Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, is charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses. On Wednesday (20th), the 150th day of his trial opened at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (sitting as the High Court). The prosecution concluded its closing arguments, and the defense began its case.

The defense argued that supporting freedom of expression and human rights is not wrong, and that not being patriotic is not a crime, questioning the prosecution for “seemingly disparaging these concepts.” Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping interrupted, clarifying that while not loving the government is not criminal, the prosecution’s case is that taking actions that harm national interests or employing “nefarious means” would be wrong.

On the issue of the 161 Apple Daily articles alleged to be seditious, the defense cited three reports, including the final front page, arguing that the content merely reported facts and amounted to only 0.39% of the articles published during the relevant period—“less than one piece every five days.” They argued that such a number is insufficient to infer a conspiracy. However, the judges questioned whether the trial was “a mathematical game,” noting that other evidence, including WhatsApp messages and “lunchbox meetings,” also supports the charges. The trial will continue on Thursday.

In its closing arguments, the prosecution said Lai’s testimony was unreliable, noting that while he admitted that Apple Daily was an anti-communist and opposition newspaper aligned with the “yellow camp,” he simultaneously portrayed it as “a neutral defender of Hong Kong’s core values.” The prosecution argued this was entirely misleading, asserting that the paper’s stance had nothing to do with the core values of Hongkongers. Instead, Lai had used Apple Daily as a platform to seek foreign powers to punish China, which, the prosecution said, was clearly a betrayal of national interests and security.

Defense: Prosecution Seems to Denigrate Basic Rights

After the prosecution concluded its arguments, senior counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung began the defense’s closing submissions. Pang argued that the prosecution appeared to overlook basic principles or even denigrate basic concepts of freedom and human rights, treating such principles as if they were an “alien concept,” or implying that it was wrong for someone to believe their own country was flawed.

“It is not wrong to support freedom of expression. It is not wrong to support human rights. It is not wrong to be against police brutality. It is not wrong to be concerned about legislation which may affect Hong Kong people’s lives. It is not wrong to try to persuade the government to change its policy. Nor is it wrong not to love a particular administration or even the country, because you can’t force someone to think in one way or another. Nor is it wrong to hope that the government would change its policies, whether through its own internal review or through suggestion or even pressure, whether from inside Hong Kong or out, to hope that the government would change, is not a crime. It has never been and it is not even so now. We must bear that in mind because it seems to me from the prosecution, that this seems to be denigrating all these basic concepts.”

Judge: Not Loving the Government Is Not a Crime, but Using “Nefarious Means” Is Wrong

Judge Esther Toh interrupted to clarify that what the prosecution was arguing was that when actions contravene national interests, that constitutes a crime. Simply not loving the government is not a crime, but if someone resorts to “nefarious means,” that is wrong. She stressed that the prosecution was not belittling those basic principles.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang added that the focus of the trial is for the court to determine whether Jimmy Lai was part of an agreement that called on foreign powers to impose sanctions, blockades, and hostile measures against the governments of China and Hong Kong. He noted that the prosecution’s case is that Lai’s dislike of government policies could explain why he engaged in those actions.

161 Articles Alleged to Be Seditious – Defense Cites 3 Examples as Pure Reporting

The defense countered that the prosecution relied on 161 Apple Daily articles to argue that Lai used the newspaper as a platform to publish seditious content, but these articles did not meet the standard of proof required.

Citing three examples, the defense pointed first to an article titled “April 28 Anti-Evil Law Protest – Civil Human Rights Front Calls on Public to March Against Extradition to China and Stop CCP from Crossing Hongkongers’ Red Line”, published on April 22, 2019. The prosecution had argued that while this “looked like a news report,” it in fact incited the public to join the protest on April 28 and stirred up hatred.

The defense read out parts of the report, which noted that the Civil Human Rights Front was organizing a march and said, “The Hong Kong government’s forced push of the extradition bill will open the door to handing over Hongkongers to mainland China.” The defense argued this was simply reporting facts on a matter of public concern, describing the protest’s purpose in the context of public interest.

The report also included the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ response: “The amendment is meant to fill loopholes in the existing ordinance and demonstrate justice. The freedoms and rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents are protected under the Basic Law and Hong Kong laws.” The defense pointed out that the article included this government response and quoted a range of voices, such as barrister Ronny Tong, showing it was balanced reporting rather than editorial opinion.

Judges Question the Defense’s Approach

Judge Alex Lee interrupted, noting that the 161 articles varied in severity, and some were “more exciting.” Robert Pang agreed, acknowledging he had chosen articles that were easier to explain, but stressed that the defense could account for every article in question. Judge Esther Toh noted that the court would carefully read all the articles and that it was unnecessary for the defense to go through each one in court. Pang agreed but argued that the fewer articles deemed seditious, the harder it would be to conclude Lai was part of a conspiracy.

The defense cited another article, “Freedom Deprived, No Different from the Mainland, Trump Revokes Hong Kong’s Special Status”, published on July 16, 2020, arguing that it too was purely factual reporting. The article recounted then-U.S. President Donald Trump signing the Hong Kong Autonomy Act and outlined the law’s content. The prosecution, however, accused it of endorsing the legislation.

Defense: Apple Daily’s Final Front Page Was Not Seditious

The defense also referenced Apple Daily’s final front page, “Hongkongers Brave the Rain to Bid Painful Farewell: ‘We Support Apple’.” The prosecution had alleged it “justified Apple Daily’s illegal activities,” such as by reporting on citizens gathering outside the Next Digital building to say goodbye.

The defense argued the prosecution had assumed Apple Daily’s activities were illegal, which was for the court to decide. It stressed the coverage simply reported facts, including photos of Apple Daily executives Chan Pui-man and Lam Man-chung at work. Pang asked rhetorically, “If people are just busy working in the office, how can that be seditious?”

The defense also noted that the 161 articles were published between April 2019 and June 24, 2021, over 816 days – “less than one article every five days on average.” Judge Esther Toh responded, “We’re not playing a numbers game here, are we?”

Judge: Other Evidence Supports Sedition Charges

Judge Alex Lee said he believed the 161 articles disputed by the defense were not, on their own, enough to prove Apple Daily guilty of sedition or collusion. But he noted that these articles were only part of the alleged “overt acts,” and that other evidence—including WhatsApp messages and so-called “lunchbox meetings”—must also be considered.

The defense countered that the number of articles was important, stressing the case involved a newspaper with varied content rather than a publication dedicated to sedition. Judge Esther Toh interrupted, pointing out that the defense had already acknowledged the three articles it cited were relatively mild. She reiterated that the numbers were meaningless and emphasized the court had reviewed all the articles: “It’s not just mild reporting; there were many other Apple Daily articles as well.”

Defense: Alleged Articles Account for Only 0.39% of Coverage During the Period

The defense argued that prosecutors had accused Lai of using Apple Daily as a platform for sedition, so the paper must be understood in its full context. It estimated that during the period in question, Apple Daily published 40,800 news or opinion pieces, of which 161—or 0.39%—were cited as seditious. “If Apple Daily were truly a sedition platform, you’d expect far more articles,” the defense said, insisting the number was insufficient to prove conspiracy.

Judge Toh responded that Apple Daily also faced collusion charges, and that evidence was not limited to the articles. Judge Lee added that Twitter posts and Lai’s “Live Chat” program were also part of the record. Toh then asked: “If we found 40% of the articles were seditious, isn’t that enough? We don’t need 60% or 70%, right?”

The defense agreed there was no “minimum threshold,” but maintained that in the context of a newspaper, 161 articles were not enough to prove Lai conspired to use Apple Daily as a platform for sedition.