Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, faces charges of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” among others. On Friday (22nd), the trial entered its 95th day at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court), with Lai making his third court appearance. The defense focused on Lai’s column “Laughing at Success and Failure,” in which Lai mentioned “continuous lobbying” as referring to persuading foreigners about the non-violent, patient nature of the anti-extradition law movement, stating that the content reflects true facts and his genuine thoughts, devoid of any hostility or intent to incite, denying that “lobbying” involved calling for sanctions.

Subsequently, the defense requested a recess to allow Lai to remain in court to read 12 articles alleged to be seditious, with questioning to resume in the afternoon, which was approved by the judge. The session is set to continue at 2:30 PM.

The case is presided over by designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang at the High Court. The prosecution is represented by 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; Jimmy Lai is represented by 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.

15:48 Defense Questions About Apple Daily’s English Edition

The defense began questioning about the English edition of Apple Daily, mentioning an email from Christian Whiton, a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, to Lai in April 2020, which stated, “I think it’s good to circulate Apple Daily content in English from time to time in Washington DC.” Lai noted that Whiton had proposed printing the content in paper format, but he considered it a “crazy idea” due to the high costs, and replied on the same day that the proposal was too expensive.

Subsequently, the defense showed an article written by Apple Daily’s writer Feng Yanqian, titled “The 1 Million People Who Don’t Support Apple,” which mentioned “If Apple were to open an international publicity line, translate all the juicy local news into English, and distribute it on another free website to foreign media…” Lai thought it was a good idea to have an online English news presence and confirmed that on the same day, he set up an “English News” WhatsApp group, which included senior members like Cheung Kim-hung.

15:10 Lai: Proposing ‘No Division Between Peaceful and Valiant’ Aims for “Valiant” Protesters to Join Peaceful Ones

Regarding the article “Tyranny Cannot Crush Our Spirit,” Lai quoted Chan Pui-man saying, “We have no illusions about the CCP’s tyranny, we persist because, as Chan Pui-man says, it is our spirit to do what we know is impossible. The only thing Hong Kongers should fear is fear itself.” Lai stated he was not inciting violence, and neither does Chen advocate for it.

The article mentioned the arrest of Lai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Martin Lee, and Yang Sen, stating, “These moderate but majority citizens are our strongest force in the resistance movement. If they are intimidated into not protesting, the few valiant ones become easy to handle. Most peaceful Hong Kong protesters’ will to resist has been scared away, the few valiants lose the collective support and protection of the citizens, their morale and courage to engage in violent actions are diminished, and the CCP can easily subdue these people. Although our movement is not over, it’s effectively paused.”

The defense asked if Lai glorified the valiant faction through his article. Lai said no, instead pointing out that arresting figures like Lee Cheuk-yan and Martin Lee was meant to intimidate peaceful protesters from demonstrating, making it easier to handle the few valiants. When asked why valiants need the support of peaceful protesters, Lai mentioned it was for moral reasons. Lai agreed that he sees himself as peaceful and moderate, and they hope that the valiants will join them, thus their peaceful conduct could help restrain the other’s violent actions. The defense followed up, asking if the ultimate goal was to reduce violence. Lai agreed, noting it was to influence them towards peace.

Regarding the May 2020 article “Rogues Destroying Hong Kong’s Rule of Law,” which stated, “Persist in resisting to protect our rule of law and freedom, let’s stick together till the end!” Lai interpreted ‘stick together till the end’ as a term initially coined by the valiants but then widely adopted. The defense further inquired if it implied the Legislative Council, to which Lai said he did not know and also denied the article incited violence.

14:52 Jimmy Lai Denies ‘Resistance’ Implies Violence

Jimmy Lai continued his testimony on the article “We Persist to Have Hope,” stating that the movement needs leaders and agreed that violence should be “within limits.” The defense asked if controlled violence was acceptable. Lai said that if the youth were organized, there would be no violence, or at least it could be controlled. The defense further questioned if controlled violence is still violence, to which Lai reiterated the non-use of violence, acknowledging that young people facing police violence might inevitably resort to it, but he hoped they could restrain themselves.

