Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, is facing charges of conspiring to collude with foreign forces and other offenses.

The trial entered its 144th day Thursday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, which has been designated as the High Court for the case. Lai testified for the 52nd day.

The prosecution concluded its 24-day cross-examination Monday, and the defense continued its second day of re-examination, focusing on Lai’s communications with his secretary regarding the “Lunchbox Meetings.”

During the defense’s re-examination Wednesday, they referenced Lai’s column, where he wrote, “A well-meaning person told me to leave quickly — colluding with foreign forces is treason and could result in the death penalty.” The prosecution questioned the accuracy of the statement. Lai clarified that political commentator Stephen Shiu Yeuk-yuen made the remark during a program. He said he believed the individual may have been concerned for him and was “trying to scare him away.”

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

16:24 Court Adjourns

16:14 Defense Reads Out Dates of Lawful Assemblies in 2019

Defense barrister Colman Li continued reading out details regarding the legality of various assemblies and protests held between 2019 and 2020. These included marches and gatherings on April 28, June 9, June 12, June 16, August 18, 2019, and January 1, 2020, all of which had received a letter of no objection from the police.

Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hong stated that amendments would be made to the agreed facts but required time to confirm them with Jimmy Lai. Judge Esther Toh adjourned the case until Friday.

16:00 Defense Seeks to Present Other Media Reports, Judges Reject as Irrelevant

Defense barrister Steve Kwan raised a report containing three pieces of material downloaded from the internet by an expert, including a news article from Ming Pao related to whether the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) and the Liaison Office were subject to Article 22 of the Basic Law. The defense referred to Jimmy Lai’s April 26, 2020, op-ed, 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 cross-examination, the prosecution had challenged Lai’s statement as baseless. In response, during re-examination, Lai stated that he had read media reports on the matter, including Apple Daily and other news sources.

The defense sought to admit the relevant Ming Pao report to demonstrate that such discussions were present in public discourse at the time. However, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned the relevance of the article to the case. The defense argued that the prosecution had also presented substantial material sourced online, not all of which came directly from witnesses, and their approach was similar.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that the prosecution had introduced material through agreed facts, whereas the defense seemed to be attempting to “slip in” evidence.

The defense emphasized that the reports were downloaded by an expert and were relevant to the case. However, Lee questioned how the Ming Pao article would assist the defense’s case, given that Lai had testified he read media reports but could not specify which ones.

The defense maintained that they were not trying to “fill gaps” in Lai’s testimony but to provide additional context. Toh, however, suggested that the defense’s approach was a “backdoor” attempt to supplement Lai’s testimony. The defense insisted that reports from Ming Pao and an official statement from the Liaison Office demonstrated that at the time, public reports existed stating that the HKMAO and the Liaison Office were not bound by Article 22 of the Basic Law. They argued that even if Lai had not personally read the Ming Pao article, similar reports were publicly available at the time.

According to records, the Ming Pao article in question was published on April 18, 2020, as a front-page report titled, Liaison Office Says ‘Two Offices’ Not Bound by Article 22, Slams Opposition’s Stance on Anti-Epidemic Fund Vote; Pan-Democrats Condemn It as Self-Interpreting the Law and Interfering in Voting. The Liaison Office’s statement was titled, Spokesperson for the Hong Kong Liaison Office: The Claim That ‘The Central Government is Interfering in Hong Kong’s Internal Affairs’ is a Deliberate Misinterpretation of the Basic Law.

Lee remarked that the defense appeared to be trying to prove that Lai’s statement was not objectively incorrect, but whether it was factually incorrect might not be relevant to the charges. The defense reiterated that they were not attempting to “fill gaps” in Lai’s testimony.

Toh maintained that the defense was indeed trying to “fill gaps,” pointing out that many publications at the time covered the issue, questioning how this material was directly linked to Lai’s case. The defense then referenced a third piece of material, a statement from the Secretary for Justice regarding the Basic Law.

