Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and three related companies of Apple Daily are charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” among other allegations. The case proceeded to its 67th day of trial on Friday (26th) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court). Chan Tsz-wah, the fifth accomplice witness, testified for the ninth day. The prosecution has completed its main examination, and the defense continued its questioning on the second day.

During cross-examination, Chan confirmed that during his first meeting with Jimmy Lai, he assured Lai that he was a non-violent protester and agreed with Lai’s statement at the time that violent protesters’ actions could damage the international community’s support for Hong Kong. Therefore, he hoped they would remain calm and protest peacefully to gain international support.

The case is presided over by designated National Security Law High Court judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. Representing the prosecution are Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Representing Jimmy Lai are Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, Barrister Steven Kwan, and Marc Corlett, a New Zealand barrister with the right to practice in Hong Kong.

16:18 Court adjourned

16:05 Defense questions Chan about his role in international efforts

The defense further questioned the situation after the implementation of the National Security Law. The defense noted that Chan had not participated in any IPAC actions before or after the implementation of the National Security Law. Chan confirmed he had not. The defense then asked if, after the implementation of the National Security Law, Chan had written any press releases, Facebook posts, or Twitter posts for SWHK. Chan stated he had not.

Regarding Chan’s previous claim that SWHK had initiatives in the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the Nordic countries, the defense asked if he had participated in activities in these respective areas. For the United States initiative, Chan confirmed that at the time, some members had hired a consulting firm, but Chan clarified in court that he had not been involved in hiring the consulting firm, although he did participate in discussions when members met in the TG group. As for the Japan, United Kingdom, and Nordic initiatives, Chan confirmed he had not been involved.

15:50 Chan confirms lying about his knowledge of SWHK’s background during recorded meeting

The defense asked if Andy Li’s name displayed on Telegram was “Freedom HK”? Chan said he did not remember and was unsure if “Freedom HK” was different from SWHK, nor did he recall ever hearing “Freedom HK.” The defense pointed out that Chan did not know who the leaders of SWHK were and that he had no relationship with SWHK leaders; Chan disagreed.

The defense then showed a transcript from the recorded meeting, “So I believe it’s the same in every organization, and within this organization, there are several leaders… My understanding is that it’s not just Andy Li.” Chan explained in court, “At that time, I wanted the police to think that it was not related to Andy Li.” Upon hearing this, Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan was trying to exonerate Andy Li? Chan agreed. The defense suggested that Chan was lying to the police to help Andy Li escape liability? Chan agreed.

Regarding Chan’s comment during the recorded meeting, “Because I have always had doubts about some of the purposes, even the background of SWHK, so I might have disparaging, negative comments about them, possibly shared privately with friends or family,” the defense asked if Chan’s statement that he “always had doubts about the background of SWHK” was true or false? Chan said it was true. The defense further asked if Chan’s negative comments about SWHK were an attempt to exonerate himself? Chan said, “At that time, I wanted to distance myself from SWHK,” agreeing that he lied to the police.

Chan mentioned during the recorded meeting that an officer asked, “Did you participate in it?” Chan responded, “You mean lobbying work? …No.” The defense asked if Chan’s statement that he had not participated in lobbying was true or false? Chan stated in court that this statement was false, adding that he had not organized any newspaper exhibitions.

15:30 Defense questions crowdfunding campaign for advertisements; Chan states parts of the recorded meeting were lies

The defense asked about the G20 advertisement initiative, confirming that most group members were anonymous. The defense suggested that Chan was not closely connected to the group, which Chan disagreed with. The defense showed a transcript from a recorded meeting on October 11, 2020, where Chan said, “It should be said that this group, I wasn’t very closely connected.”

The defense asked if Chan had never joined the core group for the G20? Chan agreed. The defense then noted that Chan’s role in the advertisement matter was only to arrange a loan from Mark Simon and added “and to get credit from Apple Daily,” and he did not participate in the design or content. The defense mentioned that Chan eventually left the G20 group. Chan said that was not the case.

The defense displayed the aforementioned transcript, where an officer asked Chan, “Did you ever leave this group?” and Chan responded, “I left this group.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang clarified whether Chan left the G20 group or the G20 Telegram group? Chan replied, “I left the Telegram group.” The defense asked how one becomes a member of the G20 group. Chan explained that no specific application form was necessary, just that someone had participated in part of the G20; even if they eventually left the TG group, they still maintained contact with G20 members, “then other people would still consider them as G20 members.”

Chan also confirmed that he did not participate in the second crowdfunding campaign for advertisements, and was only responsible for loans in the third campaign. The defense asked if Chan considered SWHK to be a loosely organized group. Chan stated that description was fair. The defense further asked if Chan was a member of SWHK. Chan said, “Not when it was initially formed,” but he became a member between June and July 2020.

The defense displayed the same recorded meeting transcript, where an officer asked Chan, “Are you a member of this organization yourself?” Chan replied, “Absolutely not.” Chan stated in court that his answer “Absolutely not a member of this organization” was false.

The defense further suggested that Chan did not know if Andy Li was a member of SWHK; Chan disagreed. The defense showed the same recorded meeting transcript, where an officer asked, “Is Andy Li (a member of SWHK)?” Chan said, “It’s hard for me to define because, as far as I know, Stand with Hong Kong seems to be a very loosely organized group. Different people within this group use this term for different activities. Whether Andy Li himself is a leader or a member of this organization, I believe there is contact, because at least he would be involved.”

The defense followed up by asking if Chan did not know whether Li was a member of SWHK at that time? Chan disagreed. The defense then asked if what Chan had said was true or false? Chan stated it was false.

15:09 Defense suggests Chan and Li only shared common goals and knew each other; Chan: “I consider him a friend.”

The defense questioned Chan about his relationship with Andy Li, noting that they met in June 2019 through a crowdfunding initiative on Telegram and later met twice in Admiralty. The defense asked if the two had met on other occasions before the National Security Law took effect. Chan confirmed that they had, saying, “We had dinner in Mong Kok between August and September 2019, but I think it wasn’t dinner,” and they hadn’t met since the law was enacted, confirming that they primarily communicated via Telegram.

The defense suggested that Chan did not really know Li’s background, including his profession or educational level, to which Chan replied, “That’s not true.” Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if ‘background’ included family, while Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if it included age or date of birth. The defense then asked if Chan knew Li’s address, and Chan said, “I know, I know where he lives.”

The defense displayed a transcript from Chan’s first arrest on October 11, 2020, in which Chan said, “My relationship with him (Andy Li) is unequal. The inequality lies in that he knows a lot about me; he knows where I live, but I never knew where he lived. He knows what my profession is, but I never knew what his profession was… Our relationship should be described like this: he knows I trust him.”

Chan confirmed that he had mentioned the above to the police, “At that time, I wasn’t (telling the truth).” Hearing this, the defense asked whether Chan’s statement to the police that “My relationship with him (Andy Li) is unequal, and the inequality lies in that he knows a lot about me, he knows where I live, but I never knew where he lived” was true or false? Chan said it was false.

Chan agreed that he was not aware of all the democratic activities and circles that Li participated in and agreed that both he and Li could be considered part of the younger generation of democracy activists. The defense suggested that rather than describing them as friends, it would be more accurate to say they were individuals who shared common goals and knew each other? Chan responded, “I don’t know what he thinks, but I consider him a friend.”

14:45 Defense suggests that the English version of Apple Daily could increase subscriber numbers; Chan: “I don’t remember”

The defense continued to question Chan about his sixth meeting with Jimmy Lai on June 16, 2020, at the Next Digital building, confirming that Chan entered through the back door and discussed the National Security Law. The defense asked if Chan entered through the back door of Next Digital building because he was worried about being spotted by reporters. Chan responded, “I don’t remember expressing that concern.”

The defense displayed a message from the same day where Chan told Lai, “could you ask the driver to call me in advance? For security purposes, it’s probably best for me to jump on the car elsewhere,” and inquired whether Chan was concerned about safety. Chan disagreed.

The defense asked if the English version of Apple Daily had been launched when they met. Chan believed it had been. The defense suggested that Lai had told Chan that the English version could increase the number of subscribers. Chan said, “I don’t remember him saying that.” The defense also mentioned that Lai had talked about providing more content for subscribers. Chan disagreed.

The defense displayed a transcript from a video meeting on April 29, 2021, where Chan said, “So I asked him why he wanted to make this English version of Apple. Then he said actually, besides hoping more people would subscribe to Apple Daily, and providing more information, his consideration was also about making Apple not just a local Hong Kong newspaper anymore, but an international newspaper. This would accurately reflect some of Hong Kong’s issues to the international community.”

