Lai’s legal team and the three presiding High Court judges found themselves locked in a spirited debate, parsing the fine line between free expression and alleged conspiracy
Newsroom (21/08/2025, Gaudium Press ) In the hallowed halls of West Kowloon Court, the trial of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, the embattled Catholic founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily, continues to unfold as a profound test of justice under Hong Kong’s national security law. On Thursday, Lai’s legal team and the three presiding High Court judges found themselves locked in a spirited debate, parsing the fine line between free expression and alleged conspiracy. The courtroom drama, steeped in moral and legal complexity, raises questions not only about Lai’s fate but also about the broader struggle for truth and freedom in a city under Beijing’s tightening grip.
Lai, 77, stands accused of two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious articles. Prosecutors allege that between April 2019 and June 2021, Lai wielded his media empire and social media presence to incite Western sanctions against China and sow discord against Hong Kong authorities. Since his arrest and denial of bail in December 2020, Lai has remained in custody, a figure both vilified and venerated—a modern-day martyr to some, a provocateur to others.
At the heart of Thursday’s proceedings was the defense’s closing argument, led by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung. Pang sought to reframe Lai’s outspoken critiques of Beijing as mere “armchair punditry,” the musings of a concerned citizen rather than the machinations of a conspirator. He argued that Lai’s comments, often sharp and critical, were not explicit calls for foreign interference but rather expressions of a man grappling with the erosion of freedoms in his beloved Hong Kong. “If you take it neutrally, he’s concerned with human rights, he’s being careful with his words,” Pang told the court. “How can you draw the inference, not that he was just requesting sanctions, but that he was part of a conspiracy to do so?”
Pang pointed to specific instances, such as Lai’s July 2020 text to Mary Kissel, a former aide to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in which Lai endorsed Washington’s decision to revoke Hong Kong’s preferential trade status. The defense argued this was not a call for sanctions but a commentary on a policy shift that merely leveled Hong Kong’s trade status to that of mainland China. Similarly, Lai’s social media posts on U.S. sanctions against Hong Kong officials were dismissed as the “musings of an old man” interested in global affairs, not a calculated effort to destabilize.
Yet the three-judge panel, led by Madam Justice Susana D’Almada Remedios, appeared unmoved by the defense’s attempt to isolate Lai’s statements. Justice D’Almada cautioned against cherry-picking evidence, insisting that the court must consider the totality of Lai’s actions and words. Justice Esther Toh Lye-ping zeroed in on Lai’s online program, Live Chat with Jimmy Lai, where he made provocative remarks, including a call for Chinese President Xi Jinping to step down and a comparison of China’s global influence to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang noted a “consistent and common theme” of hostility toward the mainland in Lai’s rhetoric, challenging the defense’s portrayal of innocent commentary.
For Catholics watching this trial, Lai’s plight resonates deeply. A devout convert, Lai has often framed his activism as a moral stand, rooted in the Church’s teachings on human dignity and justice. His Apple Daily championed the marginalized and held power to account, embodying the Christian call to speak truth to power. Yet prosecutors paint a different picture, accusing Lai of funneling financial support to the “Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong” lobbying group to provoke Western hostility toward China. The prosecution’s case hinges on Lai’s alleged resolve to pursue foreign sanctions even after the national security law’s enactment in June 2020, a charge Pang dismissed as an “inherent improbability” given the law’s severe penalties.
As the defense’s closing arguments spill into Friday, the trial remains a crucible for Hong Kong’s soul. Lai’s case is more than a legal battle; it is a referendum on the city’s vanishing freedoms and a test of whether dissent can coexist with Beijing’s vision of order. For the faithful, it is a reminder of the cost of bearing witness in a world that often punishes truth-tellers. As the judges weigh Lai’s words—whether they were cries of conscience or veiled calls to action—the world watches, praying for justice in a city where it grows ever scarcer.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from SCMP
Related Images:
