2024.10.10

In 2020, Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, filed a case in the High Court accusing Ta Kung Pao of publishing an article titled “Leaders who create chaos in Hong Kong plotting escape, escape route exposed, charge one million dollars,” alleging Lai planned to flee while on bail, which included defamatory content. Lai requested a court order to stop Ta Kung Pao from defamation, to apologize, and to pay compensation. Lai’s side requested a jury trial, which Ta Kung Pao opposed. On Thursday (10th), Judge Queeny Au-yeung Kwai-yue rejected Lai’s request for a jury, and Lai was also ordered to pay HK$ 300,000 in legal fees to Ta Kung Pao.

The judgment stated that even though the case involved public interest, political figures, and politically sensitive issues, the court did not necessarily require a jury trial. Given the case’s complexity with substantial documents and a mix of factual and legal issues presented by Ta Kung Pao, it was deemed unsuitable for a jury. The judge believed that without a jury, the presiding judge could pre-read the articles and consider arguments from both sides, potentially shortening the trial duration.

Judgment: Over a Thousand Pages of Documents to Review, Jury Trial Deemed Unsuitable

The judgment noted that both parties agreed that Jimmy Lai is a well-known figure and that Ta Kung Pao is widely circulated in Hong Kong. The article in question was published on June 25, 2020, during the 2019 social movements and close to the enactment of the National Security Law, with Lai also being criminally charged in other cases, involving significant public interest. However, the judgment stated that even though the case involves public interest, political figures, and politically sensitive topics, the court is not obligated to use its discretion to employ a jury trial.

According to the judgment, the case involves a substantial amount of documents requiring lengthy examination, making it unsuitable for a jury. Aside from the news articles involved in the case, the parties intended to present documents totaling 1,213 pages. Lai’s side planned to submit 101 articles from Ta Kung Pao to prove a long-term and malicious targeting of Lai, demonstrating strong hostility and a ‘smear campaign’ against him. Ta Kung Pao’s side intended to rely on 227 documents, including court sentencing reasons, over 150 pages of English news and commentary, government press releases, and annual reports of companies associated with Lai. The judgment described that the documents involve various types of information, and Lai’s side’s expectation that a jury could complete the trial in 5 days was deemed quite optimistic.

Judgment: Ta Kung Pao’s Defense Mingles Fact and Legal Issues, Unfit for Jury Handling

The judgment further states that if a jury is not set, the presiding judge can adopt written testimonies for questioning, but with a jury, witnesses must be brought to testify in court. Regarding the 101 Ta Kung Pao reports that the plaintiff intends to rely on, aiming to demonstrate that the coverage was falsely targeted and unfairly critiqued against the plaintiff, the presiding judge could pre-read the articles before trial, then consider arguments from both sides, which is believed to shorten the trial compared to one with a jury.

Additionally, Ta Kung Pao’s defense intertwines factual and legal issues, adding a level of complexity, such as the jury needing to consider the source of the article content, whether Ta Kung Pao verified these sources, and the urgency of publishing the articles.

As for the plaintiff’s suggestion that the presiding judge make initial judgments before handing over to the jury to decide if Ta Kung Pao’s reporting harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, the judgment counters that if following the plaintiff’s suggestion, the presiding judge would have to decide whether to accept Ta Kung Pao’s defense within a set timeframe before a jury decides on the malice of the reports, then handle other matters in written judgment. This approach would segment the trial into different parts, putting unnecessary time pressure on the judge and reducing trial efficiency. For these reasons, the court finds a jury trial inappropriate, rejects the plaintiff’s application, and orders the plaintiff to pay HKD 300,000 in legal costs to Ta Kung Pao.

Filing: Ta Kung Pao Article Alleges Lai Plans to Flee Bail

According to the court filing, the implicated article was published on the front page by Ta Kung Pao on June 25, 2020, titled “Leaders who create chaos in Hong Kong plotting escape, escape route exposed, charge one million dollars.” The alleged defamatory phrases include “All potential suspects: Lai Chee Ying (Jimmy Lai),” “Lai’s intention to ‘abscond’ to evade criminal responsibility is well apparent,” and “Even if he pays 10 million as smuggling fees, no snakehead (i.e. smuggler) is able to do his business.” The plaintiff’s side contends that the phrases maliciously accuse Lai of planning to illegally leave Hong Kong and flee bail, constituting defamation and damaging Lai’s reputation.