Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses, appeared for the 143rd day of his trial Tuesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, which is acting as the High Court. This marked Lai’s 51st day of testimony. The prosecution concluded its 24-day cross-examination Monday, and the defense has begun re-examination.

During re-examination, Lai addressed his July 2019 interview with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in which he said, “You (the U.S.) have nuclear weapons, you can finish them in a minute.” Lai clarified that “nuclear weapons” referred to “moral authority” rather than actual weapons.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked, “How can moral authority resolve the Chinese Communist Party in a minute?” Lai responded that it was a rhetorical expression. When D’Almada Remedios pressed further, noting that he was speaking rather than writing, Lai maintained that it was a form of expression.

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

Detailed Transcript

16:04 Adjournment

The trial will resume tomorrow afternoon (March 6).

15:35 Judge Questions How Lai Can Be Certain That Mark Simon Was Unaware of Chan Tsz-wah’s Involvement in International Lobbying

The defense pointed out that during cross-examination, Lai agreed that Mark Simon would communicate with Chan Tsz-wah on his behalf. The defense further noted that Chan testified that during a Signal call with Mark Simon between July and August 2020, he mentioned joining a U.S. lobbying Telegram group, where members regularly reported their work on U.S. lobbying efforts to Mark Simon. Additionally, Mark Simon reportedly told Chan that he could provide substantial support to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and that Chan had become involved in international lobbying.

The defense asked whether Mark Simon was acting on Lai’s behalf when communicating with Chan via Signal. Lai firmly denied this, stating that he was unaware of IPAC and Telegram (TG) at the time, and only discussed Chan in relation to the transitional loan issue.

The defense continued, referencing Chan’s testimony that in October 2020, he had another Signal call with Mark Simon, during which Simon allegedly urged him to continue lobbying for sanctions. The defense asked whether, if this conversation truly took place, Mark Simon was speaking on Lai’s behalf. Lai responded, “We” did not even know that Chan was involved in international lobbying, so how could we have instructed him to continue?

At this point, Judge Esther Toh interrupted, asking whether Lai was referring to himself or Mark Simon when stating they were unaware. Lai clarified that he was referring to himself, but believed that Mark Simon was also unaware.

Judge Toh then questioned, “How can you be sure that Mark Simon did not know about Chan’s involvement in international lobbying?” Lai replied that Mark Simon often acted on his behalf. The defense asked again whether Mark Simon was representing Lai during this particular Signal call. Lai insisted that he was not, reiterating that he had no knowledge of Chan’s involvement in international lobbying.

Judge Toh pressed further, “How can you speak on behalf of Mark Simon and say whether he knew or didn’t know about Chan’s involvement?” Lai admitted that this was his assumption. Judge Lee Wan-tang then asked whether Lai knew about this Signal call at all, to which Lai responded, “No.”

The defense concluded by stating that the final area for re-examination involves Slack records. While Lai testified that he attended weekly “Lunchbox Meetings”, the defense noted that no such records exist in Slack. However, Lai’s WhatsApp conversations with his secretary, Julie, could provide supplementary evidence. Lai is scheduled to review the relevant records in court the following morning.

15:20 Lai: Telling Colleagues to “Continue as Before” Meant Business Must Go On, Not Operating Illegally

After a short recess, Lai stated that he recalled the “concerned individual” mentioned in his article was Joseph Lian Yizheng.

Regarding Lai’s Twitter post that read:

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

The defense asked whether Lai was advocating sanctions against election officers. Lai denied this, explaining that he was merely stating that election officers should be held accountable for their decisions and face the consequences.

The defense then addressed testimony by Cheung Kim-hung, who stated that after Lai was remanded in custody in 2020, he visited Lai in prison to seek guidance on how to continue operating Apple Daily. According to Cheung, Lai told him:

“Don’t be afraid, keep going, just continue as before.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “continue as before.” Lai clarified:

“The show must go on, the business must go on.”

However, he emphasized that Apple Daily was not a “criminal organization”, and therefore, “continue” did not mean continuing illegally.

