Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, faced charges of “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” as his trial entered its 146th day Tuesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, designated as the High Court for this case. The session focused on procedural matters ahead of closing arguments. Lai was not present in court.

Closing arguments, initially set for July 28, were postponed to Aug. 14 due to a scheduling conflict with another case. The hearings are expected to last about eight days.

Prosecutors confirmed they would rely on the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling in Tam Tak-chi’s sedition case, which found the prosecution does not need to prove intent to incite violence. The defense said it would not contest the prosecution’s expert report on sanctions.

Apple Daily Representative Seeks to Reopen Defense Case, Judges Question Relevance

At the start of the hearing, barrister Jon K.H. Wong, representing Apple Daily and its three associated companies, stated his intention to reopen the defense case for the fourth defendant, Apple Daily Internet Limited, seeking to submit documents proving the company has no prior convictions.

The panel of three judges questioned the relevance of the request. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping criticized Wong for raising the matter at this stage, noting that he had an entire year to prepare and emphasized that reopening the defense case should be handled in open court.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang further questioned whether it was necessary for a corporate defendant to prove good character in similar cases.

After a brief recess, Wong stated that he intended to make the application to reopen the defense case during closing arguments, citing precedents that recognize the importance of demonstrating a corporate defendant’s good character.

Prosecution Confirms Charges Rely on Element of Incitement 

Regarding the closing arguments from both the prosecution and defense, Judge Esther Toh suggested that the prosecution incorporate elements of the conspiracy charge as handled in other common law jurisdictions, such as the UK and New Zealand.

As for the incitement charge, Toh inquired whether, in light of the recent Court of Final Appeal ruling, the prosecution would rely on the element of incitement to violence. The prosecution stated that, based on the ruling, it does not need to prove intent to incite violence and confirmed that it would continue to rely on this aspect of the charge.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang further requested that the prosecution provide additional interpretations from relevant authorities regarding the term “disaffection” as used in the charge elements.

Defense Does Not Contest Prosecution’s Expert Report on Sanctions

Regarding Lai’s testimony, Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted that Lai had testified for 52 days, producing between 2,000 to 3,000 pages of statements. He inquired which party would be responsible for summarizing the testimony. Senior defense counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung agreed to take on the task and, in accordance with the judge’s request, also agreed to outline the uncontested portions of each prosecution witness’s testimony. Additionally, the defense confirmed that it would not dispute the prosecution’s expert report on sanctions.

According to case records, prosecution expert witness Professor Wang Guiguo from City University’s School of Law stated in his written testimony that the U.S. Department of the Treasury had imposed sanctions on then-Chief Executive Carrie Lam and then-Commissioner of Police Chris Tang. Regarding the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, Wang opined that its targets included individuals involved in “special extraditions,” arbitrary detentions, or serious human rights violations in Hong Kong. He noted that terms such as “responsible,” “arbitrary,” and “serious” in the legislation were highly subjective and had to be interpreted alongside other U.S. laws, making misunderstandings and potential abuse unavoidable.

Judge Instructs Prosecution to Identify Each Company’s “Directing Mind”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang requested the prosecution to prepare a summary of each prosecution witness’s testimony and, regarding the corporate defendants’ criminal liability, to specify who acted as the “directing mind” of each company and their agents to establish the “actus reus” of the alleged offenses. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping also noted that if the prosecution intended to rely on any articles or “Live Chat” program content to support their case, they should extract the relevant portions.

Additionally, Judge Toh mentioned that the oral closing arguments, originally scheduled for July 28, would be rescheduled to August 14 due to a scheduling conflict with another case.

The Trial Began in 2023; Lai Testified for 52 Days

The trial began on December 18, 2023. The prosecution concluded its case on the 90th day of trial, June 11, 2024, exceeding the original 80-day estimate. On July 25, the three judges ruled that there was a prima facie case. The trial was then adjourned until November 20, when Jimmy Lai took the stand. He completed his 52 days of testimony on March 6, 2025.