Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” appeared for the 154th day of trial on Tuesday (26th) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (sitting as the High Court), where the defense delivered its fifth day of closing arguments.

The defense argued that all 161 publications cited under the sedition charge could be reasonably explained. For example, when the government pushed forward amendments to the Extradition Bill despite widespread public concern and inadequate consultation, articles could legitimately highlight that the government had erred. Judges repeatedly questioned whether the problem lay instead in the public being misled by the media, rather than mistakes by the government. The defense countered that this made it all the more important for the media to provide information to foster public debate, stressing that society should not be limited to a single viewpoint.

On the collusion charge involving Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK), the defense maintained there was no evidence showing Lai conspired with Andy Li or Chan Tsz-wah to request foreign sanctions, arguing their actions after the National Security Law came into force reflected personal choices rather than a coordinated plan. As for Lai’s pre-NSL message to Chan that they must be “prepared to fight to the end,” the defense said this could be interpreted as “fighting legally to the end,” and did not necessarily imply unlawful conduct.

The trial continues Wednesday.

Defense: Articles Aimed to Point Out Government Mistakes

On the conspiracy to publish seditious publications charge tied to Apple Daily, the prosecution relied on 161 articles. The defense argued that these pieces highlighted instances where the government had been “misled or made mistakes” or pointed out “errors or shortcomings in the Hong Kong government or its constitutional framework.” Such circumstances, they said, fall under exemptions in the law and therefore do not amount to sedition.

Senior Counsel Robert Pang explained that when the government pushed ahead with the Extradition Bill despite widespread public concern and insufficient consultation, many citizens believed the amendments were unnecessary. In that context, articles pointing out government errors were justified. Justice Alex Lee questioned whether conflicting opinions always meant someone was wrong. Pang replied that when different value judgments are at play, each side inevitably believes it is right and the other wrong.

Lee pressed further, asking whether this meant the government had erred or whether the public had misunderstood. The defense agreed the public might have been mistaken, but maintained the articles were not seditious. When Lee asked what should happen if the government had not made mistakes but the public had been misled by the media, the defense countered that this only underscored the importance of the press providing information to facilitate public debate.

Defense: Society Cannot Always Say the Government Is Right

Justice Esther Toh challenged the defense, noting that some media had misleadingly suggested the amendments would allow suspects to be immediately sent to the mainland for trial. Such reports, she said, showed that the media—not the government—was at fault and could be even more misleading. The defense responded that this was not an issue the case needed to resolve.

Lee added that the court could use such examples to assess whether the defendants intended to correct errors. The defense replied that the court could also consider the testimony of accomplice witness and former Apple Daily associate publisher Chan Pui-man, adding that while some believed the amendments were justified and others did not, the role of the media was to encourage discussion. Society, they stressed, cannot be limited to a single viewpoint that “the government is always right.”

Lee asked whether, beyond calling for the withdrawal of the amendments, the defendants had offered any proposals for how to amend them. The defense said this was irrelevant, noting that Chan had testified they believed the amendments were inappropriate and should be withdrawn. Apple Daily, they argued, was not trying to lead the debate but was simply part of the public discussion over whether the amendments were necessary or beneficial for Hong Kong.

Defense: Apple Daily Had a Particular Stance, Other Media Held Opposite Views

The defense cited an editorial by chief writer Fung Wai-kwong (pen name Lo Fung), titled “Repelling the Extradition Bill with a Loud Roar.” It noted that “the U.S. State Department has formally issued a statement criticizing the proposed amendment as effectively allowing the Chinese Communist regime to demand the transfer of anyone from Hong Kong to the mainland at any time… This time, the State Department’s formal statement of criticism clearly reflects the international community’s unease and anxiety, which the SAR government must take seriously.” The defense argued that such viewpoints contributed to public debate.

Justice Alex Lee questioned whether the article, apart from telling the government that “everyone” opposed the bill, could actually stimulate rational discussion. The defense responded that the article called on the government to present arguments to support its position. They added that while Apple Daily had a particular stance, other outlets held opposing views, giving the public a range of perspectives from which to make their own judgments.

The defense further pointed out that the article highlighted the government’s failure to consult the public before pushing through the bill, a fact that many Hongkongers at the time felt showed their opinions had been disregarded. Lee pressed further, asking how the court should handle situations where a paper acted with malice—for example, if an article described former Chief Executive Carrie Lam as “evil.” The defense argued that precedent shows calling a politician an “idiot” is not improper, and courts recognize that politicians are expected to have thicker skin. They added that while such comments may cause dissatisfaction, unless an article seriously undermines the government’s authority, it would not meet the threshold for sedition.