15:15 Break

15:00 Lai Acknowledges Mentioning “Sanction China” in Messages After the National Security Law Was a Careless Move

The defense revisited a July 15, 2020, conversation between Lai and Mark Simon. Mark Simon relayed a question from Mary Kissel, asking:

“Jimmy this is a question from Mary as they are a bit confused, as some press reports had, do you saying that you would prefer US not break all ties with Hong Kong.”

Lai responded, expressing his views on the revocation of Hong Kong’s special status:

“I said that it’s not necessary to revoke the special status of HK because with national security law HK is finished anyway. The point is not HK but China. Sanction China as to stop it from clamping down on HK. But after I thought about it I think they’re right to revoke HK’s special status, because once US and China decoupled HK would be a way out for China. to close this outlet of China would force it to come to term easier to demands of US.”

The defense asked whether Lai had previously testified that Mary Kissel was a personal friend. Lai confirmed, stating that they had known each other for over 15 years.

The defense inquired whether Lai had been in regular contact with Kissel during those years, whether in person or electronically. Lai said they did not meet frequently but mentioned that he sent flowers to her every year on her birthday until she left The Wall Street Journal.

The defense asked why Kissel did not contact Lai directly but instead communicated through Mark Simon. Lai responded that it was likely because she worked for then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time, and direct communication might have been too sensitive.

The defense asked if Lai knew how Kissel would handle his response. Lai said he only answered her question and did not know how she would use his reply.

The prosecution had previously accused Lai of directly requesting sanctions. Lai denied this. The defense asked why he explicitly mentioned “Sanction China” in his message. Lai responded that he was not sure and had done so carelessly.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios pressed further, asking what he meant by “careless”. Lai explained that he knew “sanctions” was a dangerous word after the National Security Law was enacted.

The defense pointed out that despite knowing this, Lai did not avoid using the word in this message. Lai acknowledged this, saying that was why it was a careless mistake.

The defense then asked if Lai had any direct or indirect contact with Mary Kissel after July 25, 2020. Lai said no.

The defense also questioned why Mark Simon was involved in communication between Kissel and Lai. Lai explained that Mark Simon was both his assistant and a friend of Kissel.

The defense then brought up a Twitter post from Lai’s account on 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 had previously questioned Lai during cross-examination, suggesting he was advocating sanctions against election officers. At the time, Lai had responded ambiguously with:
“Yes, no, yes.”

Senior Public Prosecutor Anthony Chau interjected, claiming that the transcript recorded Lai’s response as “Yes, well, yes.” Judge D’Almada Remedios suggested verifying the court records for accuracy.

14:50 Column Mentioned Treason Could Lead to Execution; Lai: A Figure Known as “Shen Deng” Said This on a Program

The defense presented Lai’s July 5, 2020, column titled Fly, the Backbone of Conscience Holds Us Up, in which he wrote:

“Some well-meaning people say, ‘Leave quickly! Colluding with foreign forces is treason, and that could lead to execution!’ I said, ‘I won’t leave. If it comes to that, I’ll face it. If I flee, how can I live with myself? Long ago, I decided not to let fear stop me. Otherwise, every word I say and everything I do would be dictated by fear of consequences. What could I say? What could I do? How could I hold my head up and live with dignity?’”

During the 137th day of trial, the prosecution had asked Lai whether collusion with foreign forces could result in execution. Lai responded that he was not saying the law explicitly prescribed execution but that someone had told him this.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai knew this was untrue. Lai explained that the person meant he could be taken to China. The prosecution repeatedly questioned whether execution was not, in fact, a real consequence under the National Security Law. Lai acknowledged that it was not stated in the law.

The prosecution then accused Lai of knowingly writing something false, asking:
“It seems the truth has no bearing on you, Mr. Lai?”

Lai replied:
“The truth bearing on me, I’m saying that somebody told me so.”

The defense asked where Lai heard that “collusion with foreign forces is treason and could lead to execution.” Lai said it was something someone known as “Shen Deng” had said on a program:

“People call him ‘Shen Deng.’ His son works in the film industry, and he used to be a screenwriter at ATV. His surname is Yuan… I forgot the full name of Shen Deng.”

The defense asked whether this person mentioned the National Security Law. Lai responded no, adding that the person mentioned his name on the program and urged him to leave Hong Kong.

