Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is facing charges including “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.” Both the prosecution and defense had concluded presenting evidence earlier, and closing arguments were originally scheduled to begin last week. However, due to a Black Rainstorm Warning and the need to arrange a heart monitor for Lai, the hearing was postponed to Monday (18th), marking the 148th day of trial at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court). Wearing a heart monitor, Lai waved to the public gallery before proceedings began.

In its closing arguments, the prosecution said the defendants had already reached an agreement before the enactment of the National Security Law to carry out a series of actions, including calling for foreign sanctions against China and Hong Kong. After the law came into effect, the defendants continued such activities, meaning the agreement remained in force and thus amounted to conspiracy. The prosecution argued it did not need to prove that a new agreement was made after the law came into force, nor that the defendants fully understood all the details of the agreement—only that each party continued to act in accordance with it, which was sufficient to establish guilt. The trial continued in the afternoon.

Over 30 People Queue Outside Court in the Rain at Dawn

By 6:30 a.m., more than 30 people were standing in line under umbrellas in the amber rainstorm, waiting to collect public gallery tickets. Ms. Mok, who had arrived by 6 a.m. after taking an overnight bus to the courthouse, said she hoped to get into the main courtroom to support Jimmy Lai: “I’ve been worried after reading the reports. I missed the last two sessions, and now that it’s been postponed again, I really had to come this time—otherwise, I don’t know if I’ll get to see him.”

Another spectator, Mr. Lau, arrived around 7 a.m. He said he had also attended hearings during Lai’s earlier testimony and noted that Lai’s condition last Friday was completely different:“Back then he was still energetic and lively, and his answers were clear and well thought-out. But when I saw him on Friday, he looked like a completely different person—much thinner, his face dark, head hanging down, none of the spirit he had just a few months ago.”

Security Stops Spectators from Waving to Lai

Before the hearing began, court security again read out instructions that, under the judges’ order, spectators must remain silent at all times—whether or not the judges were present and even during recess. They were forbidden from expressing opinions, personal sentiments, blessings, or farewells.

Jimmy Lai, wearing a white windbreaker and khaki trousers, entered the dock under escort by three correctional officers. He wore black-framed glasses and a hearing aid, and smiled, waved, and pressed his palms together in greeting toward spectators and relatives. When one spectator waved back at Lai, security staff immediately intervened. The spectator questioned, “Not even waving?” Security warned, “We already said waving is not allowed.”

The defense last week applied for Lai to be excused from attending closing arguments, revealing that he had experienced heart palpitations and that doctors had recommended he wear a Holter monitor. On Monday, prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang said the monitor had been provided to Lai last Friday, and that Lai had not since raised concerns about heart or other health issues. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping said doctors had assessed Lai to be physically and mentally fit to attend trial, and told senior defense counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung that if Lai felt unwell or needed rest during proceedings, he could request it at any time.

Prosecution: Closing Submissions Will Cover Five Issues

The prosecution began its closing arguments, noting that its written submission exceeded 860 pages, covering Lai’s state of mind, legal controversies, and more. It said its oral arguments would focus on five areas:

1. Whether the defense’s argument—that the pre–National Security Law agreement was frustrated and rendered invalid by the law’s implementation—applies to this case.
   
2. How the terms “request,” “sanctions,” and “hostile actions” in Article 29 of the National Security Law should be defined.
   
3. In relation to the sedition charge, whether the prosecution is required to prove the defendants’ criminal intent.
   
4. On the criminal liability of the corporate defendants, who should be regarded as the company’s “directing mind.”
   
5. Responding to the defense’s arguments that the case involves human rights issues.

Prosecution: No Need to Prove a New Agreement After NSL – Only That the Conspiracy Continued

On the first issue, the prosecution stressed that if the defendants had already conspired to commit offenses, then even if the agreement was not necessarily unlawful before the National Security Law came into force, the situation changed after its enactment. Citing the “47 democrats primary case,” the prosecution argued that no new agreement was required.

Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang further said the prosecution did not need to pinpoint exactly when the conspiracy began, nor was it necessary for every conspirator to know all the details of the agreement. The prosecution was not required to prove that the defendants fully understood the entire agreement, only that each party continued to act in accordance with it—sufficient to establish guilt.

The prosecution maintained that regarding the two conspiracy-to-collude charges, the defendants had agreed, before the NSL, to carry out a series of actions including urging foreign sanctions against China and Hong Kong. After the NSL came into effect, the defendants continued those actions, meaning the agreement was ongoing and amounted to conspiracy. The prosecution said that as long as there was evidence of overt acts showing the parties acted in line with the agreement, the offense was established. In this case, several “accomplice witnesses” had testified in court, each describing the content of the agreement.

Defense: Agreement Became Invalid After NSL | Prosecution: Contract Law Concept Does Not Apply

The defense argued that any prior agreement became invalid once the National Security Law (NSL) came into effect, and therefore a new agreement must be proven for the defendants to be guilty. The prosecution countered that no new agreement was necessary: as long as there was evidence that the pre-NSL agreement continued after the law took effect, it was unlawful. The prosecution further challenged the defense’s reliance on the concept of “frustration” under contract law, saying it does not apply in a case of criminal conspiracy.

Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang gave an example: if he and prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang agreed today to murder defense counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, but Pang had already died yesterday, would the agreement be invalid? Chau agreed, but emphasized that from the very moment the agreement was formed, it was already unlawful.

Prosecution and Defense Cite Zhang Xiaoming’s Remarks | Judge Questions Relevance

On the wording of the statute, the prosecution noted that the defense disputed the collusion provision in Chapter 3 of the NSL on the grounds that the word “collusion” does not explicitly appear. The prosecution argued that “collusion” implies the existence of an agreement or secret arrangement, and cited then–Deputy Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office Zhang Xiaoming, who said at a July 1, 2020 press conference: “Some people in Hong Kong are unfamiliar with the term ‘collusion’… Its literal meaning is ‘to connive with each other to do bad things,’ and it carries a pejorative sense.”

Judge Lee interrupted, pointing out that in its ruling on the “Lui Sai-yu case,” the Court of Final Appeal held that courts may only rely on materials directly related to the purpose and constitutional status of the NSL. He questioned whether Zhang’s comments were merely personal opinions and therefore inapplicable.

Lee continued: “With respect, Mr. Zhang was not a drafter of the NSL nor a member of the legislative body. In what capacity could he speak to the definition of the NSL?” He further asked whether the court should accept Zhang’s remarks, given that both prosecution and defense had cited them in written submissions.

The prosecution responded that the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling permits the use of extrinsic materials, and that Zhang had linked “collusion” to the conduct listed in Article 29 of the NSL.

Lee rebutted: “Yes, but those materials must come from people who had some responsibility in the drafting of the NSL.” Presiding Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping summed up: in other words, the prosecution’s position is that Article 29 of the NSL does not require proof of an agreement or secret agreement.

Trial Began in 2023 – Lai Testified for 52 Days

The case opened on December 18, 2023. On the 90th day of the trial, June 11, 2024, the prosecution completed presenting its evidence, exceeding the originally scheduled 80 trial days. On July 25, the three judges ruled that there was a prima facie case. The trial then resumed on November 20, when Jimmy Lai took the stand, and he completed 52 days of testimony on March 6, 2025.

The Witness had earlier compiled summaries of the prosecution’s three-day opening statement, key testimony from six prosecution witnesses, as well as highlights from Lai’s 52 days of testimony—divided into the Apple Daily editorial and reporting segment, the international connections segment, and court notes—for readers to revisit the key points of the trial.