The defense noted that Chan had mentioned that Lai’s purpose in launching the English version of Apple Daily was to provide more information, which Chan agreed to. On the other hand, the defense pointed out that Lai had told Chan that he didn’t think the National Security Law was too harsh, partly because protests had decreased during the pandemic; Chan said he was not sure.

The defense showed the same video meeting transcript, where Chan said, “So he (Lai) was very optimistic, like very calm about it, and he even said he didn’t think the National Security Law would be a big problem, it would be more bark than bite, especially since he thought the Hong Kong government was just trying to create a chilling effect. At that time, due to the pandemic, there were already far fewer protests on the streets.”

The defense asked if Chan thought Lai had prior knowledge of how the National Security Law would unfold? Chan said, “That was the impression he gave me at the time.” The defense further asked if Lai had ever mentioned to Chan that under the National Security Law, calling for sanctions against the government would become illegal. Chan said no. The defense further mentioned that Chan and Lai did not discuss SWHK, IPAC (Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China), or that Apple Daily was continuously losing money and needed commercial support during their meeting; Chan completely disagreed.

14:33 Chan confirms ‘Martin’ mentioned in the message refers to Martin Lee

The defense continued to display the conversation between Chan and Lai from May 21, 2020, in which Lai told Chan, “Let’s not worry about personal security. Once came out to join the fight for freedom one is prepared to fight to the last. We may not win but must persist.” 

The defense asked if Chan viewed this message as Lai encouraging him to be spirited? Chan agreed, “It’s one of the thoughts.” Regarding Chan’s reply to Lai, “Martin taught me that ‘cometh the hour, cometh the man.'” the defense asked if ‘Martin’ referred to Martin Lee? Chan confirmed.

The defense asked if Chan’s statement, “Martin taught me that ‘cometh the hour, cometh the man… If all of you fall. I will be the last man standing,'” was related to his own thinking? Chan said, “I have such thoughts.”

12:53 Court adjourned for lunch.

12:40 Chan: The sixth meeting stated “the situation is irreversible” because he did not want Lai to get into trouble

The defense began asking about the sixth meeting between Chan and Lai on June 16, 2020, which took place at the Next Digital building. The defense noted that the National Security Law had not yet been implemented at that time, but was expected to come into effect soon? Chan confirmed. The defense asked if Chan was unaware of the details of the National Security Law at that time? Chan disagreed. The defense further inquired if Chan had received the text of the National Security Law beforehand? Chan said, “I didn’t.”

The defense then displayed a message from May 21 of the same year between Chan and Lai, where Lai sent Chan a news link about the National Security Law from HK01, and Chan subsequently responded, “As things stand, the situation is already irreversible. My only concern is for your and Martin’s personal safety, as well as that of your families. Please prioritize your safety and the continuity of your careers. The National Security Law primarily targets individuals involved in valorous acts abroad, advocates of Hong Kong independence, and those inciting the masses. You must be cautious.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked that at the time, Chan seemed to already be aware of the behaviors targeted by the National Security Law? Chan explained that there was a lot of discussion in the community at that time, and the content of the message was his understanding, although he had not read any news reports related to the National Security Law at that time. Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that Lai had sent Chan a news link from HK01. Chan explained that he did not respond to Lai at the time and considered HK01 to be “rather pro-establishment” at that time, generally preferring to read messages shared within Telegram.

The defense noted that in the message, Chan did not focus on actions requesting foreign sanctions? Chan said, “Not in this message.” The defense further asked if Chan did not think that requesting foreign sanctions would violate the National Security Law at that time? Chan disagreed. The defense further questioned, but at that time, Chan did not discuss this with Lai? Chan explained, “I didn’t bring it up because I knew it was illegal. Why would I talk about doing illegal things on WhatsApp? I’m actually being very mild here.”

Judge Alex Lee asked why Chan warned Lai to be cautious in the message? Chan explained, “Because at that time, a lot of people were talking about the National Security Law, which was aimed at Jimmy Lai.” Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further asked what Chan meant in the message by “the situation is now irreversible”? Chan described that in the anti-extradition movement, “achieving the five demands and getting the Hong Kong government to respond to these demands was basically impossible at that time, and I didn’t want Jimmy Lai to get into trouble.”

