The trial of Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, resumed Wednesday at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, temporarily serving as the High Court. Lai is charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” under the National Security Law.

Wednesday marked the 47th day of Lai’s testimony and the 21st day of the prosecution’s cross-examination. Prosecutors questioned Lai about his detention in 2020. Lai confirmed that Cheung Kim-hung visited him at the detention center in December, during which he instructed Cheung to continue operating Apple Daily, including its editorial work, but with caution.

Under further questioning, Lai stated that during Cheung’s subsequent visit in February 2021, he did not instruct him to cease Apple Daily’s operations.

The case is being heard by High Court judges designated under the National Security Law: Toh, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang.

The prosecution is represented by 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

16:27 Court Adjourns

16:06 Program Mentions Wanting to ‘Get Rid of Dictatorship’; Lai Denies It Means Removing the CCP

The prosecution referenced Lai’s remarks on his program:

“The dictatorship of taking away our freedom and rule of law…Xi Jinping is not eliminating his enemy but eliminating the Hong Kong people. We are not his enemy…We don’t want to build our own country, we have our own country. We just want to get rid of dictatorship and be a free people of a country that we love.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was resisting the Central and Hong Kong governments. Lai replied that he was resisting the National Security Law (NSL). The prosecution pointed out that the NSL was already in effect at the time, questioning what Lai was resisting. Lai reiterated that resisting had become illegal after the law was enacted, but before that, it was legal.

The prosecution then asked, “So what was this statement about?” Lai said it referred to resisting dictatorship and oppression of freedom.

The prosecution pressed, “So has your stance shifted from resisting the NSL to resisting dictatorship?” Lai insisted he was resisting the NSL. The prosecution questioned what exactly he was resisting, given that the NSL was already law. Lai responded:

“We can’t resist with action, which is illegal. We can resist with our sentiment, with our will, with our action.”

The prosecution asked, “What kind of action?” Lai replied:

“For example, we just don’t like it. We resist the oppression we face.”

The prosecution asked whether this included calling for support, which Lai denied. The prosecution repeated that the NSL was already in effect at the time. Lai stated:

“By way of my own spiritual resistance or emotional resistance.”

The prosecution questioned if Lai would express his feelings. Lai responded:

“I don’t have to express it by expressing it, because it may be taken to be illegal, but I can resist it within myself with what we have, with my will, with my emotion.”

The prosecution asked, “So are you telling everyone to resist with their emotions?” Lai denied this.

Regarding the statement “Xi Jinping is eliminating the Hong Kong people,” Lai explained that he meant “eliminating opposing voices, making us disappear.” The prosecution asked if this was Lai’s speculation, to which he replied that it was his opinion.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether this claim had no factual basis. Lai responded:

“The whole of Hong Kong has come to an end, and has come down without a voice now.”

The prosecution insisted that this claim was unfounded. Lai disagreed, reiterating that there were no more opposition voices in Hong Kong. The prosecution accused Lai of creating fear, inciting hatred against Xi Jinping, encouraging illegal means to change Hong Kong’s legal system, and promoting hostility toward the Central and Hong Kong governments. Lai denied all allegations.

As the hearing neared its conclusion, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what Lai meant by ‘dictatorship.’ Lai replied that he was simply saying “dictatorship is bad.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted to “get rid of the CCP”, to which Lai responded no. This led to a debate between the prosecution, Esther Toh Lye-ping, Alex Lee Wan-tang, and Lai, as follows:

“Did you want to get rid of the CCP?”
Lai: “No, we cannot get rid of the CCP.”
Prosecution: “But didn’t you say this on Live Chat?”
Lai: “I want to get rid of dictatorship. Yes, the CCP is a dictatorship, but we cannot get rid of the CCP.”
Prosecution: “So your intent was to get rid of the CCP?”
Lai: “My intent was to get rid of dictatorship.”
Prosecution: “Not the CCP?”
Lai: “We cannot get rid of the CCP, because we are Hong Kongers.”
Prosecution: “It’s not about whether you can, but whether you intended to.”
Lai: “We are Hong Kongers.”
Prosecution: “But would you try to get rid of the CCP?”
Lai: “No, we are Hong Kongers. China has nothing to do with us.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping interjected:

“Does this make sense? The dictatorship you referred to—is it the CCP?”

Lai replied:

“I mean that the CCP is a dictatorship, but I was not specifically referring to the CCP when I spoke about dictatorship.”

Judge Toh then asked:

“On your program, you said you wanted to ‘become free people of a country we love.’ Were you not referring to China and the CCP?”

Lai replied:

“But the CCP is China, and that has nothing to do with us.”

Judge Toh questioned:

“What do you mean?”

Lai said:

“Only the Chinese people can get rid of the CCP. We are Hong Kong people.”

Judge Toh stated:

“We are Chinese.”

Lai said:

“We are Hong Kongers because of ‘One Country, Two Systems.’”

Judge Toh then said:

“Is your skin yellow, Mr. Lai?” 

Lai stated:

“Because my skin is yellow, I’m identified as Chinese?”

Judge Toh insisted:

“You are Chinese.”

Lai responded:

“No, I am a Hong Konger.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interjected:

“But Mr. Lai, you previously stated that you do not support Hong Kong independence?”

Lai confirmed:

“Yes, but I support ‘One Country, Two Systems.’”

