Qing Ping
After Jimmy Lai was lawfully convicted by the High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for crimes including colluding with foreign forces and conspiring to publish seditious publication, some politicians in the United States and the West disregarded the facts, spreading false narratives such as "political prisoner" and "political prosecution." Such claims not only violate the fundamental principles of international law but also completely contradict the facts of the case and legal provisions. In reality, Jimmy Lai's actions seriously violated the Hong Kong National Security Law and local Hong Kong laws. His crimes are criminal offenses endangering national security, not "political dissent." The trial of his case represents the legitimate actions of Hong Kong's judicial authorities in safeguarding national security in accordance with the law, fully aligning with the fundamental principles of international law and standards of judicial justice.
Due to varying differences in ideology, political systems, laws, and policies among countries, there is no clear and unified standard for defining the concept of "political prisoner" in international law. However, through long-term international practice and academic consensus, basic criteria and exclusions have emerged. The definition of "political prisoner" revolves around two core principles: "peaceful expression" and "no harm to national security." Its application must satisfy two key conditions: first, the actions must be based on the expression of political beliefs and must not involve violence; second, they must not severely endanger national security, public interests, or the lawful rights and interests of others, exhibiting clear "altruistic" and "peaceful" characteristics. Actions such as endangering national security and colluding with foreign forces have long been excluded by the international community from the category of "political prisoners."
Jimmy Lai's actions are entirely inconsistent with the core connotations of a "political prisoner."
In terms of the nature of his actions, Jimmy Lai's conduct was not "peaceful political expression" but rather criminal acts seriously endangering national security. The core feature of a "political prisoner" is the peaceful expression of political beliefs without harming national security, public interests, or the lawful rights of others. In contrast, Jimmy Lai's collusion with foreign forces, as stipulated in Article 29 of the Hong Kong National Security Law, constitutes a serious crime such as "imposing sanction or blockade, or engaging in other hostile activities against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the People's Republic of China." This directly infringes upon national sovereignty, security, and development interests, undermines Hong Kongs prosperity and stability, and completely deviates from the "peaceful" and "altruistic" characteristics of a "political prisoner." Such actions would be classified as criminal offenses in any country and are far from so-called "political dissent."
From the perspective of international law exclusion rules, Jimmy Lai's crimes fall outside the category of "political prisoners." His acts of colluding with foreign forces and endangering national security meet the constituent elements of crimes under the Hong Kong National Security Law, clearly excluding him from the "political prisoner" category. Moreover, foreign forces nurturing Jimmy Lai as an agent to oppose China and destabilize Hong Kong, and funding activities to disrupt Hong Kong, violate the fundamental international law principle of "non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries." Acts such as treason and collusion with foreign forces are universally and severely targeted by criminal laws across nations and are by no means so-called "political prosecutions."
In terms of judicial procedures, the trial of Jimmy Lai's case was completely fair, just, and transparent, with no political motives involved. The Hong Kong National Security Law explicitly guarantees litigation the right to fair trials and the right to defense, and the trial of Jimmy Lai's case strictly adhered to these provisions. The court proceedings were entirely open, with Jimmy Lai himself testifying for 52 days. He enjoyed full defense rights, all parties had legal representation, and no party raised issues of unfair treatment. The court ultimately issued a publicly available 855-page judgment detailing the application of law and evidence analysis, fully complying with Hong Kongs common law judicial procedures. The so-called "political prosecution" narrative is both a deliberate smear against the independence of Hong Kongs judiciary and a disregard for the principles of judicial justice in international law.
Using the concept of "political prisoner" to recklessly interfere in the internal affairs of other countries is shameless and despicable.
The original intent of establishing the concept of "political prisoner" in international law was to provide humanitarian protection for individuals who have committed crimes but possess legitimate political purposes, shielding them from persecution while safeguarding the sovereign interests of nations. At the same time, every country has the right to combat crimes endangering national security, a legitimate right that no external forces should interfere with or smear.
However, a few countries, groups, or individuals, to achieve ulterior political motives, exploit the ambiguous concept of "political prisoner" to exonerate their political agents. Under the guise of "human rights" "democracy" and "freedom" they recklessly interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and hinder the independent exercise of judicial power. This despicable conduct has long been seen through by people around the world and is destined to face firm opposition and complete failure, ultimately being condemned to the pillar of historical shame.
Safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and development interests is the highest principle of the "one country, two systems" policy. Any attempt to portray Jimmy Lai as a "political prisoner" or distort the lawful trial as a "political prosecution" is a deliberate distortion of facts and a blatant disregard for international rules. The implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the fair trial of related cases are not only essential requirements for safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and development interests but also a cornerstone for protecting the lawful rights and interests of Hong Kong residents and ensuring long-term stability and prosperity in Hong Kong. This is beyond dispute.
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!