The defense asked if this was a private conversation. Lai said no, confirming it was said publicly on a program. The defense asked if it was a threat. Lai said:
“He may have been trying to scare me by saying something like that.”

The defense then asked why Lai described this person as “well-meaning” in his article. Lai responded:
“Maybe he was concerned for me and wanted to scare me into leaving.”

The defense asked if Lai personally knew this person. Lai confirmed that he did but had forgotten his full name.

The defense referred to Lai’s previous testimony, in which he said that Apple Daily staff members expressed concerns after the National Security Law took effect. They then presented Slack messages from Apple Daily’s internal work platform.

One message stated:
“Due to the National Security Law, a few financial columnists have stopped writing out of concern. More colleagues are now writing under pseudonyms to build in-house KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders). Their analytical skills are solid, and in some cases, their engagement and readership have even surpassed previous columnists. We can leverage this to organize events and seminars.”

Lai replied:
“That’s great. We could also have industry professionals provide verbal insights, which colleagues could rewrite into articles or present as dialogues.”

Another message raised concerns that the National Security Law could lead to legal trouble and deter interviewees from speaking. Lai responded:
“We can find ways to make them feel safe.”

The defense asked Lai whether these concerns had been discussed during Apple Daily’s internal “Lunchbox Meetings”. Lai said he couldn’t recall but confirmed that there was widespread fear among staff.

The defense then showed meeting records shared by Ryan Law on Slack. The prosecution objected, calling it a leading question, while the defense argued that it was meant to help Lai recall events. Judge Esther Toh allowed the defense to present the Slack screenshots.

The defense asked if the Lunchbox Meetings had discussed the impact of the National Security Law. Lai said he did not remember.

The defense then asked if Lai had missed any Lunchbox Meetings in 2020. Lai said he might have missed one or two because, in early 2020, he was still allowed to travel abroad.

The defense pointed out that there were travel restrictions due to the pandemic in 2020. Lai responded “Oh,” acknowledging that he had likely not traveled at all that year. He then stated that if he was in Hong Kong, he would have attended the meetings.

Judge Esther Toh pressed further, asking whether Lai was certain. Lai responded:
“If I was in Hong Kong, I had no reason to miss the Lunchbox Meetings.”

14:33 Lai: Aware That Advocating Sanctions After the National Security Law Took Effect Was Illegal, but Uncertain of Law’s Implementation in Early June 2020

The defense presented a transcript of Lai’s June 10, 2020, interview with Radio Free Asia Cantonese (RFA), in which he stated:

“To block China’s authoritarian actions, the U.S. and Europe can’t just talk; they need to take concrete action, including sanctions. I think there’s a chance that, even if the National Security Law is enacted, it won’t be enforced, or if it is, it will be watered down and won’t be as severe.”

The defense noted that the prosecution had asked whether Lai still wanted the U.S. to impose sanctions on China after the National Security Law took effect, to which Lai denied, saying, “I never said that.”

The defense then asked whether Lai had continued to call for U.S. sanctions after the law took effect to weaken its impact. Lai responded no, stating that he had this idea before the law was enacted, but after it came into force, advocating sanctions would be illegal.

The defense asked whether Lai knew in early June 2020 how the National Security Law would be implemented. Lai stated that he did not know.

The defense then presented a June 23, 2020, conversation between Lai and Mark Simon, in which Lai asked:

“The sanctions list includes Chinese officials Wang Yang and Han Zheng, along with corruption allegations against them. Is this fake news or confirmed? Can you verify it?”

Mark Simon replied:

“I’m verifying, but for now, it’s fake news. Wang Yang and Han Zheng’s names were included in several lists submitted by Hong Kong activist groups. When the sanctions list was discussed in Washington last week, I only proposed Hong Kong officials because others had already been asked to propose Chinese officials for consideration by the U.S. National Security Council.”

The defense pointed out that, during cross-examination, Lai stated that he did not ask Mark Simon to withdraw the sanctions list against Hong Kong officials after the National Security Law took effect, and even countered, “Why would I?” Lai had attempted to explain this in court but was not allowed.

The defense now gave Lai the opportunity to clarify. After reviewing the messages, Lai stated that he could not remember.

