Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces,” appeared for the 153rd day of trial on Monday (25th) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (sitting as the High Court), where the defense delivered its fourth day of closing arguments.

The defense argued that Apple Daily was a traditional newspaper and news outlet, and that journalists have a duty to provide information to the public. The court, they said, should grant the media greater latitude in free expression, and if an article mentioned sanctions, it must consider whether the piece was a news report.

The defense also acknowledged that Lai had publicly called for sanctions before the National Security Law took effect, but emphasized that he had stopped such actions afterward. They contended that in deciding whether a conspiracy existed, the court must take into account the change in law. The defense stressed that if an agreement was not aimed at carrying out unlawful acts, it could not constitute conspiracy. The trial continues in the afternoon.

Defense: Media Has a Duty to Hold Those in Power Accountable

During Monday’s hearing, the defense countered the prosecution’s claim that Jimmy Lai asked the U.S. to consider human rights issues in trade talks with China after the National Security Law (NSL) took effect. Senior Counsel Robert Pang argued that human rights are protected under China’s Constitution and that asking foreign governments to consider them in trade negotiations does not endanger national security. Judge Alex Lee noted that the prosecution’s position was that Lai invoked human rights as a pretext to request sanctions against China; prosecutors confirmed this view.

The defense stressed that because the first two charges in the case relate to Apple Daily’s publications, the court must take into account the human rights issues involved. They argued that media outlets should be granted greater freedom of expression than the general public, given journalists’ duty to provide information so that society can debate and discuss.

Judge Lee questioned how courts should define “the media” in the internet age, when anyone can publish information and claim to be a publisher. The defense replied that Apple Daily was clearly a traditional newspaper, entitled to a higher degree of protection, adding that the law explicitly references both free expression and press freedom—showing that the freedoms enjoyed by ordinary individuals are not the same as those afforded to the press, which has the responsibility to hold those in power to account.

Judges Question Whether Calls for Sanctions Are Part of Journalism

On how courts should define “media,” the defense acknowledged the issue has grown more complex in the digital era, but stressed that this case clearly involves a traditional newspaper. Freedom of expression, they said, includes both the right to speak and the right to receive information, while press freedom goes “one step further.”

Judge Lee pressed that the core issue in the collusion charge is whether the defendants conspired to ask foreign powers to impose sanctions, not Lai’s involvement in the news business. The defense countered that after the NSL took effect, Lai did not directly call for sanctions, and that in evaluating whether his words and actions could be seen as requests for sanctions, the court must factor in press freedom.

While acknowledging that press freedom is not absolute, the defense insisted that courts should afford media greater leeway. If an article mentioned sanctions, judges must determine whether it was news reporting. They also argued that the NSL must be interpreted alongside local laws, such as the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.

Defense: Determining Whether a Conspiracy Existed Requires Considering Law Changes

Turning to the conspiracy charges, the defense said Lai had openly called for sanctions before the NSL but stopped after its implementation. They argued that in deciding whether a conspiracy existed, the court must account for the change in law.

Judge Lee presented a hypothetical: if A, B, and C agreed to import cannabidiol (CBD) into Hong Kong, and later the law criminalized CBD trafficking, but they continued under their original agreement, would that not constitute a crime under the defense’s logic? The defense responded that under the new law, a new agreement—or ratification of the old one—would be necessary.

They clarified that by “ratification” they did not mean the technical sense under contract or agency law, but rather that a person could, through their conduct, demonstrate consent to an unlawful act.

Judge Lee pressed again: if A, B, and C had already reached an agreement, and the defense argues it predated the new law, does that mean no new agreement exists? The defense agreed, citing Article 5 of the NSL, which states that no one shall be convicted for conduct not criminalized by law. They stressed that if an agreement’s purpose was not to carry out unlawful acts, it cannot constitute conspiracy.

Robert Pang told the judges that he expected to finish arguments on the first two Apple Daily-related charges by Monday or, at the latest, Tuesday (26th). The defense will then pass the floor to Marc Corlett, a New Zealand King’s Counsel with Hong Kong practice rights, who will handle arguments on the alleged conspiracy involving the group Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK), likely by Wednesday. King’s Counsel Jon K. H. Wong for the three Apple Daily companies said he would need about 30 minutes to deliver submissions on Thursday morning.