Judge Lee then remarked:

“I got totally confused.” 

Lai reiterated:

“I support ‘One Country, Two Systems.’”

Judge Lee concluded:

“I think we shouldn’t delve further into this.”

15:51 Program Emphasizes Persisting with Ongoing Efforts; Lai Says It Means Protecting Freedom, Not Lobbying for Sanctions

The prosecution continued to present program transcripts, citing Lai’s statement:

“The more danger I’m in, the more effective I can bring the attention of the outside world’s people to Hong Kong.”

The prosecution asked if this was Lai’s speculation, and Lai agreed. The prosecution then asked if he was instilling fear, but Lai stated that he was merely stating a fact. The prosecution suggested that this was why Lai continued to produce programs and give interviews, but Lai denied any connection to spreading fear.

The prosecution asked, “Did you want foreigners to pay attention to you?” Lai responded, “Not me, but Hong Kong.” When the prosecution pointed out that Hong Kong included Lai, he reiterated, “No.”

The prosecution pressed further, questioning whether Lai wanted foreign entities to understand his situation. Lai replied that they could learn about it through international media. The prosecution then suggested that his program aimed to create fear, which Lai denied.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked why Lai said, “The more danger I’m in, the more effectively I can bring international attention to Hong Kong.” Lai explained that if he were arrested, international media would report it. The prosecution asked if international media were interested in Lai himself, to which he replied that they would notice his arrest, leading them to learn more about the situation.

The prosecution then presented another of Lai’s statements:

“Although I know that I will get into big trouble by talking to you, by talking to a lot of people, because this is collusion with foreigners, this is a big crime here. But I must hold on and uphold what we have been doing because so many people are looking up to me.”

Lai clarified that he felt there was a chance his actions could be deemed a crime. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned, “If merely speaking with foreigners is not collusion, why did you say you would ‘get into big trouble’?” Lai replied that due to political considerations, it might be perceived as collusion.

The prosecution further asked whether Lai was aware that collusion was a serious crime yet still stated, “I must hold on and uphold what we have been doing.” Lai confirmed, but stressed that his actions did not constitute collusion with foreigners.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked, “Even though you knew collusion was a ‘big crime,’ you still said you must persist because many people looked up to you?” Lai confirmed, emphasizing that what he was doing was not collusion.

The prosecution then asked, “You knew collusion was a major crime, yet you continued your activities?” Lai responded that he merely continued speaking with foreigners. The prosecution then asked whom he referred to when he said “many people are looking up to me.” Lai replied that it mainly included Hong Kong residents and some foreigners.

The prosecution specifically asked if this included Chan Tsz-wah. Lai denied it. When pressed to name which foreigners, Lai mentioned the U.S. and the U.K. The prosecution pointed out that Andy Li was also a Hong Kong resident. Lai sarcastically replied, “But you are a Hong Kong person too—do you look up to me?” Judge Esther Toh interrupted, clarifying that the question was whether Chan Tsz-wah was included. Lai said he did not know if Chan Tsz-wah looked up to him.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then questioned, “When you said many people looked up to you, you must have had an idea of what they wanted you to do?” Lai acknowledged that these people were from the same camp. Judge Lee then asked, “Do you mean the pro-democracy camp?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution suggested that Chan Tsz-wah was also part of the same camp since Lai instructed him to calm the ‘valiant’ protesters. Lai said he was unsure.

The prosecution then referred to a conversation during Lai’s last meeting with Chan, in which Li allegedly claimed that Lai would ‘lead by example and continue to advocate for sanctions and international attention’ across different media platforms. Lai dismissed this as a fabricated dialogue.

The prosecution then asked if Lai’s reference to “foreigners” included Mary Kissel. Lai confirmed that Kissel was his friend. When asked about former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Lai said he would not speak with Pompeo after the National Security Law was enacted, as it would be considered collusion.

The prosecution then asked if Lai wanted the movement against the government to continue. Lai responded that he did not want people to lose hope but did not say he wanted the movement to persist, emphasizing that he only wanted people to hold onto hope.

When asked, “What were you referring to when you said, ‘We must persist in what we have been doing’?” Lai stated that it meant “protecting freedom.” The prosecution pressed, “Does that include lobbying for international support?” Lai responded, “No, because after the National Security Law was enacted, lobbying international support would be considered collusion.”

The prosecution accused Lai of attempting to engage in international lobbying to push for sanctions and hostile actions against the Hong Kong and Chinese governments. Lai denied this, stating that he had no intention of committing any crime.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping then questioned whether the audience knew what Lai had been doing in the past—including advocating for sanctions and resisting the government. Lai responded that they also understood that under the National Security Law, those actions had become illegal and that laws change people’s behavior.

Judge Toh further asked, “If you said you would continue doing what you had been doing, what message were you trying to convey?” Lai replied that it referred to legal actions.

Judge Toh then cited another of Lai’s statements:

“Once you back down, you will have to continue backing down until you collapse.”

She asked what Lai meant by this. Lai explained that he would continue to protect freedom within legal limits.

The prosecution then asked, “Would you continue even if you believed you were violating the National Security Law?” Lai denied this, stating that what he had done before the National Security Law had since become illegal, and he would not continue such actions.

