Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces,” among other offenses. The trial, now on its 97th day, continued on Wednesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court). This marks Lai’s fifth day of testimony, during which he denied giving editorial instructions during “lunchbox meetings” and discussing his views on the political situation. He stated that these meetings typically revolved around addressing questions previously raised by employees on the Slack platform or posed spontaneously during the meetings.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned whether Lai’s request for the English version to report news not covered by the South China Morning Post constituted an editorial directive. Lai responded that the values of Apple Daily aligned with those of the Hong Kong people, which is “why we do not need an editorial policy, nor do we ever set any editorial policies in writing or words.”

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.

14:33 Jimmy Lai confirms that in October 2019, through arrangements made by Martin Lee, he met with Wayland Chan (Chan Tsz-wah).

During the defense’s questioning about the relationship between Chan Tsz-wah (whose English name is Wayland) and Lai, Chan previously testified that their first meeting occurred in July 2019. The defense presented a WhatsApp group conversation including Lai, Mark Simon, and Martin Lee. In September 2019, Lee messaged, “what about Anson and Wayland?” Lai asked who Wayland was, to which Lee responded that Mark Simon knew Chan.

In court, Lai mentioned that Anson referred to Anson Chan, the Chief Secretary for Administration, but at that time, he did not know Wayland Chan. Mark Simon described Chan in the messages as “the young man who was leading up the international newspaper campaign.” The defense questioned whether it was possible that Chan met Lai for the first time in July 2019, as Chan claimed, which Lai disputed as unlikely.

Chan also claimed the meeting was arranged in a restaurant owned by the brother of former vice-chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, Szeto Wah, attended only by Lai, Martin Lee, and Chan, with Lai paying for the meal. The defense showed a credit card statement with a transaction from October 18, 2019, for approximately HK$800, which Lai confirmed was for that lunch meeting.

The defense further presented a WhatsApp conversation from the day before the meeting between Lai and Mark Simon, in which Lai wrote, “Martin wants to have a meeting before we go, with a young man in jimmy’s kitchen.” Lai confirmed in court that the “young man” referred to was Chan.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what “before we go” meant; Lai did not recall. The defense also showed Lai’s immigration record, indicating that he left Hong Kong on October 18, 2019, and returned on October 31. They mentioned that Lai had a meeting in the U.S. with then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, with Martin Lee also present, which Lai confirmed.

12:30 A message from Mark Simon mentioned borrowing money. Jimmy Lai: “I don’t know what organization it was, nor do I care.”

Jimmy Lai stated that he was unaware of the exact amounts borrowed—whether it was HK$1.5 million or HK$5 million. He only knew that the borrower later repaid the full amount through Mark Simon, adding that he wouldn’t ask when the repayment would be made. Regarding a WhatsApp conversation where Mark Simon referred to the “Fight for Hong Kong group,” Lai said he did not know what organization it was and did not care about it.

When the defense pressed whether Lai was concerned about the nature of that organization, Lai replied, “No, why should I?” Further messages displayed in court from November 6, 2019, showed Mark Simon informing Lai that all the funds used for international newspaper advertisements had been repaid and were stored in an account under Mark Simon’s name.

12:13 Jimmy Lai points out that Mark Simon handled the G20 promotional campaign loan

After a brief recess, Lai volunteered additional information about Simon Lee using the hashtag “#standwithHongKong” in a post. Lai believes that at the time, Lee did not mean to reference the SWHK organization, asserting that Lee wouldn’t have known about it, and that he also added “standwithTaiwan” despite there being no organization by that name. Lai also confirmed that he never discussed the SWHK organization with him.

Regarding the transitional loan for the G20 promotional campaign, the defense showed a WhatsApp conversation from June 25, 2019, between Lai and former Civic Party legislator Dennis Kwok. Kwok forwarded information about a crowdfunding initiative called “G20 Global Crowdfunding for Newspaper Ads.” Lai then directed his secretary, Julie, to help him donate HK$100,000. That same day, Mark Simon messaged Lai a screenshot of the crowdfunding platform, noting that the fundraising goal had been reached and exceeded one million HK dollars, making further contributions impossible.

The court was also shown a message from Mark Simon to Lai, mentioning that the “G20” team faced difficulties and hoped to secure a transitional loan of HK$5 million from Lai through Martin Lee, to be repaid by July 4. Additionally, an email from Mark Simon to employees at Power for Democracy was displayed, detailing assistance with newspaper ad payments under the name “Li Yu Hin.”