12:52 Lunch

12:45 Lai Admits He Did Not Mention Planned U.S. Meetings in Bail Application, Fearing It Would Lower Success Rate

Regarding Lai’s criminal intimidation case involving an Oriental Daily journalist, Lai was granted bail on May 5, 2020, with the condition that he could not leave Hong Kong. The defense noted that Lai later applied to modify his bail conditions to allow him to travel abroad. The defense presented a May 27, 2020, conversation between Lai and Mark Simon:

Lai: “Mark, Jade gave birth to this beautiful fat baby girl yesterday. Her birth certificate should be here in a week or so. So if I fly to NY and spend 14 days quarantine I should be able to have lunch at around June 20 or so. I hope is reinstated. It’s good protection at this time of crisis, hopefully see the big boss, too. Thanks. Jimmy.”

The prosecution previously alleged that Lai used visiting his granddaughter as an excuse to conceal his actual intention—meeting U.S. officials. The defense asked Lai whether he would still have applied to modify his bail conditions if there had been no plan to meet with U.S. officials. Lai confirmed he would have, as his main reason was to visit his granddaughter.

The defense then asked why Lai did not disclose his plan to meet U.S. officials in his bail application. Lai explained that his primary purpose was to visit his granddaughter. While meeting with U.S. officials was not illegal, he was concerned that it might be politically sensitive.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked: “Are you saying that meeting with Pence was politically sensitive, or that informing the court about it was politically sensitive?”

Lai replied: “Informing the court.”

Judge Lee then followed up: “So the meeting itself was not politically sensitive?”

Lai responded: “It was also politically sensitive.”

The defense then asked whether Lai had deliberately misled the court. Lai denied this, stating that he simply did not think it was necessary to disclose the matter.

Judge Lee further asked whether Lai believed that disclosing the meeting would lower the chances of his bail application being approved.

Lai confirmed this.

The defense presented a June 2020 message from Mark Simon to Lai, stating:

“Just FYI, today I have fielded about 12 calls from everyone from the NSC staff. to state department Desk officers, and people on Capitol Hill as well as journalist friends checking on you. Disappointment that you wouldn’t be coming, but also quite concerned about your well being.”

The defense asked what Lai’s purpose was in planning to meet with the U.S. National Security Council.

Lai responded that his goal was to seek support for protecting Hong Kong’s freedom from infringement.

The defense then asked whether this was related to the National Security Law.

Lai confirmed that it was.

12:21 Column Stated “CCP Tore Up the Basic Law”; Judge Says Defense’s Inquiry on Source Is a Leading Question

The defense presented Lai’s April 26, 2020 column, “Authoritarian Tyranny Oppresses Us, But Our Spirit Remains Unbroken,” in which he wrote:

“The CCP has struck, tearing up the Basic Law and destroying Hong Kong’s status as a Special Administrative Region under One Country, Two Systems. The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) and the Liaison Office, which do not have the authority to interpret the law, blatantly reinterpreted the Basic Law in a roundabout way. They claimed that the two offices are not ‘departments under the Central People’s Government’ as referred to in Article 22 of the Basic Law, openly seizing power from the Hong Kong government…”

During Day 136 of the trial, the prosecution asked on what basis Lai claimed that “the CCP has struck, tearing up the Basic Law and destroying Hong Kong’s status as a Special Administrative Region under One Country, Two Systems.”

Lai responded that he was merely stating facts based on official sources.

The prosecution pressed further: “Which sources?”

Lai said he could not recall.

The prosecution then suggested: “There were no such sources, were there?”

Lai insisted that there must have been official sources, or he would not have cited them in his article.

The defense asked Lai what official sources he was referring to.

Lai stated that he could not remember, but lawyers such as Martin Lee and Albert Ho had made similar arguments.

The defense pointed out that Martin Lee and Albert Ho were not official sources and asked whether Lai had read any official documents.

Lai responded that he had learned about the issue from the media, which is why he referenced it in his article.

The defense then asked whether Lai’s so-called “official sources” could have included HKMAO statements.

At this point, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping interrupted, stating that this was a leading question. The prosecution also interjected, arguing that Lai had already testified that he did not remember.

The defense then asked which media outlets Lai had read.

Lai responded that he had read Apple Daily and other media sources.

The defense asked why Lai had then referred to these reports as official sources.

