Visible justice, on the record. Lord Chief Justice Hewart’s line — “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done” (R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy) — isn’t a slogan; it’s a standard you can verify by watching the process and reading the reasons. In the Jimmy Lai trial, Hong Kong’s court put that “visible rule of law” principle on full display.
After a 156-day trial, the court delivered its verdict today (December 15). A three-judge panel — Esther Toh, D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang — unanimously convicted Jimmy Lai on three counts: one count of “conspiracy to publish seditious publications” and two counts under the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL) of “conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces.” The court’s ruling is described as the first conviction for collusion-conspiracy offence in Hong Kong.
The court had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Lai committed sedition and colluded with foreign forces. And because the NSL took effect on June 30, 2020 — with laws not applying retroactively — prosecutors also had to prove the alleged collusion continued after that date, not just before it.
The presiding judges’ reasons point to two make-or-break findings that carried the convictions.
Credibility Verdict: Lai Fails
First pillar: Lai wasn’t credible. The court’s first core finding was blunt: his testimony didn’t withstand scrutiny.
In the judgment, the judges said Lai’s evidence was “evasive, incredible and unreliable”, as well as “riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, evasiveness, and unworthy of belief,”and that the court rejected it. In plain terms, the court treated him as a witness that it could not rely on.
The prosecution’s key witnesses were six accomplice witnesses, including four Apple Daily senior executives at the relevant time: Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee, and Chow Tat-kuen. They testified that Lai closely managed and personally directed Apple Daily’s editorial line; Yeung, who oversaw editorials and the forum section, said they had only “birdcage autonomy,” and that he wrote and selected content guided by Lai’s views. Multiple witnesses also described “lunchbox meetings” where Lai conveyed his political positions to senior staff — evidence the court used to frame Lai not as a publisher respecting editorial independence, but as someone driving agitation through a propaganda apparatus.
The remaining two accomplice witnesses were Chan Tsz-wah and Andy Li Yu-hin. Chan testified that in 2019 he tried to help Li seek financial support for the “G20” team’s international publicity campaign — a campaign described in evidence as aimed at urging foreign countries to apply political pressure on China and the HKSAR.
The judgment records that each accomplice witness faced deep cross-examination, yet the court found that this did not damage any of their credibility. The court hence deemed all six to be “honest and reliable” witnesses, and accepted what they said in evidence as truethei.
Collusion Persisted Post-NSL
Second pillar: offending continued after the NSL took effect.
The court ruled there was ample evidence that after the NSL took effect, Lai continued expressing an anti-China stance and kept engaging in activities requesting foreign states to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile actions. The key nuance in the judgment is that the court said Lai shifted tactics — more indirect, more subtle, less openly inflammatory — and that this could be seen in Apple Daily editorials and forum articles, as well as Lai’s own columns, posts, and programmes.
On that evidence, the court found that before the NSL, Lai requested foreign countries — especially the US — to impose sanctions and blockades on China and the HKSAR, and that he did not stop after the law took effect. Even if the messaging became subtle and obscure, the court found the intent remained while Lai continued with relevant activities, and convicted him of colluding with foreign or external forces.
Sentencing still to come. With the trial verdict delivered, the court will next hear mitigation from the defendants before imposing sentence. Under Article 29 of the NSL, serious collusion with foreign or external forces carries life imprisonment or a term of 10 years or more.
Looking back at the investigation, you can see a clear turning point: after the events, Chan Tsz-wah and Li Yu-hin attempted to flee, were intercepted and repatriated to Hong Kong, and then agreed to testify as accomplice witnesses; the four Apple Daily executives did the same. Because the alleged collusion was conducted covertly, the prosecution initially faced obvious evidence-gathering difficulty — and the accomplice testimony helped build a complete chain of evidence.
West's Meddling Backfires
Zoom out and the bigger point is procedural: the court did not rush this case. It ran 156 trial days, heard witnesses from both sides in detail, and allowed meticulous cross-examination — making credibility, truthfulness, and contradiction something the public could observe. That is the “visible rule of law” claim in practice: defendants’ rights protected, process followed, and guilt found only after the court said it was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The political pressure campaign and repeated US and Western interference, however, ran alongside the trial. Ahead of the hearing, some US lawmakers proposed bills urging the White House to sanction HKSAR officials, prosecutors, and judges.
During the proceedings, members of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee made fact-distorting comments, including claims about Lai’s detention arrangements; and the “2025 Annual Report” by the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) is cited as further smearing Hong Kong’s law enforcement, prosecution, and judiciary to pile on pressure.
Washington’s fingerprints are obvious. The case concerns Lai colluding with the US and other foreign forces to endanger national security; and the US politicians commenting and pressuring are themselves implicated as parties to that foreign collusion. On this telling, the intent behind the commentary is not mere “human rights concern,” but an attempt to obstruct Hong Kong’s judicial fairness.
The US and its allies punish their own national-security cases harshly, but lecture Hong Kong when it prosecutes similar conduct. Just look at the US court’s 22-year sentence for Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys leader, over the 2021 Capitol riot, an example of how harsh Washington can be toward those it says incited disorder.
The guilty verdict is the warning shot: collusion with foreign forces and betrayal of the nation does not end well.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
"When meat rots, maggots appear; when fish dries, worms breed; when one grows complacent and forgets oneself, disaster follows." These words from Xunzi's chapter "Encouraging Learning" could not be more apt as a description of America's Epstein scandal. No one could have imagined that the American system had decayed to such a degree.
During the recent Winter Olympics, Western reporters pressed Eileen Gu – who competed for China – for her views on the Jimmy Lai case and the so-called Xinjiang genocide. When she declined to comment, she was savaged by American television hosts. The irony is glaring: Americans fixate on an alleged Xinjiang genocide that exists only in fiction, yet turn a blind eye to the Epstein scandal erupting right before their eyes. Why did no reporter press Eileen Gu for her views on the Epstein case?