12:14 Chan confirms Lai hoped Finn Lau would become a leader among the youth

Chan explained that, to his understanding, the trip to Taipei was the first time Lai and Lau met. The defense asked if Lai had inquired during the meeting whether Finn Lau was familiar with the human rights organization “Hong Kong Watch” and Benedict Rogers. Chan stated, “I don’t remember if he asked that.” The defense continued, noting that Lai expressed concern for the youth of Hong Kong during the meeting; Chan said he had no such recollection but agreed that Lai had expressed worry about their lack of leadership and direction.

The defense mentioned that Lai discussed an incident at the Chinese University where over 40% of the valiant faction were arrested, which Chan denied. The defense stated that Lai mentioned it was time for the valiant faction to have a leader, to which Chan responded, “He didn’t say that,” but agreed that Lai believed the youth needed an appropriate leader. The defense claimed that Lai considered Finn Lau one of the leaders who could encourage rational actions among the youth; Chan disagreed. Regarding Chan’s prior statement under main questioning that Lai wanted to make Finn Lau as a political star, the defense stated Lai never said this but only expressed hope that Lau would become a leader among the young; Chan said, “He didn’t say it like that.”

The defense noted that the meeting did not discuss Andy Li’s visit to the US, crowdfunding, the work of the “Lam Chau” team in the UK, former Chief Secretary for Administration Anson Chan, or former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. Lai also never said he financially supported Finn Lau with £10,000, and the term “supporting explosion” was first brought up by Lau, which Lai was not familiar with. Lai did not say that the Chinese government uses extensive resources to monitor its people, nor did he discuss “supporting bubble burst,” including international lobbying through embargoes and sanctions to achieve “bubble burst”; Chan completely disagreed.

Regarding Chan’s earlier testimony that Finn Lau agreed with the broad direction Lai proposed, the defense mentioned that the “broad direction” concerned leadership among the youth, not international lobbying. Chan disagreed. Chan also mentioned under main questioning that in terms of the “Lam Chau” team, discussions needed to be held with “rip,” who Chan informed Lai was Andy Li. The defense stated that Andy Li was not mentioned during the meeting; Chan disagreed.

The defense mentioned that the part of the meeting between Finn Lau and Lai lasted no more than an hour; Chan disagreed. He emphasized that the meeting lasted two to three hours, starting around 2 to 3 PM, but had no recollection of whether the meeting time was mentioned in his statement, reiterating “it wasn’t just an hour.” Chan continued, “Because that day we had to wait for Albert Ho and his wife Lee Wing-tat to arrive, we waited a while (before dinner).”

12:04 Defense inquires about the fifth meeting between Lai and Chan, with Finn Lau present

The defense focused on the fifth meeting between Chan and Lai, which took place in Taipei in mid-January 2020, with “Lam Chau Advocate” Finn Lau also present. The defense suggested that one of the reasons for Lau’s trip to Taiwan was Lai’s desire to meet some young leaders? Chan confirmed this as one of the reasons. Chan verified that he did not meet with Lai on his first day in Taipei, January 10, but met him the next day, with Lai’s driver providing transportation.

The defense noted that the meeting on that day started at 4:30 PM and lasted about an hour, and Lai did not provide lunch; Chan completely disagreed. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang further inquired whether Chan or Lau arrived first on the day of the meeting, or if they arrived together. Chan stated that he, Lau, and a protester with the surname Lin took a car arranged by Lai to the venue.

The defense asked if Finn Lau was referred to as a “Lam Chau” advocate during the meeting and if Lai had asked for Lau’s English name but did not receive it? Chan completely agreed. The defense further noted that Lau spoke very little during the meeting, with most of the conversation between Chan and Lai? Chan disagreed.

11:21 Court adjourned

11:05 Defense: Lai opposes Hong Kong independence and “mutual destruction (Lam Chau)” 

“Chan: Lai opposes independence but not “mutual destruction”

Chan Tsz-wah previously testified that he had met again with Jimmy Lai in Lai’s car on December 31, 2019. The defense mentioned that at that time, Lai spoke about opposing the concepts of Hong Kong independence and “mutual destruction (Lam Chau).” Chan stated that Lai opposed independence but did not oppose “mutual destruction,” “because he asked me to find ‘mutual destruction advocates.'” The defense further inquired, but Lai did not explicitly support “mutual destruction”? Chan agreed. The defense also quoted Lai as mentioning that the concepts of independence and “mutual destruction” should not be discussed on international platforms. Chan agreed.

The defense then noted that Lai was concerned about how the actions of the youth could impact the international community. Chan agreed. The defense pointed out that at that time, the youth did not have a “main platform,” but Lai did not understand this concept. Chan confirmed.