Lai maintained that he was certain they were official sources.

The defense pressed further: “Which official sources specifically stated that ‘the CCP struck, tore up the Basic Law, and destroyed Hong Kong’s status as an SAR’?”

The prosecution interrupted again, stating that this line of questioning had already been covered during cross-examination and that Lai had said he did not know or could not remember.

Judge Toh noted that Lai had testified that his information came from the media.

At this point, the defense did not pursue the matter further.

12:07 Lai Reiterates That He Was Not Involved in the Pro-democracy Camp Primary Election

Regarding Lai’s understanding of the primary election, the defense referenced three different responses he gave under cross-examination:

Prosecution: “Were you concerned about the primary election?”

Lai: “I was not concerned with the primary election because it was unrelated to me.”

Prosecution: “Based on the messages presented throughout today’s proceedings, you were following the progress of the primary election between December 2019 and January 2020?”

Lai: “Yes.”

Prosecution: “What were you concerned about?”

Lai: “I was concerned about what was going on, but I was not concerned about the primary election anymore because I wasn’t involved.”

The defense then asked whether there was any difference between “concern with” and “concern about” as Lai used them. Lai responded that there was no difference.

The defense pointed out that the word “concern” could imply worry or fear, and asked Lai what he meant by it. Lai explained that at the time, he thought Simon Lee’s idea of electronic voting was convenient and a good idea, so he acted as a middleman between Lee and those organizing the primary elections, adding that he mainly communicated with Lee Wing-tat of the Democratic Party.

When asked whether he was interested in the primary election or actively involved in it, Lai insisted that he was not involved but was only interested in the electronic voting aspect.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned Lai about a message from Chan Tsz-wah, in which Chan sent Lai a list of primary election candidates. Lai had responded:

“Thanks. We’ve to work on them.”

Judge Toh asked whether this meant Lai was involved in the primary election. Lai denied this, stating that at the time, he thought the primary election was important, and his use of “We” referred to “our side of people.”

Judge Toh then pressed further: “Why did you say ‘We’?”

Lai replied: “Because we were together; we were all in the same camp.”

The defense asked whether Lai worked with the candidates on the list or had someone act on his behalf to work with them. Lai denied both.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios followed up, pointing out that after Lai told Chan, “We’ve to work on them,” Chan responded: “I will try my best to work on it.” She asked whether Lai was instructing Chan to work with the candidates on the list.

Lai responded that Chan’s reply was simply his own understanding of the message, reiterating that he was not involved in the primary election.

Judge Toh asked whether the “We” Lai mentioned included himself. Lai confirmed that it did but insisted that he was not involved in the primary election.

The defense then asked whether Lai knew if Chan was involved in the primary election after their conversations. Lai said he did not know and was surprised that Chan had access to a candidate list.

The defense further asked whether Lai was aware that Chan knew the candidates on the list. Lai responded that Chan never told him, again expressing surprise that Chan knew them.

The defense then pointed out that Lai later forwarded the primary election candidate list from Chan to Lee Cheuk-yan, telling him:

“We have to work on them. At least we’ve made our primary legitimized by the support of the majority of Pan-Democrats.”

Lee Cheuk-yan responded:

“Will work on them. Will tell Benny and Au Nok-hin.”

The defense did not dispute that Au Nok-hin was one of the primary election organizers.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai had instructed Lee to “work on” the primary election candidates. Lai replied that he did not know if Lee knew the organizers but assumed he did.

Judge Lee then asked, “At the very least, you instructed Lee to ‘work on’ the people related to the primary election?”

Lai agreed.

The defense then asked whether Lee Cheuk-yan was one of the primary election organizers.

Lai responded that he was not.

11:14 Break

11:00 Lai Reiterates That He Never Discussed the “International Front” with Chan Tsz-wah

The defense questioned Lai about his six meetings with Chan Tsz-wah, particularly their third meeting in November 2019, which took place inside a car.

Chan had previously testified that Lai said the movement needed to combine street protests, the legislature, and international forces. However, during direct examination, Lai stated that he may have mentioned street protests and the legislature but did not mention the international front. Under cross-examination, Lai later said that he could not recall whether he had told Chan this.

