One thing was clearly apparent long before Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s verdict was delivered on Monday in Hong Kong: Certain officials, figures and institutions in Western countries had already decided the outcome was illegitimate, and they would oppose it no matter what, and subsequently frame his sentencing as a diminution of freedom and the rule of law in the city.

Lai, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper, was convicted under the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law of collusion with external forces to endanger national security by having used his influential position to lobby high-ranking officials in the United States to impose sanctions on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China as a whole. Lai had met with then-US secretary of state Mike Pompeo, an individual who we now understand has an extreme anti-China agenda; then-US national security adviser John Bolton, also an extreme hawk; and then-vice president Mike Pence. Lai was also convicted of sedition under the Crimes Ordinance for having published seditious publications.

These meetings were not speculative or the result of conspiracy theories; they were publicly visible, photographed and given widespread attention. Lai of course denied he urged them to sanction or take hostile actions against Hong Kong for the crackdown during the “black-clad” riots in 2019, but we must ask ourselves that if he denied doing so, what was the purpose of those meetings in Washington in the first place? Did Lai go to the highest officials in the US administration intending nothing? Feeling nothing? With no purpose? How does such a disposition make any sense?

The Sino-British Joint Declaration may require Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy to be respected, but that does not mean Britain continues to exert jurisdiction over the city, or that Hong Kong should be denied the same constitutional rights exercised by every other jurisdiction

After all, we can see how in the same period during the 2019-20 riots, Joshua Wong Chi-fung and other leading anti-government figures, who Lai supported, also traveled to Washington and actively lobbied the US Congress to impose sanctions on Hong Kong. Do you think that Lai disagreed with that, or was not a party to that agenda? Do you think for one moment, when the US imposed sanctions on Hong Kong officials, that Lai opposed them? After all, I remember Lai’s discourse on X (previously Twitter) very well. He spoke about China as if it were an unwanted foreign entity. When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, he actively promoted the notion that the pandemic was a form of divine retribution against the country that mirrored the calamities of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911).

As the judges in Hong Kong noted, Lai had an overwhelming hatred of the People’s Republic of China, and in the 855-page verdict — something not to be taken lightly — it was obvious what he intended to do. Despite this, the immediate response of the British and US governments and their allies was to effectively dismiss it all as a “show trial”, “politically motivated”, or “suppression of press freedom”. We must ask ourselves: Would the United Kingdom, or the US, tolerate one of its own media moguls collaborating with the heads of state of hostile foreign powers to stir up dissent and undermine the state? This answer should be obvious.

Imagine if the editor of a major British newspaper went to a certain country in Europe that is currently at loggerheads with the UK and met its head of state. It would possibly be a career-ending move. In fact, British police and authorities sometimes subject people to interrogations even if they as much as visit that country, and this plays into a broader sentiment of paranoia present in contemporary British politics.

In recent months, the UK has seen a former elected official imprisoned for receiving bribes to make pro-Russia speeches in the European Parliament, which created mass hysteria over foreign interference in British politics. If you questioned this, the UK would say it is within its sovereign rights to stop foreign powers interfering in its politics. This is correct. However, why aren’t those same rights afforded to Hong Kong? Why does the Hong Kong SAR have no right to take action against those clearly working with foreign powers to facilitate domestic unrest?

The UK is famous for jailing protesters, including if they advocate support for groups such as Palestine Action, yet this same government wants us to believe that Hong Kong should permit what it clearly prohibits itself. Thus, attempting to frame the Lai verdict as illegitimate is a challenge to the rule of law. The Sino-British Joint Declaration may require Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy to be respected, but that does not mean Britain continues to exert jurisdiction over the city, or that Hong Kong should be denied the same constitutional rights exercised by every other jurisdiction.

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.