The Jurisprudence of the Jimmy Lai Case: Reshaping the Normative Logic of Hong Kong’s Social Decay Through Legal Procedures

In February 2026, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued its final judgment in the case of Jimmy Lai for conspiracy to collude with foreign forces, sentencing him to 20 years’ imprisonment. The proceedings spanned 156 days of public hearings, examined 2,220 pieces of evidence, and culminated in an 855-page judgment. This case is among the most emblematic judicial practices since the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law and exemplifies the rule of law’s normative function.

For a prolonged period, Hong Kong society has experienced normative disarray amid clashing values: illegal acts have been rebranded as “protests,” foreign interference reframed as “international support,” and the media’s role distorted by ideological confrontation. In this context, the Lai case systematically addressed these disorders through judicial authority, and its normative effects have served as an institutional anchor for reconstructing Hong Kong’s social norms.

From a legal-education perspective, judicial rulings have a socializing function: by formally condemning unlawful acts, they shape the public’s cognitive framework regarding legitimate behavior. The Lai case’s normative significance is especially evident in this respect.

Before 2019, Apple Daily employed selective reporting, visual rhetoric, and emotional mobilization to recast violent behavior as “mere protests,” thereby fostering a distorted cognitive schema among youths with underdeveloped legal consciousness. Among those arrested during the 2019 protests, more than 17% were under 18, and students accounted for nearly 40%. This phenomenon aligns with the “modeling effect” in social learning theory: when media leaders confer moral legitimacy on illegal acts, the rule-of-law concept is systematically undermined during youth socialization.

The court’s judgment made clear that Lai was not merely exercising free speech; he was organizing and intentionally colluding with foreign forces. His rhetoric on “protest” fundamentally conflicted with his conduct: while he incited youths to take to the streets with radical language, he sought to mitigate his own legal risks through asset transfers. The court’s adverse findings went beyond assigning criminal liability; they also demystified the discourse that had cloaked these actions. In sociological terms, the judgment functions as “institutional re-education,” conveying that illegal acts, even when justified by asserted values, cannot gain legitimacy within the rule-of-law framework. Reconstructing youth values begins with clearly delineated normative boundaries.

From a legal functionalist standpoint, the case reshapes media ethics on two levels: first, it rejects the erroneous claim that “virtuous motives absolve legal responsibility,” reaffirming that legal evaluation turns on conduct; second, it furnishes the media sector with operational guidelines grounded in judicial authority, stipulating that journalism must not transgress the fundamental norm of national security. For a society in which the media’s role has been significantly alienated, this normative restructuring is foundational to ethical renewal.

On procedural justice, the Lai proceedings offer compelling empirical support. External actors repeatedly characterized the case as a “political trial,” even circulating false claims about mistreatment. The record contradicts these assertions: first, the trial lasted 156 days, during which the defendant testified for 52 days; his defense counsel confirmed in court that his detention conditions and medical care met standards, and the defendant had “no complaints.” Second, the proceedings were public, attended by multiple foreign consular officials and representatives of international organizations. Third, three judges designated under the National Security Law deliberated with caution and unanimously found the defendant’s testimony contradictory and inconsistent with objective evidence. The 855-page judgment analyzed each of the 2,220 evidentiary items, demonstrating a density of reasoning and rigor that is exemplary even within common law practice.

In sum, the Lai case’s normative significance should not be assessed solely by the sentence imposed. From an integrated legal-sociological perspective, it represents an important institutional practice through which Hong Kong recalibrated norms after a period of value disarray, relying on the authority of law. It performed integrative functions across three domains—youth values, media professional ethics, and public confidence in the rule of law—through transparent procedures, rigorous legal reasoning, and clear normative declarations.

Reshaping social decay is a long-term historical process, and no single case can accomplish every institutional mission. Even so, the normative certainty offered by the Lai judgment has established a solid foundation for Hong Kong’s transition from radical opposition amid value pluralism to rational integration under a rule-of-law consensus. In this sense, the 855-page judgment is not only a legal reckoning with past unlawful conduct but also a guide to the values underpinning future social order.