The defense asked whether Lai had discussed the international front during their third meeting. Lai denied this, stating that he had never known Chan to be involved in the international front and had never discussed it with him.

The defense then asked about Lai’s December 31, 2019 meeting with Chan, where Chan testified that Lai had brought up the primary elections. During cross-examination, Lai acknowledged that he was aware of the primaries at the time and that his “apprentice” Simon Lee was involved in the primary election software.

The defense asked whether Lai had discussed the primaries with Chan during their meeting. Lai said he did not think so but added that it was difficult to remember.

The defense then referenced a July 12, 2020 message Chan sent to Lai after the primary elections:

Chan Tsz-wah: “Hi Jimmy, thanks for everything on the primary election. It’s remarkable in our HK history. Wayland.”

Lai: “It’s a miracle!”

The defense asked why Chan would send such a message to Lai after the primaries. Lai responded that Chan was likely just sharing his feelings.

When asked whether they had discussed the primaries before July 12, Lai said he could not remember.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping followed up, asking why Chan was thanking Lai. Lai responded that Chan was likely thanking Apple Daily for providing a platform for discussion, reiterating that he was not personally involved.

The defense then presented another message from February 26, 2020, where Chan messaged Lai with a list of candidates:

Demosisto Alliance:
Confirmed plan. They are not bound by the primary.

• New Territories West: Eddie Chu
• New Territories East: Stand News Sister (Ah Lam)
• Kowloon East: Joshua Wong (Plan B: Jannelle R. Leung)
• Kowloon West: Sunny
• Hong Kong Island: Nathan Law
• Super District Council: Lester Shum

The defense asked why Chan sent this message to Lai. Lai responded that he was surprised that Chan knew these individuals.

The defense asked whether Lai had been involved in arranging primary candidates. Lai denied this, stating that he had never contacted any candidates, except for his friend Lam Cheuk-ting.

The defense then questioned Lai about his fifth meeting with Chan, which took place at Lai’s residence in Yangmingshan, Taipei, where they met with Finn Lau (a.k.a. Lam Chau).

Chan had testified that Lai said the movement needed to combine legislative forces, street protests, the international front, and business leaders.

Lai, however, denied this during direct examination, saying, “I think he had his own ideas and put words in my mouth.”

The defense pointed out that under cross-examination, Lai later admitted that he may have mentioned the legislature, street protests, and the international front.

Lai clarified that he was not thinking about the international front at the time but may have mentioned the legislature and street protests. However, since Finn Lau was present, it was possible that Lau brought up the international front, which led to a discussion on the topic.

Lai reiterated that he did not know Chan was involved in the international front and could not recall any conversation about it during the meeting.

The defense then asked why Lai had met with Finn Lau at the time. Lai responded that he believed it was a good opportunity to build a leadership team to control valiant violence.

Finally, the defense noted that during direct examination, Lai had stated that he had never thought about integrating four forces—including business leaders.

Lai clarified that because he was also a businessman, he naturally understood the business community.

10:45 Prosecution Questions Whether Column Fabricated Youth’s Allegation That Police “Lost Their Conscience” – Defense Points to Apple Daily Report Published Five Days Earlier

The defense referenced the prosecution’s cross-examination, which had questioned Lai about his September 8, 2019 column “This is a Battle of Conscience.” The opening passage of the article read:

“In the silent darkness, fully armed police stood in formation, searching for an enemy. Before the tear gas, pepper spray, bean bag rounds, and police batons swung wildly, filling the air with smoke, they were already growing impatient. On the opposite sidewalk, a young man in a white shirt stood alone and asked: ‘Officer, have you lost your conscience?’ Even an unarmed, solitary youth could not escape being seen as an ‘enemy.’ Without hesitation, a group of officers rushed toward him. For their own satisfaction, several officers threw him to the ground, pinning him down and beating him until his head was bleeding. Those without a conscience are filled with hatred, instinctively searching for enemies. Despite the youth posing no threat, his heartfelt question made him a target of their fury.”

The defense argued that the prosecution had repeatedly accused Lai of fabricating the incident, while Lai had stated that he had read about it in news reports, including Apple Daily.

