Apple Daily and Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who is facing charges including “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” appeared at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (sitting as the High Court) on Thursday (21st) for the 151st day of his trial, as the defense delivered its second day of closing arguments.

The defense argued that the prosecution seemed to want the court to presume Lai’s guiltiness first and then reason backward to fit the evidence. For example, the prosecution cited interviews Lai conducted with foreign guests and his contacts with influential figures in the U.S. government, portraying them as requests for sanctions, blockades, and hostile actions. The defense countered that Lai had been friends with many of these individuals for years, and their conversations about Hong Kong and international affairs were no different than “friends discussing the law at a dim sum table.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping responded, “If someone suggested that we first determine the defendant is guilty and then work backwards to find the reasons, any one of us would firmly reject it.” The defense replied that this appeared to be exactly what the prosecution was trying to do: “Otherwise, what is the significance of Jimmy Lai chatting with longtime friends?” The trial continued in the afternoon.

Lai claimed he rarely discussed politics with his aide; judge questioned the credibility

The prosecution has relied on 161 Apple Daily articles in this case, asking the court to infer that Lai conspired to incite by using the paper as a platform for seditious publications. Senior counsel Robert Pang, arguing for the defense on Wednesday, said those 161 articles made up only a tiny fraction of Apple Daily’s overall output. On the prosecution’s claim that 63 of those articles merely “look like news reports,” the defense countered that there are other reasonable inferences supporting that they were indeed reporting.

Judge Alex Lee noted that when drawing inferences, the court must consider all evidence in totality, including witness testimony and WhatsApp messages. The defense, however, cited the prosecution’s opening, which said that the case involved numerous publications and interviews in Lai’s name or referring to him that revealed his intent to incite or collude. The defense stressed that intent alone is insufficient.

For example, the defense said, Lai’s Twitter account retweeted on July 1, 2020, an Apple Daily post that simply contained a photocopy of the text of the National Security Law. The defense argued that there was no element of collusion or solicitation in that post and that the court should not accept it as evidence. Judge Lee replied that even if the prosecution did not specifically elaborate on the content of some publications, the court is still obliged to review them.

Lee also raised questions about Lai’s relationship with his aide, Mark Simon. He pointed out that the defense claimed Lai seldom discussed politics with Simon, but WhatsApp messages suggested otherwise. He asked whether Lai had indeed said this in his testimony. The defense confirmed he had. Lee remarked, “If he really said that then perhaps there’s another reason that Mr. Chow (prosecution) would like to point out why his evidence is not to be believed.” The defense responded that it would address the matter later.

Defense: Prosecution wants the court to presume guilt, then reason backward

As for the prosecution’s argument that Lai pushed a four-step international lobbying plan and maintained ties with influential figures in the U.S. government, the defense contended that a more reasonable inference was simply that Lai had known these foreign contacts for many years and, like him, they cared about Hong Kong and international issues. They discussed them “much as we might discuss the law at a dim sum table.”

The prosecution cited dialogues from Lai’s “Live Chat” program with guests, alleging that the exchanges amounted to calls for sanctions, blockades, and hostile actions. The defense disputed this, saying that if one begins with the presumption that Lai colluded with foreign forces, then any conversation with foreigners would naturally look suspicious. That, they argued, is precisely what the prosecution is doing.

Judge Esther Toh interrupted, stressing that the court must determine whether the prosecution’s evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not by assuming guilt and working backward. The defense maintained that the prosecution seemed to expect the court to do just that. Toh retorted: “If there was any suggestion for us to find a defendant guilty of the crime and then work backwards, that will meet with short shrift from any of us.”

The defense repeated its point: “Otherwise, what’s the significance of chit-chatting with friends that he’s known for so many years?”

Defense: Answering questions is not making requests

The defense also argued that Lai was mostly answering questions in interviews, which cannot be construed as him requesting sanctions, blockades, or hostile measures. Everyone has the right to express their views, they said, and answering questions honestly is a matter of courtesy, not solicitation.

For example, the prosecution’s written submissions pointed to a July 17, 2020, “Live Chat” episode in which Lai suggested revoking Hong Kong’s special status. The defense countered that Lai was responding to a viewer’s question, with no evidence that his answer was pre-arranged, and so it cannot constitute conspiracy to collude. They further argued that revoking Hong Kong’s special status merely meant restoring normal relations, treating Hong Kong like any other jurisdiction. “Not being friends is different from being enemies,” they said.

The defense also disputed the prosecution’s reliance on Lai’s July 23, 2020, Twitter post, which shared an Apple Daily report on the U.S. ordering China to close its Houston consulate, followed by Beijing’s condemnation and threats of retaliation. Lai’s tweet added: “Trump is taking action through various measures, while Biden can only talk. Actions speak louder than words.”

According to the defense, Lai was not directly or indirectly calling for sanctions. He was simply commenting that “Trump is taking action.” They noted that other Chinese consulates still remained open, so this could not be considered a hostile act or evidence of treating China as an enemy.

Defense: Hoping for sanctions privately is not a crime

Judge Lee asked whether such a post could nevertheless be read as encouraging action. The defense replied that this is precisely why they were scrutinizing each piece of evidence: because the prosecution relies on such materials to argue that Lai carried out a conspiracy. “I’m not a mind reader, but even if Lai privately wished for sanctions, as long as he deliberately refrained from calling for or requesting them, then it does not constitute a crime.”

Lee then cited a conversation between Lai and his protégé Simon Lee, where Lai said, “Trump is imposing a series of sanctions on China.” Compared with the tweet “actions speak louder than words,” it suggested that Lai viewed the U.S. demand to close the consulate as a form of sanction.

The defense argued that this interpretation actually supported their case: Lai may have privately desired sanctions, but when acting publicly, he did not call for them. Knowing the legal consequences, he would not deliberately break the law.