The London-based barrister Caoilfhionn Gallagher, King’s Counsel, heads a group of five barristers from Doughty Street Chambers, styling itself “Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s international legal team”. Although it is not known who foots their bills, which must be huge, she regularly appears with Lai’s son, Sebastien. They spend their days drumming up support for Lai in foreign parts and seeking his release, even though he is currently undergoing trial in the Court of First Instance on grave charges alleging collusion with foreign powers to endanger national security.

Although the trial of the Apple Daily founder is in its final stages (the evidence concluded on March 7), Gallagher is still organizing stunts to sensationalize Lai’s situation, naively imagining it may somehow avail him. Previous efforts have included petitioning the United Nations, lobbying politicians, and making common cause with the likes of Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China propaganda outfit. However, Gallagher has now excelled herself, albeit still grabbing at straws.

On May 21, with Sebastien and others in tow, Gallagher held a press conference to announce her latest ruse. A letter had been sent to the British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, urging him and his government “to take urgent steps to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, before it is too late”. It was signed by 22 individuals described as “survivors of arbitrary detention and their families”.

As the letter was factually inaccurate and legally flawed, it beggars belief that Gallagher, an experienced lawyer with four other barristers to assist her, could have trumpeted its contents.

As she well knew, a defendant cannot suddenly be released while being tried, and there was no way the judges trying Lai could release him before the verdict. It cannot happen in criminal cases in the United Kingdom, and it cannot happen in Hong Kong. Although the signatories may not have known this, Gallagher’s team must have, meaning the letter was just another example of their grandstanding (or singing for their supper).

Although the signatories pointed to Lai having been detained for several years, Starmer was not told the reason why. The impression was deliberately given that it was related to his national security trial, which was not the case. On Dec 10, 2022, Lai was sentenced to five years and nine months imprisonment for two fraud offenses, with the trial judge saying a deterrent sentence was required, and he is still serving that sentence. As Starmer, also a barrister, will hopefully tell Gallagher, the letter’s failure to disclose this vital information smacked of what, in legal circles, is known as “material non-disclosure”.

The signatories, moreover, complained about Lai being held in solitary confinement, a bogus point previously labored ad nauseam by Gallagher. It has been known for some time that Lai has chosen, for reasons best known to himself, not to mingle with the general prison population, with his desire for segregation being respected. If he wanted to mix with the other prisoners, there is no reason to suppose the authorities would not arrange it.

Although the signatories highlighted Lai’s age (77) and shared his family’s “grave concern for his well-being”, they did not inform Starmer that his health needs were being adequately addressed. As the Correctional Services Department (CSD) has explained, Lai receives regular medical checkups.

Indeed, the prison rules require necessary and appropriate medical services to be provided to everybody in the CSD’s care. Every correctional institution has a hospital or sick bay where medical services are provided to prisoners by doctors and correctional staff with professional nursing qualifications. Anybody, including Lai, who requires specialist treatment, intensive care or surgery, receives it in a public hospital.

Although the signatories sought Starmer’s support because Lai “now faces the oppressive temperatures of a Hong Kong summer”, with imprisonment posing “a real threat to (his) life”, this was shamelessly scraping the bottom of the barrel. There are other prisoners far older than Lai, and nobody can expect to be released from prison simply because the weather heats up in summer (or cools down in winter). As Gallagher must know, no common law jurisdiction treats a change in temperature as a justification for releasing a criminal, and Hong Kong is no exception.

Not surprisingly, another crucial piece of information withheld from Starmer was the statement last year about Lai’s health situation from Robertsons, his Hong Kong solicitors. On Sept 27, 2024, on their client’s instructions, Robertsons announced he was being properly treated in detention (and had access to sunlight, contrary to what the UN had been told). They stated, “Mr Lai wishes to make known that he has been receiving appropriate medical attention for conditions suffered by him, including diabetes”.    

The letter, therefore, was a crude attempt to pull the wool over Starmer’s eyes. He undoubtedly deserved better than that from Doughty Street Chambers, and the credibility of those responsible is zero. Whatever attempts are made to mislead Starmer and others about Lai’s situation and derail his trial, the wheels of justice will continue to turn, and justice will ultimately be done.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.