To support this claim, the defense presented a report published five days before the column on Apple Daily‘s A2 page, titled: “Young Man in Mong Kok Who Mocked Police as Having ‘Lost Their Conscience’ Beaten Until His Head Was Split Open.”

Lai confirmed that he had read the report at the time but could not recall whether he had watched any related video footage. He denied fabricating the events described in his column.

The defense then played an October 22, 2019 Apple Daily video. In the footage, a narrator stated that Lai had met with Republican senators alongside the Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC) before showing an interview clip with Lai.

The defense asked whether Lai had heard the narrator mention the Hong Kong Democracy Council in the video. Lai responded that he had not, believing that the reference was added in post-production by staff.

10:32 Lai Says He Began Considering Ways to Curb Violence in August 2019

Regarding Lai’s relationship with U.S. Senators Rick Scott and Ted Cruz, the defense asked whether their visits to Hong Kong in September and November 2019, respectively, were at Lai’s invitation. Lai denied this. When asked who invited them, Lai responded that he did not know.

The defense then referred to Lai’s statement about contacting Chan Tsz-wah because of his role in curbing valiant violence, as well as Lai’s previous testimony in which he said, “At least I was speaking to a peaceful person, not a violent person.”

The defense asked when Lai first decided to engage with “peaceful people.” Lai responded that this was not a decision but a matter of logical thinking, explaining that when Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee introduced Chan to him, he described Chan as a conservative, implying that Chan could help curb violence.

The defense then presented a conversation between Lai and Mark Simon on August 6, 2019:

Mark Simon: “Jimmy, I’ve been watching the events very closely, and the kids are very tactical. The ‘be water’ strategy they are following is real.”

“The only concern I have is the damn rock-throwing. They have to get the message that if they throw a rock and kill somebody, it will severely damage the movement on a short-term basis.”

“In the long term, the movement is still growing. Even yesterday, I saw people at a restaurant talking back to the screen with profanities during Carrie Lam’s press conference.”

Lai: “I’m concerned with brick throwing and petrol bomb. But I’ve no way of conveying this message to those young kids except in my column which will mention about it this week.”

Mark Simon: “That does help.”

Lai: “I hope so.”

The defense asked whether, in early August, Lai had already decided to engage only with “peaceful people.” Lai reiterated that this was not a decision but a matter of logical thinking, as he believed that violence needed to be curbed.

The defense then asked whether Lai had formed the “logical thought” of needing to curb violence in early August. Lai responded that this kind of logical thinking naturally arose whenever violent incidents occurred.

10:22 Interview Mentioned U.S. Having “Nuclear Weapons”; Lai: It Meant “Moral Authority,” Not Actual Weapons

During cross-examination, the defense addressed Lai’s July 2019 interview with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he stated:

“We need the support. We need the confidence. We need the hope. We need to know that America is behind us. By backing us, the America also sowing to the will of their moral authority because we are the only place in China, a tiny island in China, which is sharing your values, which is fighting the same war you have with China⋯This is something that America has to know, not only supporting us, but use your moral authority in this cold war to win this war in the beginning because they have nothing. It’s like they are going to the battle without any weapon, and you have the nuclear weapon. You can finish them in a minute”

The defense asked whether Lai was referring to actual nuclear weapons in this statement. Lai replied that he was not.

The prosecution interrupted, arguing that they had not questioned Lai about this point. The defense countered that it was a question raised by the judge.

The defense then asked Lai what he meant by “nuclear weapon” in his statement. Lai explained that he was referring to “moral authority,” something that the CCP lacks.

The defense further referenced Lai’s statement from the same interview, in which he said:

“That’s I think what that America has really forgotten how important a weapon they have in their hand which is moral authority.”

The defense asked what the difference was between “weapon” and “nuclear weapon” in his statements. Lai responded that both were exaggerated descriptions.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned, “How can moral authority defeat the CCP in one minute?” Lai replied that it was merely a rhetorical device.

Judge Remedios pressed further, pointing out that Lai was speaking, not writing. Lai insisted that it was a method of expression.

The defense asked what Lai meant by “finish them” in his statement. Lai clarified that it meant “defeat” the CCP.

When asked how the CCP could be defeated, Lai reiterated that it was through moral authority, which the CCP does not possess.

