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
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
