Leung Ngar-ki, a member of Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies
On 15 December 2025, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered its final verdict: Jimmy Lai was found guilty on two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security, and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious publications. The 855-page judgment explicitly stated his testimony was "inconsistent, evasive and not credible". Confronted with the prosecution's comprehensive chain of evidence presented in an 860-page written closing argument, comprising 2,222 items of evidence and over 80,000 pages of trial records, alongside irrefutable testimony from six former Apple Daily executives who pleaded guilty in the same case, the lies of this anti-China, pro-Hong Kong chaos instigator were exposed one by one. He has become an "absurd and despicable liar" despised by all Hong Kong citizens.
"Analysing the situation" became "stating facts", with contradictory statements on sanctions backfiring. In earlier live broadcasts, Jimmy Lai brazenly called on Germany, Australia, Canada and others to ally with the US in sanctioning China. He even boasted that "war threats" would cause "businessmen to suspend investment in China, putting its economy at risk of collapse", describing Hong Kong as a pawn for the West to counterbalance China. Yet when questioned about this in court, he immediately backtracked, claiming he was merely "analysing the global situation" and certainly not advocating sanctions. More outrageously, during a dialogue with the former chair of the American Institute in Taiwan, he extensively discussed "Taiwan's security dependence on the US" and "Taiwan being an excellent lever... the US and all free world nations must jointly support preserving Taiwan's status." Yet in court, he defended this as merely "stating facts that have already occurred," denying any advocacy for a "US-Taiwan alliance." His legal assistant, Wayland Chan Tsz-wah, directly testified that "without Jimmy Lai, there would be no political connections in the US and elsewhere to unify international efforts towards sanctions," accusing Lai of seeking foreign sanctions to precipitate China's political and economic collapse. Lai had allegedly boasted that "China's GDP would plummet by 40%, presenting the perfect opportunity to introduce American-style democracy." While actively stoking the flames by calling for foreign intervention, he vehemently denied soliciting hostile actions. This self-contradictory sophistry crumbled before audio-visual evidence and witness testimony.
"Forgotten" became his catchphrase, while the mastermind turned into a hands-off manager – utterly preposterous. During his court defence, Jimmy Lai frequently suffered "memory lapses," responding to multiple critical questions with "I don't know," "I don't recall," or "I'm not familiar with." Even when the prosecution presented meticulously organised evidence tables following a timeline, he claimed amnesia about his communications with former senior staff of Apple Daily. The testimony of Next Media's former Chief Executive, Cheung Kim-hung, directly exposed these falsehoods. Jimmy Lai was the founder and "helmsman" of Apple Daily, as well as the supreme leader and ultimate decision-maker of the Next Media Group. He dictated editorial and publishing policies, directing editorial direction through "lunchbox meetings". Following the 2014 illegal Occupy Central movement, he transformed the newspaper into a bastion of "anti-government and anti-central authority" sentiment. Former Apple Daily Deputy Publisher Chan Pui-man further testified that his management style was "so overbearing that no one dared refuse", and after the 2019 Legislative Council riots, he explicitly ordered "the public must be persuaded to support the protest movement". Yet in court, Jimmy Lai feigned ignorance, claiming his directives were "merely suggestions, not coercion," attempting to downplay his editorial responsibility. This charade of "masterminding while feigning amnesia" treats the courtroom as a stage, constituting a blatant disregard for the dignity of the law.
"Opposing violence" while condoning it: editorial directives expose true intentions. Jimmy Lai repeatedly professes his stance against violence, claiming articles were "heartfelt" reflections of reality. Yet trial evidence reveals that during the 2019 extradition bill protests, he issued editorial directives instructing staff to report with "sympathy" on young people storming the Legislative Council. He even messaged pan-democrats inquiring about "follow-up actions to sustain the protests." More ironically, while urging Hong Kongers to "lobby for international support," he denied inciting hatred against the government. He admitted hoping to force the SAR government to compromise through "numbers and momentum," yet claimed no incitement intent. This double standard of "saying one thing and doing another" exposed his true role in using the media to fan the flames and condone violence.