The defense then inquired about the outcome of using moral authority. Lai responded that it was difficult to describe, but he believed that moral authority could bring down the CCP in a short time.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted that it was difficult to follow Lai’s reasoning, pointing out another part of his interview:

“That’s I think what that America has really forgotten how important a weapon they have in their hand which is moral authority. A lot of people are saying that okay, we have a trade deal now with China.”

Judge Lee asked whether Lai was referring to trade agreements. Lai explained that his point was:

“Many people believe that because there is a trade deal with China, ‘we shouldn’t offend them.’”

The defense further referenced Lai’s interview with Fox Business in the same month, where he stated:

“America has a very powerful weapon, which is its moral authority.”

Lai confirmed that in this statement, “weapon” also referred to “moral authority.”

10:09 Lai States That “Paul” in the Messages Refers to Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor, Not Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense

During cross-examination by the prosecution, Lai previously stated that Mary Kissel, former adviser to then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, did not know former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

In response, the defense presented a June 20, 2019 conversation between Lai and his aide Mark Simon, in which Lai stated:

“By the way, we are securing the DC schedule and Jack will make request after G20. Mary spoke with Paul and she is working on Pompeo meeting.”

Lai confirmed that the “Mary” in the message referred to Mary Kissel.

The defense asked whether Lai had ever met Mary Kissel in the presence of Paul Wolfowitz. Lai stated that he had not.

The defense then presented a June 11, 2019 message from Mark Simon to Lai, which read:

“Jimmy, Paul Gigot and Bill McGurn are sending out one of the editorial staff writers, Jillian Melchior.”

Lai explained that Paul Gigot was the Editorial Page Editor of The Wall Street Journal and was also Mary Kissel’s former boss and Bill McGurn’s then-superior.

When asked about the meaning of the message, Lai stated that he had been interviewed in Hong Kong by Jillian Melchior but was unsure whether the message specifically referred to that interview.

The defense then returned to the June 20 conversation, asking Lai who the “Paul” mentioned in the message referred to. Lai stated that it was likely Paul Gigot.

When asked why Paul Gigot would be involved in arranging a meeting with Pompeo, Lai responded that he did not know. When asked whether he had inquired with Mark Simon or Mary Kissel, Lai stated that he had not asked them.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned whether Lai was assuming that “Paul” referred to Paul Gigot. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further inquired about the relationship between Paul Gigot and Paul Wolfowitz.

Lai reiterated that the “Paul” in the message referred to Paul Gigot, explaining that Mary Kissel did not know Paul Wolfowitz.

Judge Toh challenged Lai, asking, “Do you know everyone Mary knows?” Lai responded that he could only speak based on his knowledge and added that Paul Wolfowitz did not know Pompeo.

The defense asked how Lai knew this. Lai explained that Paul Wolfowitz had never mentioned Pompeo.

Judge Toh asked whether Lai was assuming that Paul Wolfowitz did not know Pompeo. Lai responded that Paul Wolfowitz was quite open about the people he knew.

10:06 No Court Session Tomorrow Morning as Defense Lawyer Has Another Case

Before the defense began re-examining Lai, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping noted that she had forgotten to ask barrister Jon K.H. Wong, who represents the three Apple Daily-related companies, whether he had any questions. Wong confirmed that he did not.

Judge Toh further stated that senior defense counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hong needed to handle a Court of Final Appeal case tomorrow morning, so there would be no court session in this case tomorrow morning.

According to court records, judgments for the Hong Kong Alliance refusal to submit information case and the final appeal in the Tam Tak-chi sedition case are both scheduled to be delivered tomorrow morning.

Defense counsel Steven Kwan Man-wai suggested that since there would be no hearing in the morning, Lai could use the time to review WhatsApp records, which would help save time and allow him to be ready for re-examination in the afternoon.

Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang responded that the prosecution had received some documents yesterday and discovered that some of the WhatsApp messages came from “unused material” (documents not presented as evidence).

10:05 Court in Session

Before the court session began, security personnel relayed the judge’s order to the public, stating that regardless of whether the judges were present in the courtroom, no one was allowed to engage with either party in the case, including expressing emotions or offering words of support. If court staff observed any such behavior, they would record the individuals’ details and bar them from entering the courtroom in the future.

The Witness