Regarding the article “2020, Let’s Keep Supporting Each Other,” the defense quoted, “For every teacher and principal criminalized for their words, we, the brave, must stand up and firmly resist.” The defense asked if Lai stood with the more valiant protesters under such circumstances, Lai said yes, agreeing he hoped that peaceful protesters would stand with the more valiant ones in protest, hoping they would join the peaceful demonstrators, and that the ‘resistance’ mentioned does not imply violence.

In the February 2020 article “Wuhan Plague: CCP’s Death Knell,” Lai mentioned, “Seeing the government disregard our interests and oppress us, we, like the medical staff, rise up in resistance.” The defense asked if Lai was inciting violence. Lai denied it, noting that medical staff did not use violence. Another line in the article states, “1.4 billion people collectively roar in anger at the CCP.” The defense questioned if this implied violence, which Lai also denied, describing it merely as people shouting in anger.

The defense also referred to another article by Lai, “Our Finest Hour,” quoting former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: “We shall show reverence and self-strength… Posterity will say ‘this was their finest hour.'” Lai denied the article incited violence, noting Churchill did not refer to violence. The defense argued that Churchill spoke in a wartime context involving violence. Lai was asked if he used the quote to incite violence among Hong Kongers. Lai responded that there was no war in Hong Kong, and he was only encouraging people to self-rescue and resist, not through violence. The British, too, united to resist the invaders. In the context of Hong Kong, he was advocating for peaceful protest. The judge inquired who the targets of Hong Kong’s protests were, to which Lai responded, it was against China’s infringement on Hong Kong’s freedoms.

14:36 Lai Claims Responsibility for His Articles, Admits Some Content in “Bad Taste”

The defense stated that Jimmy Lai has reviewed 12 columns involved in the case and asked if they contained any of the incitement intentions as charged. Lai denied all such intentions. Regarding the article published on January 5, 2020, titled “2020, Let’s Keep Supporting Each Other,” Lai commented on events and consequences that followed, saying, “Whatever I wrote there, I have to be responsible because this is true for my heart.”

In the article, Lai mentioned participating in a New Year’s Day march with Martin Lee and Joseph Zen, during which they encountered a young girl, approximately 14 or 15 years old, shouting “Death to the black police,” and other offensive remarks. Lai told Zen, “With such young people, we cannot lose.” Lai expressed regret in court over these remarks, agreeing that they were in bad taste and offensive.

Regarding the December 22, 2019 article “We Persist to Have Hope,” Lai clarified that the intent was not to incite violence but rather the opposite. He hoped that the overwhelming victory in the district council elections would give young people hope to restrain violence.

The defense was confused as the article was published in December, but the elections were held in November. Lai explained that the landslide victory in the district council elections brought hope to young people, “You know, if we unite together, we can be together, become a great political resistance force. And this will give them hope to reduce violence in the street.”

The article also mentioned the police seizing handguns and bullets, two bombs, and individuals in black throwing Molotov cocktails and setting fires at the Court of Final Appeal. Lai described these as dangerous and “really horrible violence.”

14:28 Fung Wai-kong Observes from Extended Court

The former English edition’s executive editor-in-chief and chief editorial writer, “Lo Fong” Fung Wai-kong continued observing from the extended court. Positioned within the defendants’ dock, he was accompanied by three correctional officers. Feng appeared in good spirits, nodding and smiling at friends and family.

10:40 Court Adjourned

The judge exited the courtroom, and the case was adjourned until 2:30 PM. During the period Lai read the articles, three correctional officers stood beside him, with a few people remaining in the public gallery.