His "unaware" stance swiftly transformed into "strong support," yet colluding with external falsehoods proved untenable. Confronted with evidence of his ties to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and the Stand with Hong Kong Team (SWHK), Jimmy Lai initially falsely claimed "no knowledge of these organisations," only for social media posts to directly contradict him. Posts on Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai's personal social media accounts reveal his repeated public endorsement of IPAC, expressing strong support for its advocated "sanctions". Not only did Jimmy Lai establish an overseas network through his personal assistant, former CIA agent Mark Simon, frequently travelling to the US to meet politicians including then-Vice President Mike Pence and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to plead for "sanctions" against the Chinese government and the Hong Kong SAR government, he also instructed Apple Daily executives to compile a "sanctions list", and even after the Hong Kong National Security Law came into effect, he continued to declare he would "go all the way, no turning back." Yet in court, he argued he "was not requesting sanctions." Such contradictory justifications, exposed by cross-border lobbying communications and witness testimony, have become utterly laughable.
The rule of law has ultimately exposed these falsehoods, and those who oppose China and disrupt Hong Kong cannot escape justice. Jimmy Lai's conduct during the trial could be described as a veritable "record of lies." From his inconsistent statements on sanctions, to the tired ploy of feigning amnesia, to his outright denial of colluding with external forces, each contradiction was exposed by irrefutable evidence. The rule of law is Hong Kong's core value and a vital cornerstone for the steady and enduring implementation of "one country, two systems". The 855-page judgment and overwhelming evidence not only substantiated Jimmy Lai's multiple offences but also exposed the deceitful nature concealed beneath his masks as a "democratic fighter" and "guardian of journalism". The dignity of Hong Kong's rule of law shall not be transgressed. National security and Hong Kong's fundamental interests shall be robustly safeguarded under the steadfast protection of the law.
InsightSpeak
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Liang Yaqi, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies
On 7 May 2026, the Central Criminal Court in London delivered its verdict on Chung Biu Yuen, Administrative Manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, and Chi Leung Wai, a former UK border official. This first national security case to be heard under the UK National Security Act 2023 has been marred by an air of irregularity from start to finish: persistent procedural flaws, a fragile chain of evidence and numerous inconsistencies have led many to question whether this was a fair trial or a carefully orchestrated political manoeuvre.
Preconceived notions shaped public perception, undermining procedural fairness. Even before the trial had formally commenced, the public discourse was already fraught with tension. Following the case’s first court appearance in 2024, a document purported to be a ‘summary of the charges’ circulated widely in the media. It disclosed in detail the defendant’s specific actions, included screenshots of CCTV footage from relevant activities, and even listed details concerning the London Economic and Trade Office’s involvement in the case, clearly intended to steer public attention towards the Office’s role. Some Hong Kong media outlets have questioned why, in the past, law enforcement agencies would typically handle indictments involving sensitive case details with great caution or even keep them confidential; the current situation appears rather unusual. Even before a jury has been selected and the formal trial has begun, the public and potential jurors have already been led by preconceived notions into a narrative of the case dominated by the prosecution. This directly crosses the red line set by Section 52(a) of the UK’s Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which prohibits the media from reporting content that may prejudice the defendant during the preliminary hearing stage. Before the defendants have even spoken, they have been labelled – this practice of ‘pre-conviction’ by the media is clearly extremely unfair to the defence and undermines procedural fairness.
The mysterious death of the third defendant has deepened the mystery surrounding the case. Even more chilling is the fact that shortly after the case was brought before the court, the third defendant, Matthew Trickett, a former Royal Marines serviceman, died under mysterious circumstances in a park. As a former soldier and an enforcement officer with the Home Office’s Immigration Service, Trickett could have provided crucial testimony to clarify whether the operation was ‘officially authorised’ or a private act. His sudden passing deprived the defence of a vital witness, preventing the full chain of evidence from being thoroughly examined in court and sparing the prosecution from the potential risks of cross-examination. Given the highly sensitive timing of his death, Trickett’s solicitor expressed shock at his passing, whilst some netizens have even suspected that he was “silenced”. Although the authorities have denied foul play, it is lamentable that the judicial process has been “streamlined” due to the death of a single individual.