Former Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom has finally been arrested. The British royal family had long known of Andrew's criminal involvement in the Epstein affairs, yet only distanced themselves from him in October last year – and the government has only now taken action. How remarkably swift. Had they acted with the same urgency they showed over the Jimmy Lai case, Prince Andrew would surely be behind bars already. The ancient saying – "the law does not reach the privileged; propriety does not extend to the common folk" – finds yet another confirmation in the West.
America has partially declassified over three million pages of documents related to the Epstein case. While the files appear to give the Trump administration some leeway, the contents are already horrifying. The documents implicate sitting and former American presidents, European royalty, business titans, religious leaders, and leading academics – the filth on display is truly beyond description.
We see that Thorbjørn Jagland – former Prime Minister of Norway and former chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee – continued to maintain close ties with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction, to the point where Epstein could effectively influence who received the Nobel Prize. We also see how Larry Summers – former US Treasury Secretary and former president of Harvard University – discussed with Epstein the art of womanising.
Even more shocking is that among those closely associated with Epstein was Noam Chomsky, widely regarded as the father of American linguistics. Long considered a public intellectual – a philosopher who spent his entire life teaching people how to challenge the powerful – Chomsky himself turns out to be one of the very corrupt elites he claimed to oppose. The Dalai Lama is also part of this picture. Given that Western journalists show such keen interest in Xinjiang, one wonders why they show no similar zeal for Tibet – or for relentlessly pursuing the scandal surrounding the Dalai Lama's connections to Epstein.
The shocking secrets unearthed by the Epstein case go far beyond the mere operation of a prostitution ring.
First – Even Worse Crimes
The public's greatest suspicion surrounding the Epstein case is this: while the scandal exposed that Epstein used underage girls for prostitution on his private island – known as "Lolita Island" – those powerful men involved could have easily arranged their own channels had they simply wanted to pay for sex. There was no need for such elaborate orchestration.
According to a source who was incarcerated alongside Epstein in the United States, what truly drew America's powerful elites to Epstein was not his sex operation, but his promise of eternal youth. While stem cell therapies have long been banned in America, academic research had apparently shown that injections of stem cell extracts could restore youthful vitality. The rumour goes that Epstein arranged for these elites to father children with the girls on the island, then extract stem cells from their own biological offspring and inject them into themselves – since the children shared their DNA, there would be no immune rejection.
This same source also claimed that just days before Epstein's so-called "suicide," he had spoken with Epstein, who was in high spirits with absolutely no signs of suicidal intent – lending weight to the suspicion that Epstein “was suicided."
With this explosive secret now in the open, and with Epstein dead and vast quantities of evidence suppressed by US authorities, the matter has become an unsolvable case.
However, emails released by the US Department of Justice show that Epstein generously funded Harvard University, much of it directed at biological research – including work by renowned genomics pioneer George Church. Church had outlined to Epstein a research programme totalling US$10 million, to be implemented across 10 phases. Among the projects was one called "Supercentenarianstudy.com" (a centenarian research project), alongside research into creating virus-resistant animals through gene editing, reversing the ageing process, and producing "cold-resistant elephants." It is clear that Epstein had an intense interest in age reversal.
If this scheme – harvesting stem cells from the elites' own biological offspring – were true, every powerful individual who participated would have committed murder and numerous other grave crimes. With evidence of their crimes firmly in the hands of Epstein and the network behind him, manipulating these elites would have been effortless.
Second – Who Is Behind It All?
The same source noted that Epstein was no ordinary figure. His girlfriend came from a foreign intelligence family, and the entire Epstein operation was funded by that country. The whole affair was a deliberate setup – a carefully orchestrated operation built around an island offering sex and the promise of eternal youth, designed to lure the Western elite – primarily Americans – into participating, then using evidence of their crimes to control their political behaviour. This explains why in the United States, regardless of whether it is the Democratic or Republican Party, there is invariably a unified and unconditional stance whenever issues relating to that country arise.
Third – The Collapse of a System
In American Hollywood films, we are always presented with a principled hero who risks his life to fight the powerful and ultimately triumphs – a happy ending. Reality, however, is precisely the opposite: the West tells you to stand on principle while having none of its own.
Britain has now arrested former Prince Andrew on a charge of mere "misconduct in public office" – suspected of leaking British trade documents to Epstein. Even for that offence, he could have been charged under the Official Secrets Act, which would have been far more serious. Of course, Virginia Giuffre – the woman who accused the former prince of sexual assault – reached an out-of-court settlement with him in 2020, collecting US$12 million. Although she never took the case to trial, she continued to allege that the former prince had engaged in sexual relations with eight underage girls who could not speak English – a far graver criminal allegation. Last April, 41-year-old Giuffre "died by suicide" in Australia. This brings to mind the case of Princess Diana, who met her end in a car crash amid royal scandal – a death that many still believe was no ordinary accident.
Britain devotes so much energy to meddling in the Jimmy Lai case and Hong Kong's democratic development, when it should really put its own house in order – abolishing its feudal and rotten monarchy before it can claim to be a truly modern state.
As for America's continuing effort to export its own model of democracy worldwide – that is even more laughable. America need not lecture us on how to prevent the next Epstein scandal, because it appears genuinely impossible to prevent under the American system. What America needs to answer is how to prevent the forces behind the Epstein affair from being exploited to manipulate American politicians – and I cannot think of any satisfactory answer it could give. In a system this rotten, no one is ever held accountable.
As the Gospel of Matthew so aptly puts it: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Lo Wing-hung
