Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who is charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” under the National Security Law, appeared for the 155th day of his trial at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (designated as the High Court) on Wednesday (27). The defense continued its sixth day of closing arguments.

The defense argued that the prosecution relied heavily on testimony from accomplice witness Chan Tsz-wah to prove that he and Lai reached a conspiracy agreement during a meeting in Taipei. Defense counsel stressed that the court must treat Chan’s testimony with great caution, as he stood to benefit from serving as a prosecution witness and had admitted in court to previously lying.

The defense described Chan as a “serial liar,” noting that while Chan testified he told Lai he would not resort to violence, another accomplice witness, Andy Li Yu-hin, had said he discussed with Chan forming a government-in-exile and building an army. This testimony, the defense argued, portrayed Chan as a “violent nutter.”

Judge Questions Messages Sent to Lai by IPAC Founder

The prosecution argued that Jimmy Lai continued with an unlawful conspiracy even after the National Security Law (NSL) took effect, citing that his Twitter account still followed Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK) and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). The defense countered that following a Twitter account does not indicate support, noting that many people follow former U.S. President Donald Trump without necessarily supporting him.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios highlighted that IPAC founder Luke de Pulford had directly messaged Lai, asking him to publish related articles in Apple Daily, which Lai then forwarded to deputy publisher Chan Pui-man. D’Almada Remedios asked whether this constituted support. The defense argued that merely receiving a message does not equate to endorsement, likening it to receiving news updates on Israel or Iran. D’Almada Remedios pressed the point, emphasizing, “It was the IPAC founder messaging him—just as Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu would not casually send something to Mr. Lai.”

Judge Esther Toh added that De Pulford had also sent Lai a tweet from IPAC co-chair and former U.K. Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who called in Parliament for sanctions on then–Chief Executive Carrie Lam. The message stated, “This was organized today. It is not impossible to achieve,” to which Lai replied, “Yes, it is not impossible now,” suggesting agreement. Toh remarked that this indicated more than simply receiving a message.

The defense reiterated that receiving a message does not amount to support, and even if Lai expressed agreement, it did not prove that he acted under any conspiracy agreement.

Contradictions Between Lai and Chan Tsz-wah’s Testimonies – Defense Points to Andy Li as Supporting Evidence

The prosecution alleges that Lai and his co-conspirators reached an agreement no later than January 2020, during a meeting at a villa in Yangmingshan, Taipei, with Chan Tsz-wah and Finn Lau. The defense countered that even if an agreement existed, it was only among Chan, Lau, and Andy Li, and unrelated to Lai. Chan had previously testified that Lai proposed using sanctions and international lobbying steps to achieve “laam chau” (mutual destruction), but Lai denied this in court.

Chan further claimed that after the meeting, he and Finn Lau briefed Andy Li on the discussion, saying they had agreed with Lai’s understanding of international lobbying and had divided tasks among different groups. The defense argued that Andy Li, when testifying, made no mention of these points and appeared unaware of any meeting between Chan and Lai in Taipei.

The defense maintained that the court must carefully assess the credibility of Lai’s and Chan’s testimonies, noting that Andy Li’s evidence could help corroborate discrepancies. They pointed out that the very issues Chan claimed to have discussed with Lai—but which Lai denied—were the areas where the two testimonies conflicted, and that this could assist the court in evaluating the reliability of both accounts.

Defense: Chan Tsz-wah a “Serial Liar,” Court Must Treat Testimony with Caution

The defense argued that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of accomplice witness Chan Tsz-wah to prove what was discussed during the Taipei meeting. They stressed that the court must handle Chan’s evidence with caution, noting that he is already a convicted individual who could benefit from serving as a prosecution witness, and that he himself admitted in court to having lied in the past.

The defense described Chan as a “serial liar,” pointing out that although Chan claimed he assured Jimmy Lai during their meeting that he was not part of the valiant faction and would not use violence, another accomplice witness, Andy Li, testified that Chan had organized a valiant group, maintained storage facilities for supplies, and discussed forming a government-in-exile. Li also recalled conversations with Chan about setting up an “army,” in which Chan was expected to take charge.

The defense further characterized Chan as a “violent nutter” who proposed overthrowing the government by force and whose repeated lies revealed his flawed character. They argued that the prosecution could not rely on the Taipei meeting to implicate Lai, and that the court should give priority to Lai’s testimony instead.

As for the prosecution’s claim that Lai gave instructions to Chan and others, the defense countered that Chan only testified Lai had “hoped” Finn Lau’s laam chau group would carry on their work. But “hope,” they argued, is not the same as an agreement. To illustrate, they said encouraging a friend to rob a bank and suggesting how it might be done does not automatically make someone a co-conspirator if that friend later robs the bank with others.

Defense: Lai’s Age Should Be Considered When Assessing Testimony

The defense explained that they had not spent much time orally detailing Lai’s testimony, not because it was unimportant, but because they wanted the court to apply the strictest standard in evaluating the testimony of Chan Tsz-wah and Andy Li.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios noted that the defense’s written submissions suggested that when assessing Lai’s credibility, the court should do so “with a spirit of justice and empathy.” The defense clarified that they were not asking the court to apply different standards to Lai versus other witnesses, but hoped that Lai’s age would be taken into account when evaluating his testimony.

Separately, in response to the prosecution’s claim that Lai’s aide, Mark Simon, acted as an “intermediary” between Lai and Chan Tsz-wah, the defense argued this amounted to hearsay. Judge Esther Toh disagreed, pointing out that Chan had testified Lai told him he could be contacted through Simon if necessary, which meant it was not hearsay. judge Alex Lee also noted that Simon’s conversations with Chan could be used to help explain some of Chan’s actions.

Apple Daily Companies: Corporate Liability Hinges on Lai’s Conviction

Barrister Jon K.H. Wong, representing the three Apple Daily companies, argued that given the fourth defendant, Apple Daily Internet Ltd., has no prior convictions, the court should recognize its lower propensity for criminal liability.

Judge Alex Lee, citing written submissions, noted that the key issue for the three companies is whether the senior executives named by the prosecution can be considered the “directing minds” of the companies, and whether their alleged unlawful intentions can be attributed to the corporate defendants.

Lee asked whether the companies’ position was that their liability ultimately depended on Jimmy Lai being found guilty as a “directing mind.” Wong confirmed this, adding that while the prosecution had alleged Lai, former Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung, former Apple Daily associate publisher Chan Pui-man, and former chief editor Ryan Law all acted as directing minds, the defense stressed that Cheung, Chan, and Law did not have full autonomy to make company decisions at the time of the alleged offenses.

Separately, senior counsel Robert Pang submitted a seven-page document inviting the court to take judicial notice of certain issues raised during the trial. The judges will rule on Thursday whether to admit it.

Case No. HCCC 51/2022