Professor LAU Chi Pang

Member, Legislative Council, Hong Kong SAR

InsightSpeak

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

Chan Kayu

On February 9, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region High Court sentenced Jimmy Lai to 20 years in prison for two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiring to publish seditious publications. The Wall Street Journal, a long-time supporter of Jimmy Lai, promptly published an opinion piece titled “Jimmy Lai Gets a Death Sentence.” Setting aside the misleading headline, what caught the author's attention was the article's mention that five U.S. congressmen have nominated Jimmy Lai for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, stating that “no one deserves this award more than him.”

In my observation, this isn't the first time U.S. lawmakers have campaigned for Jimmy Lai's Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Yet despite annual nominations ending in failure, they persist with unwavering enthusiasm. This “relentless” stance invites reflection: What value does Jimmy Lai truly hold that warrants such “persistence”?

Driven by immense curiosity, the author investigated the source of these nominations—the website of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC). What emerged was a bittersweet revelation: the “honorable” U.S. lawmakers have never taken Jimmy Lai seriously! Their campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize for him is nothing short of an international farce! Why?

First, the nomination content remains utterly unoriginal year after year. In introductions typically under 200 words, U.S. lawmakers consistently describe Jimmy Lai using hollow phrases like “founder of Apple Daily” and “critic of the government.” The 2023 introduction, at a mere 48 words, was half as long as the one for Joshua Wong. This year saw a slight addition of hollow praise like “a global symbol of nonviolent resistance against authoritarianism” or “upholding peace, democracy, and the rule of law through free media.” Yet the writing remains as sloppy and perfunctory as ever, as if merely going through the motions to fulfill some obligation. This half-hearted approach is less an expression of “support” for Jimmy Lai and more a political performance and routine gesture.

Second, the number of co-signers is meager, and the same few individuals repeatedly appear. With over 500 members in the U.S. Congress, only 2 to 5 participated in nominating Jimmy Lai. Take 2024 as an example: only Christopher H. Smith and Jeffrey A. Merkley co-signed. In other years, it was mostly politicians like James P. McGovern and John Moolenaar, who have long held anti-China stances. More ironically, as long as the nomination list includes one Democratic and one Republican lawmaker, these politicians dare to claim the move represents a “bipartisan consensus.” This tactic of packaging the collusion of individuals as the opinion of the majority is undoubtedly a mockery of democratic procedures.

Most crucially, the nomination timing has repeatedly and deliberately missed the Nobel Peace Prize nomination deadline. According to the Nobel Peace Prize nomination rules, January 31st of each year is the deadline for nominating candidates for that year. As seasoned politicians, these prominent members of Congress should be well aware of this rule. Yet upon review, it was found that with the exception of 2024, all nominations by U.S. lawmakers for Jimmy Lai were submitted after the respective deadlines (e.g., the 2023 nomination was made on February 2, and the 2026 nomination on February 4). Anyone with basic knowledge understands this means such nominations are fundamentally ineligible for the award in the year they are submitted. This deliberate act of “late nomination” inevitably raises questions: Are these politicians genuinely “seeking honor” for Jimmy Lai, or are they using nominations as a pretext to interfere in China's internal affairs?

This annual nomination farce exposes the hypocrisy and impotence of certain Western powers' China strategy. The Nobel Peace Prize has extremely low nomination thresholds—university presidents and professors across disciplines can participate—yet even so, Jimmy Lai's nomination is treated with such carelessness. This inevitably raises the question: If Western politicians cannot even manage a symbolic award with proper diligence, how can they be expected to exert genuine pressure for “releasing Jimmy Lai”? Their support likely extends no further than mere “solidarity.” For Jimmy Lai and his supporters to still fantasize about external forces securing their acquittal is nothing short of wishful thinking. Wake up!