15:29 Break

15:18 Prosecution Argues the National Security Law Guarantees Human Rights; Lai Acknowledges but Says He Doesn’t Believe It

The prosecution referenced Lai’s remarks on his program:

“A lot of people now still stand up and go about our business and keep going and keep fighting. I think this is the way to alleviate the Hong Kong people’s worry and I think this is our job to go on.”

The prosecution asked, “Did you want yourself and Apple Daily to continue operating as usual?” Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked, “Were you encouraging people to stand up and continue resisting the central and Hong Kong governments?” Lai denied this, stating that his intention was only to ease people’s concerns about the current situation, not to call for action.

The prosecution accused Lai of inciting residents to seek changes to Hong Kong’s legal framework through unlawful means and to disobey the law. Lai denied these allegations.

The prosecution then presented a transcript from the November 20, 2020, episode of “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai,” featuring guests Mark Clifford and former Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky.

Lai said in the program:

“People had hope and still hoping but the hope is dashed or whatever hope we have will be dashed, because under such a high pressure persecution and clamp down on our freedom and rule of law. It’s inevitable that our hope will be dashed and the more we dash our hope, the weaker we get.”

The prosecution asked, “When you referred to ‘persecution,’ who were you referring to?” Lai responded, “The people of Hong Kong, being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party.”

Regarding his statement about “crackdowns on freedom and the rule of law, making hope inevitably collapse,” Lai explained that this was due to the National Security Law (NSL).

The prosecution countered, stating that the NSL contains provisions that protect human rights. Lai replied, “But what I have witnessed in practice does not match what the law claims.”

The prosecution then pressed, “Do you acknowledge that the NSL contains provisions guaranteeing human rights?” Lai admitted that he was aware of such provisions but did not believe them.

The prosecution challenged Lai, pointing out that he never mentioned these human rights provisions on ‘Live Chat.’ Lai replied, “Because I don’t believe them.”

The prosecution further asked, “Are you aware that the NSL explicitly states that it guarantees the rule of law?” Lai responded, “Yes, I am aware of the provision, but I don’t believe it.”

The prosecution accused Lai of using ‘Live Chat’ to incite dissatisfaction with the central and Hong Kong governments and to stir hatred toward the Chinese Communist Party. Lai denied all allegations.

15:08 Prosecution Alleges Lai Advocated for a United Effort to Change China; Lai Denies

The prosecution referenced remarks made by Lai on his program, where he stated that China has never invaded another country but is using its values—“an arbitrary value system”—to conduct international affairs, claiming that this is “as bad as, if not worse than, a small country like Russia invading Ukraine.”

The prosecution asked, “On what basis are you comparing China to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?” Lai responded that this was his opinion, arguing that such a value system could undermine the international community with potentially serious consequences.

When asked to clarify “an arbitrary value system,” Lai explained that China has its own distinct values that influence the way it engages in trade and international dealings.

The prosecution asked, “What kind of trade?” Lai responded, “All kinds of trade.”

When pressed for specific examples, Lai stated that he was merely describing how China interacts with the international community, operating with values that are not shared with the rest of the world.

The prosecution asked whether this related to Lai’s previous mention of a “battle of values.” Lai agreed but noted that he did not use the term “battle of values” in this instance, and that such a phrase is more akin to the Cold War.

The prosecution asked if Lai agreed that China and the free world have different values. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asked, “Is this why you wanted the free world to unite against China?” Lai responded, “To avoid this contamination of value.”

The prosecution followed up, “One way to counter China is by imposing punitive measures?” Lai replied, “I never said that.”

The prosecution asserted that Lai’s statements were baseless. Lai countered, “I based it on what I know—China has a lot of problems.”

The prosecution accused Lai of inciting public dissatisfaction with Beijing and the Hong Kong government, fostering a sense of international threat toward China, and encouraging hostile actions and continued international pressure on China. Lai disagreed with all allegations.

The prosecution then referenced another statement from Lai’s program:

“This is the biggest question the world has to face now, if we can’t change China, China is so big, they are going to change us.”

Lai also stated:

“And this is what the world is facing as the crucial print and that’s why countries like Germany, Australia and Canada all that initially they did not join the American’s policy towards China. It was like America was fighting China alone within the two superpowers, trade, whatever but once they realize what China is and the inability to leverage against such a big China, they are slowly coming to align with US.”

The prosecution asked, “Were you advocating for your audience to unite in order to change China?” Lai denied this.

14:55 Prosecution Argues Lai’s Arrest Was Unrelated to CCP; Lai: I Believe It Was Political

The prosecution continued questioning regarding the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program and presented a transcript from the August 18, 2020 episode. Lai was quoted as saying:

“I was not intimidated, or insulted by the handcuff. I thought this is actually great to know, for people don’t know that, I’m in handcuff. Just to know that this is what a regime we are dealing with.”

The prosecution asked, “What do you mean by ‘regime’?” Lai responded that he was referring to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The prosecution asked why Lai associated his arrest with the CCP. Lai replied, “Because I was arrested.”

The prosecution asked why he believed it was related to the CCP. Lai responded, “Because it was political.”

The prosecution asked whether the police informed Lai of the reasons for his arrest. Lai responded, “No matter what they told me, I believed it was political.”

The prosecution asked if this was merely Lai’s speculation. Lai replied, “It was under my voice of conscience.”

The prosecution pointed out that the police never mentioned the CCP during Lai’s arrest. Lai agreed but insisted that he believed it was politically motivated.