The defense continued, stating that during that meeting, Chan and Lai mentioned they would hold a photo exhibition in Taipei, and Lai responded that he would be traveling to Taiwan and hoped to meet with Chan again. Chan did not remember, adding that he only co-organized and sponsored the exhibition, “so I didn’t need to go to Taipei.”

Regarding Chan’s earlier statement under main questioning that Lai wanted to “lead the international front,” the defense stated that Lai did not make such comments during that meeting; Lai expressed a desire to meet with leaders of the valiant faction to ask them to stop harmful actions, hoping they would calm down, hence his desire to meet with Finn Lau? Chan completely disagreed. Chan added that Lau “is not really one of the valiant factions,” he is just more radical in his ideas about “mutual destruction.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Finn Lau and his team mainly focused their activities overseas? Chan said mostly, but they also held rallies in Hong Kong, “but not violent or radical.” The defense stated, Lau is a leader of the youth? Chan agreed.

The defense also stated, during that meeting, Lai did not express a desire to combine the international front and “Lam Chau (mutual destruction)” front? Chan disagreed. The defense further stated that Lai wanted to meet with Chan because he hoped Chan would convey messages to the valiant faction? Chan said that was not the purpose of the meeting. As for Chan’s earlier claim that Lai said “organizing primaries” could consolidate the “yellow ribbon” votes, “attracting these young people’s votes” and increasing voter turnout, the defense again pointed out that Lai had not mentioned the primaries at that time. Chan disagreed.

10:50 Defense claims Lai did not mention “overthrowing the government” in the third meeting with Chan; Chan disagrees

The defense inquired about the third meeting between Chan and Lai on November 27, 2019, which took place in a car parked on Kennedy Road, Admiralty. The defense stated that their conversation lasted about 10 minutes; Chan disagreed, stating it lasted about half an hour. The defense asked if Lai still wanted to contact the leaders of the valiant faction at that time. Chan replied, “He probably didn’t want to anymore because he said he had already found them,” and he had told Lai that he “couldn’t contact (the valiant faction).” The defense further asked if the purpose of their meeting was for Lai to contact the leaders of the valiant faction; Chan disagreed.

Chan also confirmed that during the meeting, Lai expressed that the “pan-democratic landslide victory” was very encouraging and there was a need to continue the momentum of the anti-extradition bill movement. Chan also indicated that the election results were good news. The defense claimed that Lai did not talk about combining street, parliamentary, and international forces to “overthrow the government”; Chan disagreed. The defense asked if Lai had inquired about Zhang Kunyang during the meeting? Chan replied, “He didn’t ask me; he brought it up himself because I don’t know him (Zhang Kunyang).”

The defense stated that Lai did not mention sponsoring or crowdfunding during the meeting; Chan responded, “I disagree, he did mention it.” The defense asked if Chan and Lai reached a verbal agreement during the meeting to engage in illegal activities. Chan was uncertain, “Because when he talked about ‘overthrowing’ the government, he was very clear that it required the combination of the legislature, the streets, and the international front, and it’s hard for me to believe that at that time, everything on the international front or the streets was legal.”

10:30 Chan confirms Lai mentioned the Ma On Shan burning incident, criticizes the valiant faction for lack of restraint

The defense inquired about Chan’s second meeting with Jimmy Lai on November 13, 2019, noting that this was the only time they met at Lai’s residence. Chan recalled that the meeting took place between October and November, with the then Democratic Party Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting, former Democratic Party Vice Chairman Lee Wing-tat, and former Confederation of Trade Unions Secretary-General Lee Cheuk-yan also present.

The defense stated that during the meeting, they discussed the Ma On Shan arson incident. Lai expressed shock at the event, criticizing the valiant faction for lacking organization and restraint, and worried about “causing fatalities,” which would cause the anti-extradition bill movement to lose its moral high ground and international support, reiterating that the actions of the valiant faction would be counterproductive. Chan agreed, noting that Lai also mentioned that the valiant faction was “increasingly abusing violence” and believed there should be a reduction in violence, focusing primarily on peaceful and rational methods.

The defense asked if Chan agreed with Lai’s views at that time. Chan said he agreed at the time but did not express agreement to Lai during that night’s meeting. The defense noted that Chan had previously said Lai’s analysis and opinions were spot on (hit the nail on the head), to which Chan responded, “I remember saying that.” The defense also asked if Lai had ever suggested going out to violently protest himself. Chan said no.