Lee further questioned how the Ming Pao report or the Secretary for Justice’s statement could assist the defense if Lai had not read or noted them at the time. Toh also questioned their relevance to the case. The defense concluded their submissions, leaving it to the court to decide whether to admit the material, reiterating that it was publicly available at the time.

Toh responded that even if the material was relevant, “let’s not forget, we were all living in this society at that time,” questioning how these independent sources could be directly connected to Lai. Ultimately, the three judges ruled that the material was unrelated to the case and rejected its admission.

15:18 Defense Reads Expert Witness Testimony on WhatsApp Forwarding Function

Barrister Albert N. B. Wong read out the testimony of the defense’s expert witness, Alan Jeffries, regarding WhatsApp’s forwarding function. The judge raised concerns that the report did not include the expert witness’s qualifications or background and instructed the defense to supplement this information. The prosecution stated that it would not challenge the defense’s expert report.

Wong explained that the report’s testing involved three devices: a Nokia phone running Android 12, a Xiaomi Redmi phone running Android 14, and an iPhone 8 Plus running iOS 16.7.

The tests were conducted on WhatsApp under two scenarios: A Nokia device sent a message to a Xiaomi device, then forwarded that message to an Apple device, and an Apple device sent a message to a Xiaomi device, then forwarded that message to a Nokia device.

The report concluded that regardless of the operating system, the forwarding behavior was consistent. In both scenarios, messages forwarded from an Apple or Nokia device showed no indicators of forwarding. This meant that forwarded messages appeared as “freshly composed messages,” indistinguishable from messages sent directly from the originating device.

However, the report noted that if a Xiaomi device forwarded a message it had received from a Nokia device to an Apple device, a “forwarded” indicator would be displayed.

15:13 Lai Concludes 52 Days of Testimony

Lai spent approximately 15 minutes reading the records. When the court resumed, the defense asked whether he confirmed receiving the messages sent by his secretary, Julie. Lai confirmed, stating that these were related to company and magazine operations’ “lunchbox meetings” and were not editorial-related, as these departments were not part of the editorial team. He also confirmed that he had responded to Julie’s messages at the time.

After questioning, the defense told the court that unless the judges had further inquiries, “that is the epic evidence for Mr. Lai.” Lai concluded his 52-day testimony, removed his headset at the witness stand, and gave a slight wave to both the prosecution and defense, as well as the judges, saying “Thank you” before being escorted back to the defendant’s dock by three correctional officers.

The defense then proceeded to read out the testimony of the WhatsApp expert witness.

14:52 Short Break for Lai to Review Records

14:45 Defense Questions Lai on Communication Records with Secretary Regarding “Lunchbox Meetings”

The defense presented WhatsApp messages between Lai and his secretary, Julie, regarding preparations for “lunchbox meetings.” On November 8, 2018, Julie messaged Lai, saying, “As per Kim-hung, the ‘Thursday Lunch on 22nd November’ is with ‘Next Magazine,’ and the attendees list is as follows,” followed by a list of participants. Lai confirmed this was related to the meeting’s preparation.

Another message from November 16 showed Julie informing Lai, “As per Kim-hung, the ‘Thursday Lunch’ on ’26th November’ is with the editorial team of ‘Eat and Travel Weekly.’ The attendee list is as follows:” 

1.Boss Lai

2.Kim Hung

3.Dom

4.Simon Lee

5.Betty Ma – Publisher & Editor in Chief

6.Rita Poon – Deputy Editor in Chief…

Lai explained in court that Eat and Travel Weekly was a magazine under Next Digital but not part of Apple Daily.

The defense further presented another example mentioning a “lunchbox meeting” with “Apple Daily US,” which included a list of attendees and meeting details. Lai confirmed it was related to Apple Daily’s U.S. edition’s Chinese news section.

The defense noted there were over a hundred pages of messages between Lai and Julie and would arrange for Lai to review them to confirm whether he received relevant messages at the time.

14:38 Court in Session

The Witness