Defense: Message About “Fighting to the End” Did Not Necessarily Refer to Illegal Acts

On the collusion charge related to Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK), the defense’s arguments were presented by Marc Corlett, a New Zealand King’s Counsel qualified to practice in Hong Kong. Corlett said there was no evidence showing Lai conspired with accomplice witnesses Andy Li, Chan Tsz-wah, or others to request foreign sanctions during the relevant period.

The prosecution argued that even knowing the National Security Law was imminent, Lai encouraged others in the alleged conspiracy to continue with international lobbying. The defense countered that what mattered was whom Lai encouraged, how, and when. For instance, on May 21, 2020, Lai messaged Chan Tsz-wah: “We should not worry about our personal safety. Once we come out to join the resistance and fight for freedom, we must be ready to fight to the end.”

The defense argued this phrase did not necessarily mean “keep going even if it’s illegal.” Semantically, it could also mean “fight legally to the end,” and the court should not infer that “to the end” implied unlawful action. Justice Esther Toh asked whether Lai’s failure to tell Chan to stop was itself encouragement to continue, even if there were personal safety risks under the NSL. The defense responded that the court had no basis to assume Lai was urging persistence in illegal acts under the new law. Toh, however, noted that while Lai did not say this directly, such an inference could still be drawn from his words.

Defense: Pre-NSL Encouragement Not Proof of Post-NSL Intent

The prosecution relied on a June 16, 2020 conversation between Jimmy Lai and Chan Tsz-wah at the Next Digital building. Chan testified that Lai described the National Security Law as “all thunder but little rain,” and said he would lead by example by continuing to call for sanctions in the media, while instructing Chan to have other Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK) members “keep going” with publicity and international lobbying.

The defense stressed that this conversation took place before the NSL came into effect. Even if Chan’s account were accurate, encouragement given before the law was enacted did not amount to encouragement to continue requesting sanctions afterward. At that time, the details of the NSL had not yet been published, so Lai could not have known that calling for sanctions would be considered illegal. While he may have suspected the law would cover collusion, that did not mean he knew collusion would include requests for sanctions. Therefore, this conversation could not prove that Lai insisted on such requests under the NSL.

Justice Alex Lee asked whether the defense’s position was that Lai’s discussions with Chan prior to the NSL were insufficient to establish Lai’s intent afterward. The defense agreed.

Defense: Lai Had No Duty to Tell Chan Tsz-wah Not to Break the Law

The prosecution also cited a July 2020 message from Chan to Lai, saying: “Thank you for everything you did during the primary election. This was extraordinary in Hong Kong’s history.” Lai replied, “This is a miracle.” The prosecution argued this showed Lai did not tell Chan to stop international lobbying or to refrain from calling for sanctions.

The defense countered that the primary election was unrelated to sanctions, and the message showed no evidence that Lai gave Chan any instructions. They further argued that Lai had no legal or moral duty to tell Chan not to break the law, and the exchange contained no confirmation of any prior agreement. Therefore, this conversation could not prove that Chan was acting on Lai’s instructions.

Defense: Lee and Chan Acted on Their Own Initiative

Addressing the prosecution’s claim that Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK) actively called for sanctions against China and Hong Kong after the National Security Law (NSL) came into force—through press releases, open letters, Facebook posts urging foreign governments to act, and letters to the Czech, Irish, and Portuguese governments to suspend extradition agreements—the defense argued that these actions could not be linked to Jimmy Lai.

The defense pointed out that the documents in question were not authored by Andy Li. Under cross-examination, Li also confirmed he had not discussed the content published on SWHK’s website with Lai or Lai’s aide Mark Simon. Therefore, there was no proof that Li was acting under Lai’s instructions.

On the prosecution’s claim that SWHK participated in the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) after the NSL, the defense cited testimony from Andy Li, who said he had never discussed IPAC with Lai. Similarly, Chan Tsz-wah never testified that Lai had directed Li on this matter.

The defense further suggested that the prosecution had deliberately avoided addressing evidence unfavorable to its case. As for the claim that Lai and others had reached an agreement no later than a January 2020 meeting in Taiwan, the defense countered that even if such an agreement existed, it was only between Andy Li, Chan Tsz-wah, and Finn Lau.

The defense added that both Chan and Li had numerous opportunities during their testimony to state that their actions were carried out under an agreement with Lai, but neither did so. This, the defense stressed, showed that their post-NSL actions were the result of personal choices or other reasons. The only relevant act by Chan after the NSL was his involvement in the “U.S. front,” yet the prosecution had not probed why he did so or whether it had any connection to Lai.