Jimmy Lai trial: Justice seen is justice done

The conclusion of the Jimmy Lai Chee-ying trial, which lasted 156 days, was a showcase on law and order in Hong Kong and showed that justice seen is justice done.

A panel of three judges – Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee – delivered their verdict on Monday that Jimmy Lai was guilty of national security charges involving two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to print seditious articles.

In their ruling, detailed in an 855-page document, the judges said Lai was the “mastermind” behind the conspiracies, with his sole intent was to “seek the downfall” of the ruling Communist Party.

The trial, which spanned two years (December 2023-2025), with breaks in between, drew international attention through a global campaign by his son, Sebastien, and his team of public relations cum legal experts, Doughty Street Chambers, of London.

They kept the story alive visiting world leaders and TV networks pleading for Lai senior’s release from custody citing poor health. And they got the sound bites they wanted, but the end result was useless. Jimmy Lai was found guilty as charged and could face life imprisonment, the maximum penalty for collusion.

Before passing sentence, the judges will hear mitigating arguments from Lai’s solicitors on January 12 as to why he should be sentenced and if so for a minimum period. They will surely use Lai’s deteriorating health as their main argument.

After the mitigating hearing, which is expected to last about a week, the judges will retire to decide Lai’s fate.

An interesting aspect of the trial is its open transparency. Although Hong Kong is rated 6th in the Asia/Pacific region and 24th out of 143 countries worldwide by the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, the Lai lobbyists branded the High Court as a “sham court.”

The territory’s prosecuting office and the Chief Executive decided on a three-member panel of judges to hear the case instead of going for a full jury hearing. The reason is obvious: it would be difficult to find a seven- or 12-member panel of ordinary citizens who had not heard of the Jimmy Lai arrest and formed an opinion before the trial started.

The courtroom was specially configured to allow 58 seats in the public gallery and another 42 for the press in the main courtroom. Of those, 21 are allocated to local media, 14 to international outlets and seven to digital news platforms.

A group of about 16 western diplomats arrived at the court at around 8.20am on Monday morning with representatives from the UK, the US, the EU and Canada among them to hear the verdict and report back to their respective foreign ministers. Most of them attended the hearings every day to observe the fairness of the court. Never has a Hong Kong court hearing been under such intense scrutiny.

It could not be more transparent. It was open to the world. From the first day that prosecution witnesses gave their evidence to the closing remarks by the defendant, the foreign diplomats and international press were there recording every word spoken.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to call it a “sham court” and international reaction will be interesting. Their comments could implicate their complicity in Lai’s masterplan to overthrow the Chinese government.

Speaking outside the West Kowloon Law Courts Building on Monday, shortly after the guilty verdict was delivered, Chief Superintendent Steve Li Kwai-wah of the police force’s National Security Department said Lai’s conviction was “justice served.”

Lai “exploited his media enterprise” and used his wealth and “extensive foreign political connections” to collude with foreign powers, Li said.

His views were echoed by Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung who believed that the trial illustrates how safe Hong Kong is and how we are able to interdict all the national security concerns and all the attempts to affect the national security. “I think this is a good showcase to show that Hong Kong is safe and it is safe to do investments in Hong Kong,” he said.

Indeed. The Jimmy Lai trial was a showcase on how Hong Kong’s rule of law and judicial prudence can shape the city to make it the Pearl of the Orient.

Mark Pinkstone

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

So, the European Parliament has decreed that convicted felon Jimmy Lai should be set free to roam the streets of Hong Kong as if nothing happened. Their decree totally disregards a 855-page conviction reading in a court, with a higher ranking than the US, against Lai who now awaits sentencing.

Of course, the Hong Kong and Beijing authorities have condemned the ruling. The Hong Kong government and China’s Foreign Ministry strongly opposed the resolution, calling it an "interference in internal affairs" and a "misinterpretation" of Hong Kong’s legal system. They emphasized that the judiciary operates independently and that Lai’s trial was based on factual evidence. The officials stated that the resolution was politically motivated and did not conform to international law.

The Europeans are under the false impression that Lai was prosecuted for “freedom of expression and democracy in Hong Kong”, a fallacy carefully orchestrated by a multi-million-dollar publicity campaign.

The people of Hong Kong are fed up with the Jimmy Lai case so-much-so that the Legislative Council took the unusual step by issuing a statement that all members fully support the statements issued by the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong and the HKSAR Government, and firmly believe that the HKSAR Government will resolutely implement the national security laws, while protecting the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents under the “one country, two systems” principle.

What was telling during the debate was that the swaying arguments were presented by Lai’s dutiful son Sebastien and his public relations-cum-legal advisor Caoilfhionn Gallagher, KC. There was no input from the Hong Kong side, which presumably, did not recognise the debate. It was, after all a non-binding resolution and served merely for its publicity value.

Gallagher and her team including another KC, Jonathan Price, are fully aware of the law and know very well that they have crossed the red line by undermining Hong Kong’s legal system. Gallagher continually calls it a “sham or show” trial with full knowledge that the city’s judiciary ranks among the highest in the world. (The World Justice Project released the Rule of Law Index 2025 and Hong Kong's ranking in the Index continues to be 6th in East Asia and the Pacific, and 24th out of 143 countries and jurisdictions globally, two points above the US). It is generally a no-no for the legal profession to criticize the judiciary.

The parliamentary session in Strasbourg, France called for European Union members to suspend extradition treaties with mainland China and Hong Kong, in addition to calling for the European Commission to initiate the suspension of the city's status under the World Trade Organization (WTO). Hong Kong has been a member of the WTO in its own right since its founding in 1995 and will continue to do so. There is no way in which the WTO will suspend Hong Kong’s membership. The resolution is a tall order that means nothing. Of the 720-strong parliament, 503 voted in favour of the resolution, nine against and 100 abstentions.

It was obvious that none of those who voted in favour of the resolution had read the conviction notes of three High Court judges who found Lai guilty of sedition-related charges. If they had, they would have voted against the resolution.

However, publicity was minimal and it is understood it received no traction what-so-ever within Europe. The press releases were issued by Gallagher’s law firm of Doughty Street Chambers in London and reached only a handful of papers in the UK and the wire services to reach Hong Kong.

The resolution on ‘The conviction and imminent sentencing of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong’ is the fourth time that the European Parliament has formally raised the Jimmy Lai detention at the behest of Gallagher and her team. And each time it gets nowhere as the parliament itself has no teeth, except for being a public relations vehicle.