The defense asked if Lai knew that payments would be made under the name Andy Li. Lai responded that he was unaware, confirming that Mark Simon handled the matter. He was not informed that the funds would be paid under Andy Li’s name. Lai expressed indifference about this arrangement, stating, “I didn’t care,” emphasizing that he had no contact with the individuals involved, did not care about their identities, and questioned why he should, asserting that it was Mark Simon’s responsibility.

11:22 Break

11:14 Jimmy Lai denies any agreement with Apple Daily executives to publish seditious materials

In the court session focused on the charge of conspiracy to publish seditious publications, the defense outlined the intended seditious implications involved:

1. To incite hatred or contempt against the central government or the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or to incite disaffection towards them;
2. To incite residents of Hong Kong attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Hong Kong as by law established;
3. To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Hong Kong;
4. To incite or increase ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Hong Kong;
5. To incite others to violence;
6. To counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order

The defense asked if Lai had agreed with the senior executives of Apple Daily on the publication of seditious materials. Lai responded that anything they published never needed his consent, later adding, “I never thought anything seditious that they should publish; what they published should be legal.”

When asked if the publications he was involved in had any of the seditious intentions mentioned, Lai denied it. The defense stated they had completed their questions regarding the charge of conspiracy to publish seditious materials, clarifying that they would not inquire about articles not written by Lai. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang reminded that the prosecution relies on 161 articles from Apple Daily as circumstantial evidence.

11:08, Jimmy Lai denies that the selection of writers for Apple Daily’s editorial column required his approval.

During the defense’s questioning about the “Apple Commentary” section, they referenced a claim by former Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung that approval from Lai was needed to hire columnists. Lai responded, “I don’t know whether I approve or not, but definitely they would have informed me.”

When asked who chooses the columnists, Lai said it was Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, and other senior executives, or they would decide during meetings. The defense further inquired whether the executives would seek Lai’s opinion before selecting columnists. Lai indicated they would not, and he would not oppose their decisions.

Addressing Chan Pui-man’s testimony that Lai had suggested or requested hiring certain writers, Lai denied having made such suggestions, stating, “It was never my position to do so.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Ryan Law Wai-kwong had ever rejected Lai’s requests. Lai replied that he had never made any requests, so there was no opportunity for rejection.

Regarding a claim by Yeung Ching-kee that Lai did not directly instruct the editorial team, but his column’s views were more explicit and clear than his verbal instructions, hence the editorial team would not contradict him, the defense noted. They asked if it was true that Apple Daily paid attention to Lai’s views and stance. Lai confirmed it was correct, emphasizing his stance against Hong Kong independence, so staff should avoid this topic.

Chan Pui-man testified that during Lai’s detention, he expressed a desire to have Sang Pu write for them. The defense asked if Lai had made such a suggestion. Lai explained that before the National Security Law took effect, he appreciated Sang Pu’s articles and suggested he write commentaries for Apple Daily, which Cheung was aware of. However, after learning of Sang Pu’s pro-independence stance, they decided not to proceed with the engagement.

11:00 Jimmy Lai says that he only became aware of the “Stand with Hong Kong” movement there.

The defense brought up that during a previous court session, a speech by then-President Donald Trump was played in which Trump mentioned Lai. Following this, Apple Daily’s Twitter account, as well as Lai’s own account, tweeted about it, quoting Trump and adding, “President @realDonaldTrump calls me a brave man. I am flattered. But I am not brave enough to stand against the whole world like #Xi. I only #standwithHongKong #standwithTaiwan.”

In court, Lai believed the tweets were composed by Simon Lee and did not recall if he wrote “#standwithHongKong #standwithTaiwan” himself. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted the lack of spacing between the English words in the hashtags. Lai responded that he believes they were written by Simon Lee and he did not understand why these words were used, nor did he know what a “hashtag” was.

When asked if he was aware of the organization “Stand With Hong Kong” at the time, Lai said he did not know about it until mentioned in court, and he first became aware of Andy Li when Li was captured by Chinese maritime police en route to Taiwan.