The defense stated that Lai then asked him to contact the leaders of the valiant faction to promote peaceful protests, which Chan agreed to. The defense continued, stating that Lai did not specifically mention the “five demands” nor expressed a desire to become a leader of the valiant faction; Chan disagreed. However, he agreed that during that meeting, no verbal agreement was made with Lai to engage in illegal activities.

10:18 Defense: Lai said all protests should be rational

Chan: Lai cared about media portrayal, needed peaceful images

The defense asked if Lai had ever stated that all protests should be rational and non-violent. Chan replied, “He never said that all protests should be rational and non-violent.” The defense pointed out that Lai had told Chan that he preferred protests to be more peaceful than violent. Chan stated, “He didn’t say it like that; he said that the U.S. doesn’t want to see such images, so the understanding should be that if there is media coverage, the footage shown should be peaceful and rational. As for situations with little or no coverage, or those not widely broadcasted, he didn’t take a stance.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang further inquired if Chan was suggesting that Lai preferred “selective reporting”? Chan clarified it wasn’t about selective reporting, “What could actually be seen in the media were the larger-scale marches. However, in some places in Hong Kong, there were smaller, more minor protests. What he cared about was that these larger protests should definitely present peaceful images, there shouldn’t be too much violence.”

The defense noted that Lai thought the valiant faction would negatively impact the democratic movements, and Chan agreed this was the case at the time. The defense mentioned that Lai had asked Chan to convey messages to the leaders of the valiant faction because Chan had contacts with them? Chan agreed. The defense asked if Chan was a leader of the valiant faction? Chan said he was not. The defense then asked if he would describe himself as a member of the valiant team? Chan responded, “I wouldn’t describe myself that way,” “We were just in the same (Telegram) group.”

Moreover, regarding Chan’s earlier statement under questioning that Lai asked him to put away his phone for security reasons, the defense stated it was Martin Lee who made the request at the scene; Chan disagreed. Regarding Chan’s statement that he intended to introduce himself but was interrupted by Lai saying, “No need for introductions, Mark Simon has already told me about you and I’ve done a quick check on you,” the defense noted that Lai was aware of who Chan was but did not mention a background check; Chan disagreed.

The defense further stated that Lai had never said he was in daily contact with Mark Simon, nor that Simon reported to him, or that “if young people can’t do something, he could achieve it using the power of his media”; Chan completely disagreed. The defense asked, during the first meeting with Lai, Chan did not reach a verbal agreement with Lai to engage in illegal activities but only agreed to pass messages to the leaders of the valiant faction; Chan agreed.

10:04 Chan agrees that he assured Lai he was not a violent protester

The defense asked if Chan agrees that there is a difference between “peaceful and rational” non-violent protests and violent protests. Chan agreed. The defense further inquired if non-violent protests also have a “back line,” such as placing newspaper advertisements. Chan stated that “it depends on the content of the advertisement.” The defense mentioned that violent protests include destroying property and arson, to which Chan agreed.

Regarding Chan’s first meeting with Jimmy Lai, the defense pointed out that during the meeting, Chan assured Lai that he was not a violent protester, which Chan agreed to. The defense noted that Lai’s response at the time was “good,” though Chan stated in court that he did not remember this. The defense displayed a transcript from a recorded meeting on April 28, 2021, after Chan decided to become a witness in this case, where Chan said, “He (Lai) wanted me to clearly express whether I was actually peaceful and rational or brave and militant. Then Martin Lee very clearly let him know that I was indeed a peaceful and rational person, and he said, ‘Well, that’s good.'”

The defense indicated that Lai had said at the time that the behavior of violent protesters would harm international support for Hong Kong, hence he hoped they would calm down and protest peacefully to gain international support; Chan agreed. The defense continued, saying that Lai did not mention the “Purification Plan” that Chan claimed during the main questioning, but instead wanted to use his media platform to calm down violent protesters. Chan responded, “He didn’t say that, I disagree.”

The defense showed the same recorded meeting transcript, where Chan said, “At that time, he also proposed something called a Purification Plan, he wanted to use the power of his media to implement a Purification Plan, to cool down the violence of such violent protesters, or even to get it under control.” Chan in court stated, “This is what he referred to as purification.” The defense noted that Lai had also said that violent protesters destroying property and attacking police would backfire? Chan agreed.

10:03 Court session begins.

The Witness