The prosecution’s evidence was flimsy and unconvincing. Section 3 of the UK National Security Act 2023 stipulates that the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” requires proof that the act “is likely to substantially assist a foreign intelligence service”. Yet throughout the trial, the prosecution failed to present any fundamental evidence that the defendant’s actions had substantially harmed UK national security. The alleged acts cited by the prosecution—such as the defendant’s purported surveillance of Hong Kong residents, unauthorised access to immigration databases, and door-to-door “debt collection”—sound more like ordinary criminal offences. The prosecution essentially pieced together a case based on electronic evidence such as communication records and financial transactions, yet never produced irrefutable proof that the defendant engaged in “intelligence activities” that posed an actual security threat to the UK. Forcing ordinary behaviour to be elevated to the level of national security constitutes a “hat trick” that fails to convince.
The judge’s guidance was markedly biased, contravening her role of impartiality. Prior to the verdict, the judge’s instructions to the jury were also biased. She repeatedly emphasised the prosecution’s perspective regarding the admissibility of evidence and the assessment of witness credibility. For instance, although much of the evidence presented by the prosecution in court occurred before the UK National Security Act 2023 came into force—and should therefore not have retroactive effect—the judge reminded the jury that they could treat this as “background information” to understand the defendant’s network of contacts. Although the judge stated that such background information could not be used directly as a basis for conviction, and this appeared neutral on the surface, in reality it had already painted the defendant in a negative light. Furthermore, when the jury had deliberated for several days without reaching a ‘unanimous verdict’ on all charges against the defendant, the judge instructed that the standard be lowered from a ‘unanimous verdict’ to a ‘majority verdict’. Whilst this move was not unlawful, in such a highly sensitive national security case, might the proactive lowering of the threshold to facilitate a conviction give rise to public doubts regarding the impartiality of the trial? Might it create a negative perception that the judicial process is not sufficiently fair?
The jury’s deliberations were fraught with difficulties, and there appeared to be political pressure. The deliberation phase was marked by a series of setbacks: one juror was hospitalised due to ill health, whilst another requested to withdraw. Chi Leung Wai’s defence counsel at one point questioned whether this juror had been ‘bullied’ by other dissenting jurors; this was precisely why the judge instructed the jury that day to ‘respect differences of opinion but continue to work together to seek consensus’.After four days of deliberations, the jury had still failed to reach a “unanimous verdict”, indicating that it was struggling to reach a consensus on the facts of the case. It was not until the fifth day, following the judge’s instruction to lower the standard of the verdict, that the jury, after a protracted stalemate, barely met the minimum threshold of a 10-2 majority verdict on the charge of “assisting a foreign intelligence agency”, whilst they remained unable to reach a verdict on the charge of “foreign interference”. Whether this outcome truly reflects the jurors’ inner conviction or is merely a compromise born of prolonged pressure is a matter for reflection.
The UK National Security Act is defined in overly broad terms, making it highly susceptible to expansion and abuse. A review of the entire case process exposes the fundamental flaw of the UK National Security Act 2023, which is its extreme vagueness. The Act stipulates that the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” is committed whenever an act is likely to assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out activities relating to the UK; the definition of a foreign intelligence service is even broader, encompassing any person conducting intelligence activities for or on behalf of a foreign state. It is clear that the threshold for the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” is so low that it could encompass many ordinary activities. Even Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer appointed by the UK Home Secretary, has publicly stated that the relevant provisions of the UK National Security Act 2023 could extend to political, journalistic and other everyday activities, placing legitimate lobbying, journalistic investigations and even ordinary commercial activities at risk of criminalisation. He emphasised that the Act must be subject to oversight to prevent its “abuse and overreach”.
Ironically, the UK completely ignores the fact that its own national security provisions are vague and broadly applicable, and turns a blind eye to the various flaws in the adjudication of national security cases, yet it repeatedly criticises and meddles in the Hong Kong National Security Law. Such double standards appear particularly hypocritical and laughable. If the UK truly cares about the rule of law, it would do well to return to the principles of evidence-based adjudication and procedural justice, rectify errors in cases as soon as possible, and ensure that the judiciary does not become a mere appendage of politics, thereby trampling the spirit of the rule of law underfoot!