The prosecution pressed, “So this is just your assumption?” Lai reiterated, “It was my voice of conscience.”

The prosecution questioned why Lai believed it was important for people to know ‘this is the regime we are dealing with.’ Lai responded that his arrest would make the public aware of the reason behind it.

The prosecution argued that the police arrested Lai on reasonable suspicion of collusion and incitement, which had nothing to do with the CCP. Lai responded, “Yes, that’s what they said.”

The prosecution asked, “So you have no basis for saying your arrest was related to the CCP?” Lai answered, “As I said, it was my voice of conscience.”

The prosecution accused Lai of inciting public fear. Lai denied this, stating that wearing handcuffs was a fact.

The prosecution further claimed that Lai deliberately linked the handcuffs to the CCP. Lai responded, “Yes, because I thought I was under arrest because of political reasons.”

The prosecution concluded, “So you were inciting fear?” Lai denied the accusation.

14:39 Prosecution Claims Chan Pui-man’s Article Lacked Basis for “Criminalization of Speech” Assertion; Lai: I Merely Read It Without Considering Agreement or Disagreement

The prosecution presented a September 12, 2020 column titled “This Week’s General Studies Question for Hong Kong People” from Apple Daily’s deputy publisher Chan Pui-man under her column “Fulfill Life.” The article included the following passage:

Which of the following events would cause you to hate or despise the Hong Kong SAR government?

A. Passing by a street booth and hearing a man named Tam Tak-chi, also known as “Fast Beat,” chanting slogans such as “Resist,” “Five demands, not one less,” “Disband the police force immediately,” “Police missing on 7.21, police killing people on 8.31,” “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” “All bad cops’ families should die,” “Down with the Communist Party,” etc.

B. Riot police in Mong Kok surrounding and subduing a 12-year-old girl, tackling her to the ground and pinning her down with a knee. Her older brother, trying to pull her away, was also stopped. The girl’s mother later said her children had simply been heading to a stationery store in Yau Ma Tei to buy paint for school when the police shouted at them, causing her daughter to panic and run. She was then pursued, pinned down, and subsequently charged under the social gathering ban.

C. A large number of riot police intercepting demonstrators during a march. A 970 New World First Bus driver honking his horn repeatedly to warn the police and crowd of his presence. The police accused him of “honking without cause,” claiming it was an act of provocation that severely disrupted law enforcement. They also alleged that the bus was “speeding toward police officers,” leading to the driver’s immediate arrest on dangerous driving charges. Later, they found a spanner in the driver’s possession and charged him with carrying an offensive weapon.

“Most of Apple Daily’s pro-democracy readers would naturally answer B and C. They hate and despise the SAR government, but it’s absolutely not because they heard Fast Beat shouting those slogans—it’s because of the events, systems, and figures that led to these slogans in the first place.”

The prosecution asked whether the article claimed Apple Daily readers hated and despised the SAR government. Lai responded that it referred to “pro-democracy readers.” The prosecution asked, “Does that include you?” Lai replied, “Why would it include me?” The prosecution pointed out that Lai was a reader of Apple Daily, to which he agreed. They then asked whether Lai hated or despised the SAR government, to which he replied, “No.”

The article also stated:

“The regime is criminalizing speech, launching a literary inquisition, using every means at its disposal. Under the National Security Law, the phrase ‘Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times’ is a crime. But what about ‘Five demands, not one less,’ chanted by millions for over a year? If the National Security Law doesn’t apply, then they’ll just use outdated oppressive laws to crush dissent. Whether the government claims ‘7.21 police missing for 39 minutes’ or ’18 minutes,’ the fact remains. Yet the regime punishes Fast Beat as a warning to all Hongkongers. The red lines keep shifting, and the goalposts keep moving—whoever is in power decides reality.”

The prosecution argued that the article’s claim that Tam Tak-chi was criminalized solely for chanting slogans lacked context because it did not describe how or why he chanted them. Lai responded that many people were chanting slogans at the time. The prosecution pressed further, saying the article failed to provide full details. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai, upon reading the article, noticed that it provided an incomplete picture of the event. Lai said he didn’t know because he hadn’t written the article himself. The prosecution asserted that readers who only relied on the article wouldn’t have a full understanding of what happened. Lai replied that he did not consider what readers might think.

The prosecution pointed out the article’s mention of “police killing people on 8.31” and asked whether Lai agreed that this was a false accusation. Lai agreed. The prosecution then asked whether he also agreed that the claim “the regime is criminalizing speech and launching a literary inquisition” lacked evidence. Lai responded that he had simply read the article without considering whether he agreed with it.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had ever questioned Chan Pui-man about why she wrote the article. Lai said he had not.

The prosecution further argued that the article incited public discontent toward the central and Hong Kong governments and fueled hatred or hostility between different sectors of society. Lai completely disagreed. When asked whether he had ever instructed Chan not to write such articles again, Lai said no, emphasizing that as deputy publisher, Chan had the right to write whatever she wanted.

