from Lai stating: “Colleagues, as subscriptions increase, challenges arise. We need your input to improve work resources and efficiency. Please share your suggestions as much as possible…”.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned Lai’s assertion that the channel was “ad-hoc,” pointing out that it was among the eight listed channels. She suggested that Lai’s assumption might be incorrect. Lai agreed, explaining that the channel included all senior management members and was likely not intended for department-specific matters but rather issues concerning the newspaper as a whole. Regarding the subscription issue mentioned in his message, he explained that he was seeking suggestions from colleagues. Lai admitted that since the channel appeared on the list, it might not have been “ad-hoc”, but it was not used for regular meetings, only occasionally.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then asked which departments Lai actually held lunchbox meetings with. Lai responded that he met with all eight listed departments. She further inquired who had created the list, to which Lai reiterated that no one had specifically set it up.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang referred to the “Hong Kong Apple Newspaper Supervisors” channel, noting that its first recorded message was on February 8, 2019, and the last was on September 19, 2019. Lai explained that the channel included senior management from various departments, who were involved in subscription-related discussions and also attended lunchbox meetings.

The prosecution then pointed out that in this Slack channel, former Apple Daily executive editor Lam Man-chung had posted messages that did not seem related to subscriptions. Lai responded that the discussions involved ways to improve content, encourage subscriptions, and enhance overall quality. The prosecution challenged this, suggesting that the content of the discussions had nothing to do with the subscription model. Lai countered that when launching a subscription model, ensuring its success required content improvements to attract more subscribers.

10:10 Prosecution Questions the Source of Apple Daily’s Work Platform Screenshots

On Wednesday, the prosecution challenged the accuracy and completeness of the Slack records from Apple Daily’s work platform that were submitted as evidence. On Thursday, the prosecution presented different screenshots from one of the Slack conversation channels, specifically the channel labeled “Apple Daily Newspaper Chat”.

The prosecution zoomed in on the bottom right corner of the screen, which displayed a Word document window, a file labeled “JL”, and a Chrome tab titled “Slack – Apple Daily Newspaper Chat”. The prosecution then asked Lai whether he knew who took the screenshot and why these windows appeared in the bottom corner. Lai repeatedly stated that he did not know and could not explain but acknowledged that his initials were “JL”. The prosecution then asked whether Lai could confirm that the conversation content in the screenshots was captured from his Slack account. Lai responded that the screenshots appeared to have been taken from a computer, whereas he had always used an iPhone for Slack. He further suggested that a technical expert should answer these questions, as it was possible that some windows appeared automatically due to the computer’s system settings.

The prosecution proceeded to display eight Slack conversation channels, including “Apple Daily Online Chat,” “Apple Daily Newspaper Chat,” “Apple Daily Online News Chat,” and “Apple Daily Newspaper Supervisors”. They asked whether Lai had held “lunchbox meetings” with the “Apple Daily Online Chat” department. Lai stated that he had conducted lunchbox meetings with all eight departments because the meetings focused on business development, and all operational departments were involved. He further explained that he held these meetings weekly, with each department taking turns.

The prosecution then pointed out that, based on this schedule, Lai would meet with the same department approximately every two months. Lai confirmed this, adding that exceptions occurred only under special circumstances, such as when both he and Cheung Kim-hung were out of Hong Kong.

10:02 Court in Session

The Witness