On Dec 18, the trial of the former media magnate, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, will get underway in the Court of First Instance. He faces collusion charges under the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), and a three-judge panel will determine his fate.

At trial, Lai will enjoy all the protections traditionally accorded to defendants in common law jurisdictions. They include the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, and the ability to challenge the prosecution’s case. He will only be convicted if his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable, a fundamental safeguard.

Against this backdrop, a bizarre meeting took place in London on Dec 12 between the new British foreign secretary, Lord (David) Cameron, and Lai’s son, Sebastien, who campaigns globally on his father’s behalf. Although Cameron’s  predecessors had declined to meet Sebastien he was received by the Foreign Office. Even though it was a propaganda stunt, Cameron played along, undoubtedly as a sop to Conservative Party hawks.

According to the Foreign Office spokesman, Cameron met Sebastien Lai “to listen to his concerns for his father”, adding that “the UK opposes the NSL and will continue to stand by Jimmy Lai”. As Jimmy Lai holds British nationality, Cameron’s interest in the case is understandable, though his opposition to the NSL is not.

After all, the pot should not call the kettle black. The UK’s own National Security Act 2023, enacted in July, is highly draconian and, in some respects, puts the NSL in the shade. It curbs the pre-trial rights of suspects and gives the police intrusive search powers. Unlike the NSL, it does not incorporate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and was denounced in parliament for its “chilling effect” on investigative journalism.

After the meeting, Sebastien Lai said he was “grateful” that Cameron had found the time to meet him “at such a crucial time”. He was “reassured to have heard directly from the foreign secretary that my dad’s case is a priority for the UK government”.

Beyond platitudes, however, Lai appears to have got nothing out of Cameron. This undoubtedly reflected the longstanding British view that any interference in Jimmy Lai’s legal proceedings could backfire. Indeed, Sebastien had little option but to acknowledge, “I understand why Lord Cameron was unable to make any immediate commitments”

Beyond platitudes, however, Lai appears to have got nothing out of Cameron. This undoubtedly reflected the longstanding British view that any interference in Jimmy Lai’s legal proceedings could backfire. Indeed, Sebastien had little option but to acknowledge, “I understand why Lord Cameron was unable to make any immediate commitments.”

This meant that, despite the spin, the meeting was little more than a glorified photo opportunity. This was even acknowledged by Benedict Rogers, the serial fantasist who operates Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China propaganda outfit. Although he called the meeting a “significant step forward”, he had to accept that it produced no concrete results. He said he hoped “the UK will publicly call for the immediate and unconditional release of Jimmy Lai, which it has not yet done”.

Even if the UK ever did issue such a call, Rogers knows that it could not be heeded in Hong Kong, a jurisdiction built on the rule of law. As Lai was sentenced in December 2022 to five years and nine months imprisonment on fraud charges, there is no way he could simply be allowed to evade his just deserts.

Cameron’s meeting with Sebastien Lai was also attended by Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, who is paid by unknown sources to lead Jimmy Lai’s “international legal team” (from which Robertsons, Lai’s lawyers in Hong Kong, have publicly distanced themselves). Strangely, Gallagher has got it into her head that it will somehow help her client if she smears Hong Kong’s rule of law, and on this occasion, she announced the city had a “broken legal system”.

If this were true, it is surprising that, in August, the same legal system quashed Lai’s conviction for organizing an unauthorized procession. This was after the Court of Appeal decided that the trial judge had misconstrued the evidence against him. Although Gallagher is always happy to dish the dirt, it is doubtful she explained to Cameron how her client has already benefited this year at the hands of the city’s highly acclaimed judiciary. 

As with Sebastien Lai, Gallagher had to accept that the meeting achieved nothing. They left empty-handed, as Cameron always intended. All Gallagher could say was, “We wait to see how Lord Cameron and the UK government will respond to our requests.” That was it.

Therefore, there is nothing for anybody to get upset over except perhaps Sebastien Lai, Gallagher and Rogers. And even then, Lai and Gallagher have some excellent photographs of the occasion to show people. Cameron played the pair along like a wily old bird but conceded nothing.

On Dec 18, Lai will be arraigned in the Court of First Instance, and justice will take its course. 

 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.