Hong Kong is a society governed by the rule of law. Safeguarding national security is a matter of course. The high court’s conviction of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying in his national security trial according to the law is an important manifestation of the importance of defending national security and upholding equality before the law. It is of great significance for preventing, stopping, and punishing acts that endanger national security and for maintaining the authority of law.
According to Article 8 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong retains its previous legal system, including the common law. In accordance with Article 85 of the Basic Law, the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. In all criminal trials, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before the courts can convict a defendant.
The court proceedings were open, fair, and just. The court examined a huge volume of exhibits and evidence through a meticulous and rigorous process, reflecting the utmost transparency and impartiality.
Ample evidence presented in the court has proved that Lai was a main planner, financier, and participant in a series of activities aimed at destabilizing the Hong Kong SAR and opposing the Chinese nation. He acted in Hong Kong as an agent and pawn of anti-China external forces. The behavior and actions for which he was charged have absolutely nothing to do with “press freedom” but were activities aimed at harming the nation and the SAR under the guise of press freedom.
The judgment on Lai’s case was made in strict adherence to legal procedures and based on convincing evidence. It fully embodies the principles of the rule of law and judicial justice. The judgment was clearly articulated and logically and reasonably rigorous, demonstrating the firm stance and professional competence of Hong Kong’s judicial system in safeguarding national security.
The judgment upholds the principle of rule of law, adhering to the core of evidence. The court clearly pointed out in its judgment that the core of this trial was whether the defendant’s specific actions constituted offenses prohibited by law, and that Lai’s political views, or beliefs, were irrelevant in the trial. This fundamentally clarifies the basic principle of a society governed by the rule of law: The law punishes illegal acts and protects rights and freedoms exercised in accordance with the law. The entire trial process strictly adhered to the criminal standard of proof under the common law system, namely that the prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The court’s examination of the evidence was extremely rigorous. The prosecution witnesses all underwent extensive and in-depth cross-examination, and the reliability and credibility of their testimony was confirmed by the court. Crucially, the witness statements were strongly corroborated by a large amount of objective evidence, including WhatsApp and Signal messages and emails from the relevant period. These digital traces formed a solid evidential foundation, clearly reconstructing the course of events, enabling the court to accurately clarify disputes and reject unreliable and self-contradictory statements from the defense. The entire evidence review process fully demonstrated the propriety and seriousness of the judicial procedure.
The legal boundaries have become clearer for actions that endanger national security. Based on conclusive evidence, the judges determined that the defendant was not merely expressing opinions but was organizing and planning to use media platforms to persistently publish content that was objectively seditious, with the clear aim of inciting public hatred and contempt for the HKSAR government and inciting disaffection. More seriously, the court found that the defendant intentionally promoted and participated in an ongoing conspiracy before and after the enactment of the NSL, actively requesting foreign forces to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile acts against China and its HKSAR.
Evidence shows that even under the new circumstances where the legal risks were clear, the related activities did not stop; only the tactics adopted were more covert. The substantive intent and conduct endangering national security remained consistent. This behavior far exceeded the scope of legal rights such as press freedom and freedom of speech, directly crossing the red line of national security.
The judgement has further clarified legal liability to the great benefit of society. The court not only convicted the individual defendants according to law but also, based on the principle of “identification” (where the criminal intent of a company’s senior management can be attributed to the company), ruled that the involved companies must bear corresponding legal liability.
This indicates that no organizational entity can become a “protective shell” for acts endangering national security and must be responsible for its own actions. This judgment carries significant admonitory and educational meaning.
It clearly articulates to society that Hong Kong residents enjoy unprecedented rights and freedoms according to law, but these rights and freedoms are not without boundaries. Safeguarding national security is a statutory duty and responsibility incumbent upon every resident and organization. Any act carried out in the name of “freedom” that undermines national and the SAR’s interests will not be permitted by law.
All along, external forces and Western anti-China politicians, prioritizing politics over justice and rule of law, have rigorously defended Lai, distorting plain facts and demonstrating sheer double standards and hypocrisy. They have tried to intimidate the judges by persistently talking about slapping sanctions against them, such actions are allegedly violating offenses like “perverting the course of justice” and “contempt of court”, and contravene international law and the basic norms of international relations.
The HKSAR’s exercise of law enforcement, prosecution, and judicial powers over Lai in accordance with laws, including the NSL, is a legitimate measure to uphold the rule of law and is perfectly justified and beyond reproach.
The judgment in Lai’s case is the result of Hong Kong’s judicial authorities exercising adjudicative power independently in accordance with the law. It is a concrete manifestation of the effective implementation of the NSL.
The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and president of the Association for the Promotion of Rule of Law, Education and Technologies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