12:42 Lunch

12:38 Lai Confirms Telling Cheung Kim-hung During Detention Not to Fear and to Continue Operations

The prosecution questioned Cheung Kim-hung’s visits to Lai in detention and presented a December 5, 2020, Apple Daily report titled “Jimmy Lai: No Fear, Keep Fighting – Son Delivers Apple Daily, Rejected by Correctional Services”. The article stated:

“Jimmy Lai is accused of violating the land lease terms of the Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate and has been charged with conspiracy to commit fraud in an unprecedented case. He was unusually denied bail. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described it as political persecution by the Hong Kong government. Readers have written letters of encouragement, calling him a Hong Kong hero.

Behind bars, Lai remains undeterred. Yesterday, through family and lawyers, he conveyed a message to Apple Daily colleagues and readers: ‘No fear, we have to fight on.’”

The prosecution pointed out that since the report was published on December 5, it meant that someone had visited Lai the day before, allowing him to relay this message to Apple Daily staff and readers. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution further noted that Cheung Kim-hung visited Lai on December 7 and asked whether Lai had told Cheung not to be afraid and to continue operations. Lai confirmed.

12:19 Prosecution Claims Ngan Shun-kau’s Article Advocates Sanctions Against China—Lai Responds: It’s Just an Analysis of Biden’s Policy

The prosecution presented a February 25, 2021 Apple Daily op-ed written by Ngan Shun-kau (pen name: Fong Yuen) titled “Drying Out the CCP? Taking the Pulse of Biden’s China Policy (Part 1)” and asked whether it reflected Apple Daily’s stance. Lai agreed.

The article stated:

“First, Biden believes that competition with China will be long-term, and that the confrontation between two systems and two sets of values will not be decided in the short term. Based on this, the strategy must be focused on strengthening national power, cleaning up internal affairs, securing dominance in high technology and cyberspace, and maintaining a leading role in setting rules and fostering development.”

“Second, alliances must strengthen cooperation; acting alone is not an option. Only through coordinated action can long-term containment of the CCP be achieved, preventing its ideological expansion worldwide and stopping the export of the Chinese model.”

The prosecution asked whether this aligned with Lai’s stance of uniting the free world to counter the CCP’s aggression. Lai replied that this was before the National Security Law (NSL) took effect. The prosecution pointed out that Lai made similar statements during his “Live Chat” sessions after the NSL took effect. Lai responded: “OK.”

The article further stated:

“Third, competition with the CCP should not lead to confrontation, nor should it slip into a cold war. The U.S. does not need to wage war to defeat the CCP but should weaken its power through prolonged competition. If possible, it should force the CCP to comply with international rules; if not, it should dry out the CCP and let it wither on its own.”

The prosecution asked whether this reflected Lai’s approach to dealing with the CCP. Lai disagreed, stating that he never said ‘dry out the CCP and let it wither.’ The prosecution asked if Lai agreed with containing the CCP’s aggression. Lai said yes.

The article also stated:

“Simply put, Biden’s ‘ingenious strategy’ is to isolate the CCP, leverage allied unity to establish military and technological superiority, implement long-term containment, dry out the CCP’s national power, weaken its survival capabilities, and push for internal changes in China.”

The prosecution asked whether this was Lai’s own stance. Lai disagreed.

The prosecution challenged him: “But isn’t this your belief—that the CCP’s influence should be contained?” Lai responded that he never said ‘dry out the CCP’s national power, weaken its survival capabilities, and push for internal changes in China.’

The prosecution asked whether Lai had ever advocated for a technology embargo against China. Lai responded that this was already U.S. policy and he was simply stating facts.

The prosecution then asked: “Did you want the U.S. to continue such measures?” Lai denied making such a statement.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping directly asked: “Did you want the U.S. to impose a technology embargo on China?” Lai replied: “How could I want something I never said?”

Judge Toh instructed him to answer the question directly, and Lai then stated: “I don’t want that because I never said it.”

The prosecution pressed further: “Did you know this article called for sanctions and hostile actions against China?” Lai insisted, “It was just an analysis of Biden’s policy.”

The prosecution demanded a yes or no answer. Lai sarcastically replied:

“If this can be sanctioned and hostile activity, even Hello Kitty you can ask the same question.”

Judge Toh again reminded Lai, warning him that if he continued answering this way, “we will still be here next year.” Lai then replied: “OK, no (I did not know the article called for sanctions or hostile actions against China).”

Judge Toh reminded Lai that the prosecution was simply presenting the case and that if he answered only ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ the process would move faster. Lai responded: “OK.”

The prosecution then accused the article of inciting hatred against Hong Kong and the central government, encouraging illegal means to change the existing legal system, and promoting lawlessness. Lai denied all accusations.

11:25 Break

11:10 Prosecution Questions Whether Lai Instructed Cheung Kim-hung to Cease Apple Daily Operations—Lai Denies

The prosecution continued questioning Lai regarding events following his remand in custody. They pointed out that Cheung Kim-hung visited Lai at the detention center in December 2020 and asked whether Lai had instructed him to continue operating the company. Lai responded that he had told Cheung to keep the company running and to proceed with editorial work while being cautious. He clarified that editorial work included news and articles, which fell under business operations.

Lai further explained that staff had arranged legal seminars and had previously expressed concerns about the National Security Law (NSL) in the “Lunchbox Meeting” WhatsApp group. He believed that employees were being cautious. Both the prosecution and judges repeatedly pressed Lai to clarify whether he was referring to the WhatsApp group “National Security Law Contingency Committee”, as Lai was not listed as a group member. They questioned whether Lai was referring to Slack or WhatsApp. Lai stated he could not recall, suggesting it was likely Slack rather than WhatsApp. He reaffirmed that staff had raised concerns regarding editorial matters and that discussions about the NSL were widespread, making him confident that employees were cautious.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai had explicitly warned Cheung Kim-hung to be careful. Lai responded that Cheung was already highly cautious, so he likely only told him to continue operations, assuming Cheung would exercise prudence.

