10.03.2024

Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Media, filed a lawsuit in 2020 against Ta Kung Pao for publishing an article titled “Hong Kong riot leader plots to ‘escape’ with route that costs 1 million exposed.” Lai alleged that the article defamed him by falsely claiming he planned to flee after forfeiting his bail. He requested the court to issue an injunction against Ta Kung Pao to prevent further publication of the content, and to order the newspaper to publicly apologize and pay damages. The case commenced today (3rd) at the High Court. Lai’s side argued that the trial involves public interest and the document content is straightforward, thus warranting a jury trial. However, Ta Kung Pao contends that the case should be judged by a judge. After hearing the arguments, Judge Queeny Au-Yeung Kwai-yue adjourned to announce a decision within the month.

The plaintiff is Jimmy Lai, with Ta Kung Pao (Hong Kong) Limited and the former editor-in-chief, Jia Xiping, as defendants. It was revealed in court that Lai’s side would drop charges against Jia, who is no longer the editor-in-chief.

Lai’s counsel cited the High Court Ordinance, stating that any party in litigation can request a jury trial if the dispute involves permanent or temporary forms of defamation claims, unless the court finds that a lengthy examination of documents makes a jury trial impractical, thus the statutory presumption favors a jury trial.

Lai’s team mentioned that only a few news articles would be presented to the jury, and Ta Kung Pao plans to submit news and posts without technical data, not requiring extensive review. This mirrors the defamation case of Junius Ho Kwan-yiu suing Dennis Kwok Wing-hang and two others, where the case documents were easy to understand, and the jury could manage. Additionally, as Jimmy Lai is a well-known figure with international attention and Ta Kung Pao has many readers, this case involves significant public interest. Whether the disputed articles are maliciously defamatory is not responsible journalism.

Ta Kung Pao opposed, arguing that a judge handling the case could clarify the points of both plaintiff and defendant and assess in the journalism context if there’s malicious defamation, avoiding the scenario where jurors might struggle with understanding. Given the likely lengthy trial, both sides would have the opportunity to appeal the decision, hoping the judge would provide reasoning for the verdict.