By NG Yin
When the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered its guilty verdict against Jimmy Lai and three companies linked to Apple Daily, it did more than issue a legally sound judgment beyond reproach. The ruling marked a defining moment in a prolonged test of the authority of the law amid fevered politicization and sustained external pressure. Its significance exceeds well beyond that of an individual criminal case. By responding not to slogans but to evidence, not to ideology but to law, the court reaffirmed a cornerstone principle of the legal system: no one can evade legal responsibility by virtue of political persuasion or social standing.
The manner in which the case was adjudicated speaks for itself. The trial unfolded over 156 days in open court, during which the judiciary examined an extensive body of evidence, including thousands of exhibits and tens of thousands of pages of documents. Numerous witnesses testified, and the defendant himself took the stand dozens of times, represented by a legal team comprising both local and overseas senior counsel. The proceedings were neither rushed nor perfunctory. On the contrary, they reflected a deliberate commitment to procedural fairness, adversarial balance, and transparency — hallmarks of the common law tradition.
In its judgment, the court set out in detail how it assessed the credibility of witnesses and the probative value of the evidence. All 14 prosecution witnesses were found to be honest and reliable, with their testimonies corroborated by extensive documentary and communication records. By contrast, the defendant's testimony was marked by inconsistencies and contradictions with objective evidence, leading the court to reject it. This assessment was not a matter of political judgement, but one of evidentiary discipline — a fundamental requirement of criminal adjudication.
Equally significant is what the court made clear the case was not about. The judgment explicitly rejected the notion that Lai was prosecuted for his political beliefs or personal convictions. Throughout the trial, the court confined its analysis to concrete actions supported by evidence that were found to endanger national security. Conduct predating the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL) was considered only insofar as it provided contextual background relevant to the charged offenses, not as an independent basis for conviction. Referring to Lai as D1 in the verdict, the court stated: "It has already been said but we emphasise again D1 is not on trial for his political views or beliefs. We stress that what D1 did or said pre-NSL is not the subject matter of the charges but is only background evidence relevant to the charges." This careful delineation reflects a restrained and principled application of the law, rather than an expansive or retroactive approach.
One of the most persistently distorted aspects of public commentary surrounding the case concerns Apple Daily itself. Certain foreign politicians and media outlets have portrayed the media outlet as an independent journalistic institution, framing the prosecution as an attack on press freedom. The court's findings, grounded firmly in evidence, tell a very different story.
The trial established that Lai was neither a distant proprietor nor a passive shareholder. He exercised substantive, ongoing, and decisive control over the newspaper's editorial direction and operations. Evidence showed that he personally conveyed his political views to senior management and required those views to be reflected in news reporting and commentary. Key editorial appointments were subject to his approval, and Lai repeatedly emphasized his authority as the "boss", insisting that news events be selected, framed, and interpreted in accordance with his intentions. As the judgement states: "All of the witnesses from Apple Daily said in one voice that D1 was a dominating and hands-on boss whose political views expressed in the lunchbox meetings and in his articles directed the editorial policy and political outlook of Apple Daily." On this basis, the court concluded that Apple Daily did not operate as an independent media outlet exercising autonomous editorial judgments, but rather as a platform directed and instrumentalized by Lai himself.
Under this structure, Lai's media enterprise produced a substantial number of seditious articles, many of which were published after the national security legislation had come into effect. Some explicitly called for foreign sanctions against China and Hong Kong. Based on these concrete facts and the underlying decision-making mechanism, the court determined that Apple Daily had engaged in unlawful conduct unrelated to normal journalistic activity. The focus of the case, therefore, was not "whether criticism is allowed," but "whether media platforms were used to carry out acts prohibited by law." This distinction is critical. The case was not about suppressing dissenting views; it was about holding accountable those who used media operations as vehicles for unlawful conduct.
The judgment also addressed, with clarity, the legal boundaries of press freedom. International human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as established jurisprudence, consistently recognize that freedom of expression is not absolute. Journalists and media organizations enjoy protection only when they act in good faith, adhere to principles of responsible journalism, and respect legitimate restrictions necessary to protect national security and public order. To suggest that press freedom confers immunity from the law is to misrepresent both international norms and domestic legal principles.
Despite the court's detailed reasoning, some external actors continued to substitute political rhetoric for legal analysis. Some ignored the contents of the judgment altogether, while others resorted to labeling and moral posturing. More troublingly, certain foreign politicians openly threatened sanctions against judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials involved in the case — an overt attempt to intimidate the judiciary and pervert the course of justice. Such conduct stands in stark contradiction to their professed commitment to judicial independence and the rule of law. Meanwhile, claims about the defendant's treatment in custody were deployed to divert attention from the substance of the case. In fact, custodial authorities provided appropriate care and treatment in accordance with established procedures. The politicization and sensationalization of custodial arrangements served only to obscure the central legal issues addressed by the court.
Ultimately, at the heart of this case lies a simple but essential question: Can the law prevail under pressure and be equitably applied? In this instance, the High Court delivered a clear and principled response grounded in facts and legal reasoning, with a judgment affirming not certain political convictions, but the authority and integrity of the law itself.
The rule of law is never sustained by slogans. It is upheld through institutions that apply legal principles consistently, even in the face of pressure. In this much-publicized case, Hong Kong's judiciary demonstrated that it remains capable of doing precisely that. By grounding its decision in evidence, legal reasoning, and procedural fairness, the court reaffirmed that justice can be administered only through facts and law. Only in this way can society maintain order amid disagreement and uphold justice amid dispute.
(The author is the Founding Deputy Chairman of International Legal Commercial Elites Association and a Member of Central and Western District Council.)
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Related News:
Deepline | 'If Jimmy Lai had prevailed, the US would have stormed in'
Comment