The prosecution then pointed out that on February 10, 2021, Cheung and IT colleague Connie Chan visited Lai at the detention center and asked whether Lai had instructed Cheung to shut down Apple Daily. Lai denied giving such instructions.

The prosecution presented the next day’s Apple Daily editorial titled “Biden Administration’s Diplomatic Dilemma,” written by Ngan Shun-kau (pen name: Fong Yuen). They asked whether Apple Daily editorials represented the newspaper’s stance. Lai acknowledged that editorials reflected both Apple Daily’s stance and the author’s opinion and agreed that the article represented the newspaper.

The prosecution then quoted excerpts from the editorial:

“Trump has done everything possible to counter the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and with remarkable results. The CCP has suffered a near-crushing defeat. If Biden escalates further, he will be seen as embracing Trump’s ‘greatest threat.’ Conversely, if he does not escalate and instead reverses course, he will undermine his own ‘competitiveness’ and fail to justify himself to Congress and the American people…

The three major U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups have all been deployed to the Asia-Pacific region. While they serve as a strategic deterrent to the CCP, their presence is fleeting; if they cannot curb Beijing’s aggression toward Taiwan, they are merely a show of force. The military coup in Myanmar was met only with verbal condemnation from the U.S., failing to alter the situation. Guyana initially permitted Taiwan to set up an office, only to reverse the decision within a day, proving that even a small country near America’s doorstep cannot be managed. Meanwhile, the new administration’s officials dodge questions about whether Huawei remains on the sanctions list, exposing their lack of confidence. All of this is bad news and suggests Biden’s foreign policy is facing significant challenges…

Competition is a form of threat, and threat is a form of competition. If competition escalates to the ‘most severe’ level yet is not deemed a threat, then it ceases to be competition. In that case, why not just sit down for tea and pastries, take a photo, shake hands, and pretend everything is fine? Biden’s foreign policy is full of obstacles, and its initial stages do not look promising.”

The prosecution questioned whether the editorial advocated for harsher measures against China. Lai argued that the author was merely describing Biden’s challenges as U.S. president.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether the author wanted Biden to take a tougher stance similar to Trump. Lai responded that the author did not express “hope” but simply depicted Biden’s difficulties.

The prosecution then asked whether this editorial reflected Apple Daily’s stance. Lai responded that it might not represent Apple Daily’s stance but certainly reflected the author’s view. The prosecution asked whether Apple Daily sought to convey this perspective to its readers. Lai denied this.

The prosecution further suggested that the editorial aligned with Lai’s own stance. Lai responded that he had never made any statements about Biden.

The prosecution accused Lai of previously stating that he hoped Biden would be as tough as Trump. Lai clarified that this was before the NSL took effect.

The prosecution then referenced Lai’s “Live Chat” conversation with Jack Keane, where Lai allegedly expressed a desire for Biden to adopt Trump’s hardline approach, arguing that this aligned his views with the author’s. Lai denied this, reiterating that the author was merely depicting Biden’s challenges.

The prosecution asked whether Lai was aware that the editorial called for sanctions and hostile actions against China. Lai disagreed, asking where in the article sanctions were mentioned.

The prosecution further suggested that the article incited hatred against China, encouraged Hong Kong residents to seek unlawful means to change legally established policies, and promoted lawlessness. Lai firmly denied all accusations, questioning how an article discussing Biden could possibly incite lawlessness.

11:00 Prosecution: Lai Instructed Hiring Overseas Writers for Freedom to Write on Sanctions—Lai Denies

The prosecution stated that previously presented articles demonstrated that authors indeed discussed sanctions, including how to lobby foreign governments to impose punitive measures against Hong Kong and Chinese officials. Lai responded that even if articles mentioned sanctions, those sanctions had already been implemented at the time, and the authors were merely questioning why the UK and other countries had not taken similar actions.

The prosecution asked whether Lai could provide an explanation. Lai replied that he could not, as he was not the author of those articles.

The prosecution pressed further, noting that Lai was the boss. Lai argued that this did not mean he was aware of everything happening within Apple Daily.

The prosecution asked whether staff followed Lai’s instructions, referencing actions such as the “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign. Lai admitted that if his subordinates disagreed with him on certain matters, he did not insist on pushing them through. However, he acknowledged that he had insisted only once—on launching the “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign.

The prosecution claimed that senior editors followed Lai’s directions and published articles in line with his views. Lai disagreed. The prosecution then alleged that Lai sought overseas writers because they could freely write about sanctions and hostile topics targeting Hong Kong without fear of arrest. Lai disagreed, explaining that after the National Security Law (NSL) took effect, no one in Hong Kong was writing such articles anymore.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether nobody was writing anything at all. Lai responded, “Almost anything. Many writers stopped writing after the National Security Law was enacted.”

The prosecution asked whether this applied even to topics unrelated to the NSL. Lai agreed, stating that writers were uncertain where the red lines were.

The prosecution then presented a November 12, 2020 episode of the “Live Chat” program, where Lai stated, “Maybe they have to do this, they have to keep Next Digital or Apple Daily as a showcase to prove freedom of speech still exists until they have the opportunity to suppress us.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked who “they” referred to. Lai replied that he meant the Hong Kong government.

The prosecution asked why the government would need to keep Next Digital or Apple Daily as a “showcase”. Lai responded that at the time, they had not yet been suppressed, adding that this was his speculation.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether this statement reflected Lai’s opinion. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had already been arrested for collusion and sedition charges in November 2020. Lai responded that despite his arrest, Apple Daily was still operational at that time.

10:40 Lai Says He Rarely Read English Edition’s Opinion Articles; Judge Questions How He Knew Writers Fit Its Purpose

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked Lai about the Apple Daily English edition, noting that Lai had founded it, arranged staffing and resources, and set certain objectives for it. He also mentioned that Lai had previously said the English edition lacked enough news coverage, remarking, “It seems to be the case that the English news was actually your baby.”

Lai responded that he was not a publisher, did not know the English edition’s writers, and had paid attention to the articles in the early stages, but once certain ‘samples’ were established, he no longer followed it closely.

The prosecution asked what Lai meant by “samples.” Lai explained that English edition head Fung Wai-kwong had provided him with draft articles before publication to ask for his approval, but he did not know whether those articles were ultimately published.

The prosecution then asked when the “early stage” was, given that the English edition was launched in late May 2020. Lai said it referred to the period before its launch.

The prosecution asked whether Lai read English news articles after the edition launched. Lai said he did not. The prosecution followed up, asking if Lai ever read English articles before Apple Daily ceased operations on June 24, 2021. Lai again said he did not.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Fung Wai-kwong  had shown Lai “sample” articles. Lai confirmed this, saying Fung Wai-kwong wanted his input on whether to publish them and to find suitable writers. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Fung Wai-kwong  took direction from Lai. Lai agreed.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then referenced WhatsApp records suggesting that Lai disliked some of the articles Fung Wai-kwong  published because they were unrelated to China. Lai confirmed this and noted that Fung Wai-kwong  had gone ahead and published them anyway. Judge Lee then asked, “So, you must have been paying attention to the English edition?” Lai responded that he only looked at the headlines, giving the example that he disagreed with publishing a story about President Biden’s son’s scandal.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping pointed out that Lai had earlier claimed not to have read English news at all. Lai replied that he only looked at the headlines, not the full articles.

The prosecution then asked if Lai only looked at the headlines of English articles. Lai clarified that before the English edition’s launch, he read “sample” articles, but afterward, he only checked the headlines. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if the articles he reviewed included news reports. Lai confirmed that they mostly did, as he needed to check the number of articles published.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping then asked if Lai was, therefore, reviewing English reports and articles. Lai replied that he rarely reviewed opinion articles.

The prosecution then challenged Lai’s previous claim that he became more cautious after the National Security Law (NSL) came into effect, asking how that could be the case if he did not review Apple Daily content. Lai responded that he assumed Fung Wai-kwong was also cautious.

The prosecution asked if Lai ever explicitly reminded Fung Wai-kwong to be careful. Lai said he did not need to, as everyone had become more cautious. The prosecution asked how Lai knew this. Lai responded, “Of course I knew.”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai did not need to give specific editorial instructions on each article because the senior editorial team followed his directives. Lai said that everyone was already concerned about the National Security Law’s implementation.

10:20 Judge Questions Prosecution on Precision of Questions

The prosecution presented an article titled “A Growing Threat”, published on April 3, 2021, by overseas author Joseph Long. The article stated:

“This blatant attempt on the part of Peking to stifle the free and open debate that sits at the heart of our parliamentary democracy should be met with suitable retaliatory measures – while the British government, along with other Western allies continue to sanction individuals who are responsible for the alleged genocide in Xinjiang and the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong, the free world must work together is a joint effort to keep China’s increasing assertiveness at bay.”

The prosecution asked Lai whether the article’s focus on China’s opposition to the values of the free world aligned with his own views. Lai replied that he did not know the author, had not read the article, and had not published it. When the prosecution clarified that they were asking about the stance presented in the article, rather than whether he had read it, Lai responded, “This is after the enactment of the National Security Law, so I have no answer.”

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether the article’s stance was not the very ideology that Apple Daily’s English edition promoted. Lai stated that the English edition aimed to inform the international community about Hong Kong’s situation.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping inquired whether this article had been published in Apple Daily. Lai confirmed but emphasized that he was not the publisher and did not know the article had been published.

The prosecution continued, asking whether the article’s content reflected Lai’s long-held stance on the matter. They pointed out that Lai had previously spoken about “fighting a values war.” Lai reiterated, “This is after the National Security Law; I have no answer.” When asked what he meant by “no answer,” Lai did not respond. The prosecution then asked if Lai had always advocated for sanctions. Lai stated that he did not consistently do so, and that after the National Security Law came into effect, he had stopped advocating for sanctions.

The prosecution further pointed out that the article urged the free world to prepare for confrontation with an aggressive China, suggesting that China posed a fundamental threat to people’s values and way of life. They asked whether Lai had made similar statements after the National Security Law took effect. Lai acknowledged that the article used similar wording, but stressed that did not mean he agreed with the author’s viewpoint.

The prosecution then cited another part of the article that mentioned bullying, comparing it to a statement Lai made on Live Chat, where he said:

“If the world, or the West, doesn’t really come to the aid of each single country being bullied, that alliance doesn’t seem to be together.”

The prosecution claimed that the article and Lai’s statement shared the same stance. Lai disagreed, saying they were different in context and perspective. The prosecution insisted that both expressed the same viewpoint. Lai refuted this. The prosecution then asked whether the article called for sanctions or hostile actions against China. Lai disagreed, asking, “How would I know?”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked the prosecution to clarify what they meant by “at the time”—whether they were suggesting that Lai was aware of the article before its publication or only after. The prosecution claimed that their position was that Lai and others conspired to agree on publishing such articles and that he knowingly approved the publication of articles with inciting intent before they were published. Judge Lee, “So I’m asking you, are you saying that Mr. Lai agreed to the writing of certain pieces, or that he only became aware of and agreed with the content after the articles were published?”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping attempted to summarize the prosecution’s stance, stating that they believed co-conspirators agreed to publish English-language news articles focusing on specific messages for international audiences. She clarified that not every co-conspirator necessarily read the articles, but the conspiracy’s framework was to publish content that reflected a particular viewpoint. Toh: “…but that the whole framework of the conspiracy is to publish the articles that reflect a certain point of view”

The prosecution agreed with this interpretation, asserting that the article was an overt act within the conspiracy.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang, however, questioned the precision of the prosecution’s argument, pointing out that many Apple Daily or Apple English News readers might agree with the article’s content, but that did not automatically make them conspirators. He remarked, “Some readers of Apple Daily or English News may agree with the contents of this article that doesn’t make them full conspirators yet. So I’m afraid your question is not precise enough.”

The prosecution countered that they were merely establishing that the article’s stance aligned with Apple Daily’s editorial position and that their closing arguments would demonstrate that the articles were published as part of an agreement.

Lai interjected, saying, “There was no agreement. Where is the agreement?”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping cut him off, saying, “Mr. Lai, we are not asking you a question.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang again reminded the prosecution to ensure their questions were precise.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping added that since Lai claimed not to have read the article, the prosecution’s aim appeared to be establishing that the article reflected Lai’s views.

10:08 Lai Denies That Apple Daily’s English Edition Was Intended to Lobby for International Sanctions Against China

The prosecution presented an article titled “Why People Reckon Upon Germany Speaking Up Against Human Rights Violations”, written by activist Glacier Kwong and published in Apple Daily’s English edition on January 28, 2021. Lai stated that he did not know Kwong and had not read her article. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai was familiar with all contributors. Lai replied that he was not, especially those who wrote for the English edition.

The prosecution then presented another article, “Time for UK to Bring HSBC to Heel”, written by Michael Cox and published on December 15, 2020. The prosecution noted that the article advocated for the UK to impose punitive measures similar to those implemented by the US, and asked, “Didn’t you also believe that foreign governments should impose punitive measures on Chinese and Hong Kong officials?” Lai responded that he did not know the author, had not read the article, and had not published it, adding, “So I have no answer.”

The prosecution asked whether Apple Daily’s English edition was intended to mobilize international support to punish Chinese and Hong Kong officials. Lai reiterated that he did not know the author, had not read the article, and had not published it. The prosecution pressed further, asking whether the English edition’s purpose was to lobby the international community to impose punitive measures on Hong Kong and Chinese officials for human rights violations. Lai said, “No.”

The prosecution then asked, “Hasn’t that always been the purpose of the English edition?” Lai responded that the English edition aimed to inform the international community about events in Hong Kong, and as a publisher, he could not lobby for support. The prosecution countered that Lai had previously stated that the English edition sought political support. Lai clarified that it sought support for Hong Kong, but not sanctions.

The prosecution followed up, asking whether political support included calls for punitive measures. Lai responded, “No.” The prosecution insisted that one of the English edition’s purposes was to rally international support, including sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials. Lai disagreed.

10:04 Judge Requests Complete Records from Correctional Services on Newspapers Provided to Lai

At the start of the hearing, defense barrister Steve Kwan stated that he has another national security case scheduled for tomorrow afternoon at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court and requested to delay proceedings until 2:45 PM after lunch so he could attend the other case. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping granted the request. Kwok also noted that he was aware the court would adjourn at 4:15 PM tomorrow.

According to court records, the case in question involves 57-year-old former League of Social Democrats member Chow Kim-ho, who was charged under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance for allegedly publishing seditious messages on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads between March and November 2024. The last mention of the case indicated that it was pending the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling on the Tam Tak-chi sedition case.

Additionally, in reference to discussions from yesterday regarding whether Lai had access to Apple Daily while on remand, Lai stated that he does not remember when he was first provided newspapers after being remanded. The prosecution noted that they are in contact with the Correctional Services Department to retrieve the relevant records. The defense pointed out that the records would cover different periods, including Lai’s transfer from Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre to Stanley Prison. Lai also mentioned that for most of his time on remand, he had access to newspapers.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping remarked that obtaining the full records from the Correctional Services Department regarding newspaper access would be preferable. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also emphasized that the exact dates the newspapers were provided would be crucial in determining whether Lai actually read them or merely believed he had read them.

10:03 Court in Session

The Witness