10:28 Court Approves Recess for Lai to Review 12 Articles Involved in the Case

The defense mentioned that Lai faces three charges, one of which involves conspiracy to publish seditious publications. The alleged intent of the seditious acts includes:

(a) An intention to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the central government of the People’s Republic of China, or any state institution under its constitution, or any offices of the central authorities in Hong Kong;
(b) An intention to incite residents of Hong Kong to attempt to procure a change to any legally established matter in Hong Kong by unlawful means;
(c) An intention to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection against Hong Kong’s constitutional, executive, legislative, or judicial authorities;
(d) An intention to incite hatred or enmity between different classes of residents in Hong Kong or among residents from different regions of China;
(e) An intention to incite others to violence; or
(f) An intention to incite others to non-compliance with laws or disobedience to lawful orders.

The defense suggested that Lai remain in court to read the remaining 12 articles published between December 2019 and May 2020, and then address the accusations of incitement in one session in the afternoon. During this time, the judges may retire from the bench, but the public can stay in the courtroom provided they adhere to court rules and maintain silence.

After discussing, the three judges agreed to the defense’s proposal, adjourning the case until 2:30 PM and allowing the public to remain in the courtroom. The interpreter was instructed to remind the public to follow courtroom rules and remain quiet.

10:15 Break

10:05 Lai Denies Column Suggests ‘Lobbying’ for Sanctions

During the questioning about Jimmy Lai’s column “Success and Failure with a Smile,” the defense discussed an article from October 27, 2019, titled “What the Americans are telling us.” The defense noted that Lai had asked Chan Pui-man to interview him for the column because he didn’t have time to write it himself. The WhatsApp conversation was as follows:

Lai: Pui-man, since I don’t have time to write this time, could you interview me with about ten questions regarding the current situation in Hong Kong and this lobbying trip to Washington? I’ll answer for the column. Thanks, Lai.
Chan: I’ll check.
Chan: Mr. Lai, it’s handed to Ophe, she will send it to you, thank you.
Lai: Thank you.

Lai confirmed that the content of “What the Americans are telling us” was written after Chan’s interview. The defense read a segment from the article:

What else can Hongkongers do to seek support from the U.S. and the international community?

To gain foreign support, continuous lobbying is necessary. Coupled with media coverage, it lets them understand our morals, courage, and conscience, leading to more vocal support, which will only grow as long as we do our part to morally move their conscience.

The defense asked what Lai meant by “continuous lobbying.” Lai explained that lobbying emphasized the anti-extradition movement’s peaceful, non-violent, and patient nature. He added that the article’s content reflects the facts and his true inner thoughts, “without any sense of hostility or intention to be seditious.”

Lai added, “If anyone construes as otherwise, they have the right to be wrong, and I’m not to gainsay it. For truth prevails in God’s kingdom, and that’s good enough for me. So do we have to review and question each and every article if my position is like this?”

The defense noted they would still inquire about the contents of the articles. They asked whether Lai’s mentioned “lobbying” involved foreign sanctions or embargoes. Lai denied it, stating that neither society nor the media discussed sanctions at the time. The prosecution accuses Lai of influencing people to hate the Chinese and Hong Kong governments through his articles, which Lai also denied.

The judges asked if the article was written in a Q&A format, and whether Lai wrote the responses. Following the judges’ question, the defense confirmed with Lai that answering questions makes writing easier, affirming that he authored the responses.

The defense noted there are several more articles to discuss and requested a 10-minute recess to prepare.

10:02 Court in Session

Before the court session, Jimmy Lai, escorted by correctional officers, walked to the witness stand and put on headphones in anticipation of the proceedings.

Co-defendant who has pleaded guilty and is currently remanded, the executive editor and chief editorial writer of the English version, “Lo Fung,” real name Fung Wai-kong, attended in an extended court area. He wore a dark blue suit jacket, a blue, green, and white plaid shirt, and plastic-framed glasses, and was positioned within the defendants’ dock to follow the hearing.

The Witness