A Judicial Trial That Does Not Stand Up to Scrutiny

 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!

InsightSpeak

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Dear President Trump,

We Hong Kongers are shocked to learn that you, of all people, would claim to raise the subject of releasing Jimmy Lai during your much anticipated China visit. Jimmy Lai is not a champion of media freedom but a disgraced fake news propagator and convicted criminal. People around the world know you as a champion against fake news media and their malicious influence in politics. Therefore, we implore you to see through the lies and tricks of biased politicians and the media they control, so that you may form a well-informed judgment on this matter.

Since 2016, you have endured relentless attacks from fake news outlets backed by your political opponents. You have repeatedly called out The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN as dishonest, corrupt, and phony. As you said last year: “I actually believe it’s seditious, perhaps even treasonous, for The New York Times, and others, to consistently do FAKE reports in order to libel and demean ‘THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.’ They are true Enemies of the People, and we should do something about it.” No one understands better than you the damage fake news has done to America’s national security, social trust, and public well-being. You have been deeply hurt by misinformation, smeared by untruthful journalism, and seen your country’s security threatened by these media outlets. We firmly sympathize with you.

Yet, you have been profoundly misinformed about Jimmy Lai. The man you pleaded for is the mastermind behind decades of fake news and malicious political influence in Hong Kong. What he has done here dwarfs even the actions of outlets like CNN in the United States. His media group Next Digital and his newspaper Apple Daily spent years spreading vulgar misinformation, inciting hatred among Hong Kong people toward Hong Kong government and China’s central government, and advocating for international sanctions against China. His influence was directly behind the 2019 social unrest in Hong Kong, where misled citizens were instigated to join violent insurrections—like how Antifa terrorists, supported by radical left-wing media, have terrorized American cities. Lai and his media puppets notoriously churned out lies that Hong Kong’s police force has killed demonstrators, when it was masked rioters who used violence on both law enforcement officers and civilians. It was our city’s great misfortune that many peaceful folks were incited by Lai’s lies and participated in riots, many of them would later regret their mistakes.

As made clear by court rulings, Jimmy Lai has always used his media outlets as political tools, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing China’s central government. By plunging Hong Kong into chaos, he expected US and other Western countries to intervene and help him achieve his goal. For years, Jimmy Lai has tried to drag the United States into a direct and prolonged confrontation with China over Hong Kong, which would severely harm the interests of American investors in Asia. All these outrageous crimes just to realize his own twisted political ambitions. Lai’s actions have gone way beyond the scopes of freedom of expression, and have done tremendous damage to China’s national security, productive US-China relationship, and world peace.

As you can see, Jimmy Lai is no champion of media freedom or human rights. He is a dangerous demagogue who manipulates fake news to destabilize his country. His actions, in your own words, are “insidious” and “treasonous.” Imagine if someone in America openly sought support from another country to overthrow the U.S. constitution—surely neither you nor the American justice system would let them walk free.

Jimmy Lai’s trial was conducted over 150 days, with both prosecution and defense given full opportunity to present their cases. The judicial process was sound, transparent, and met all common law standards. The evidence against him, as detailed in the verdict, is irrefutable. Western media’s misinformation about his so-called “poor health” has also been debunked by his fine appearance in court.

Jimmy Lai’s trial marks a milestone in the global fight against fake news and its malicious political influence. As perpetrators like Lai are brought to justice, we can look forward to a healthier media environment—one purged of rampant misinformation, where journalism returns to its impartial roots. Hong Kong’s court has waged the same righteous battle against fake news as you had in America. Surely, you of all people understand that releasing a convicted criminal would undermine the rule of law.

Dear President Trump, we earnestly urge you to recognize Jimmy Lai for who he truly is and to refrain from     further pleas on behalf of this convicted criminal and insurrectionist. The United States and China can achieve great things together. Respecting Hong Kong’s judicial independence and China’s sovereignty would be a positive step toward that future. We trust you to do the right thing as you head to China for a historic summit.

Yours sincerely,

James Chan