Regarding the hashtag “#standwithHongKong” in the tweet, Lai stated he was unaware of any organization by that name at the time and would have interpreted the words literally if he had seen them. He also did not recognize any organization named “standwithTaiwan.” Lai did not inquire about their meanings from Simon Lee, considering it unimportant. He explained that he viewed “standwithHongKong” and “standwithTaiwan” as expressing a general stance, similar to saying “I stand with you.”

The defense then displayed a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Simon Lee, pointing out that Lai did not suggest adding the phrase “Stand With Hong Kong” to the messages. Lai confirmed this, emphasizing his lack of knowledge about the organization. He noted that sometimes he would read posts and other times let Lee upload them without reviewing them afterward.

10:45 Apple Daily reported that Jimmy Lai stated the US should sanction oppressors. Lai confirmed the report’s accuracy.

The defense questioned Lai about his meeting with then-US Vice President Mike Pence. Lai stated that no journalists accompanied him on the trip to the US, and he was accompanied only by his assistant, Mark Simon, during the meeting with Pence. However, during his subsequent meeting with then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, only Lai and Pompeo were present, with Simon waiting outside the room, and no discussions of sanctions took place there either.

The defense presented a report from Apple Daily following Lai’s US visit titled “[Anti-Extradition Movement] Jimmy Lai urges peaceful defiance against the triads, seeks international support for Hong Kong’s anti-extradition movement,” featuring a photo of former Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho with the caption “Delving into Zhongnanhai.” Lai confirmed that upon returning to Hong Kong, he was interviewed by Albert Ho on the show “Delving into Zhongnanhai,” and the Apple Daily article reported on this interview.

When asked if Lai discussed his meeting with Pompeo on the show, Lai noted that if Apple Daily’s report mentioned he believed the US should sanction those oppressing protesters in Hong Kong, he indeed likely made such remarks. The defense then asked if Lai had discussed potential US sanctions against oppressors in Hong Kong and China on “Delving into Zhongnanhai.” Lai replied that if the report mentioned it, then he did speak on the matter, affirming his trust in the report’s accuracy.

10: 20 Judges: Does requesting coverage of news not reported by SCMP also constitute editorial instruction?

Judge Esther Toh questioned if Jimmy Lai’s request for the English edition to cover news not reported by South China Morning Post also constitutes an editorial directive? Lai responded, stating that Apple Daily’s values align with those of the Hong Kong people, “That’s why we did not need an editorial policy, and that’s why we never set down any editorial policy in writing or in words.”

Judge Alex Lee then asked if Lai provided any directions regarding the angle of the reports. Lai noted that reporters decide on the angle themselves and it’s impossible to direct it, given their distinct writing styles.

The defense then brought up Apple Daily’s editorial charter from March 2019, which was discussed during Chan Pui-man’s testimony. Lai stated the charter was unrelated to him, being unaware of it until it was mentioned in court, and had not instructed Chan to draft it.

Regarding the “Lunchbox Meetings,” Lai said that the meeting minutes, written by Cheung Kim-hung, would include actionable suggestions. When asked by the defense if editorial instructions given during the meetings would be recorded, Lai believed they would be, as they are significant issues, but reiterated that he never gave such instructions.

10:10 Lai Denies Giving Editorial Instructions at “Lunchbox Meetings”

Defense attorney Steven Kwan continued to question about the “lunchbox meetings,” citing testimony from former Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung, the first accomplice witness, who described that during these meetings, Lai would discuss his views on the current situation and political stance while eating. In court, Lai refuted this, stating that the “lunchbox meetings” were conducted in a Q&A and discussion format. Prior to the meeting, participants would provide questions via the work platform Slack. Everyone would spend the first 15 to 20 minutes eating their lunchboxes without engaging in conversation; if there was chatting, it was merely casual talk about business or the newspaper, not discussing significant issues. The formal meeting would start after eating, where employees would pose questions to him one by one, and Lai would respond to the questions previously raised. If anyone proposed suggestions or questions, they would be discussed.

Regarding Cheung’s claim that Lai would propose editorial policies in response to the situation in Hong Kong, Lai stated that the main discussion focused on the predetermined topics of the meeting. He denied ever giving editorial instructions during these meetings, emphasizing that there was no need for such instructions. He highlighted that Apple Daily’s core values align with those of Hong Kong citizens. Employees joining Apple Daily do not require training or instructions, as he believes they share the same core values of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, rule of law, and democracy.

The Witness