Priscilla Leung Mei-fun says Western narrative that the conviction undermines press freedom is untenable

Next Media founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying was convicted on Dec 15 of conspiracy to collude with external forces to endanger national security in contravention of Article 29 of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) and conspiring to publish seditious publications in violation of sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance.

The proceedings of the 156-day trial were fair, open and impartial, adhering strictly to due process and fully demonstrating the spirit of the rule of law and procedural justice in the courts. The judgment in Lai’s case will serve as a precedent under Hong Kong’s common law system, subject to the possibility of an appeal.

Hong Kong people who suffered from chaos and violence during the riots of 2019 to 2020 appreciate the verdict as it demonstrates that Hong Kong’s Judiciary is upholding the rule of law. The verdict validated the notion that the NSL has served as an anchor of stability and peace in the city, and that it is one of the most important pillars safeguarding Hong Kong’s socioeconomic development under the “one country, two systems” framework.

During the trial, the prosecution submitted a large amount of documentary and visual evidence in support of the charges, including the communication records of people involved in the case, articles, documents, social media posts, and video clips totaling 35 hours.

ALSO READ: HKSAR security secretary rebuts FT over Jimmy Lai case

The hearing reflected the strict adherence of court proceedings in common law practice. In the more than 800-page judgment, the judges carefully pointed out: “What the first defendant (Lai) said and did before the implementation of the NSL is not the subject matter of the charges, but only forms part of the background to the evidence relevant to the charges.” One of the key issues was that Lai and the other defendants in the case had reached a criminal agreement before the NSL came into effect, and continued to act on that agreement after the law was passed.

The conviction of Lai and others is an indirect protection of human rights for the general public in Hong Kong, including their right to life, freedom of movement, property rights, the right to go to work, and the right to conduct business. The NSL has helped restore the rule of law in Hong Kong, promptly retarding chaos and restoring order. It is a fair, legitimate and reasonable law, fully reflecting the spirit of the common law system’s emphasis on procedural justice.

The evidence submitted to the court further shows that Apple Daily published 161 seditious articles. Among them, 85 were published after the implementation of the NSL, and 31 of these involved calls for foreign “sanctions”. Hong Kong residents still have lingering fears about the 2019-2020 chaos, accompanied by brutal violence that encroached on the basic human rights of innocent people, including the right to attend school and freedom of movement, with commercial activities being frequently interrupted. People who held different opinions from the rioters were violently attacked, with one bystander burned alive and a street cleaner killed by a flying brick thrown by rioters. Evidence showed clearly that Lai and Apple Daily repeatedly badmouthed the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, calling for US sanctions on Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland.

READ MORE: G7, EU officials slammed for interference in HK affairs through Jimmy Lai’s verdict

The convictions of Lai and his accomplices will serve as a deterrence to political agitators. The implementation of the NSL has helped restore order in Hong Kong.

The Western critique of Lai’s conviction as undermining press freedom is untenable. It is certain that freedom is a very important human right and it is well protected by law in Hong Kong. But it must be noted that freedom is premised on self-discipline and respect for others’ freedom as well as compliance with the law, and that freedom has boundaries. There is no such thing as unconstrained freedom in the world that allows one to infringe on the freedom and rights of others.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights explicitly provides: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression...” We all value it a lot. Yet, the same article also states: “The exercise of the rights provided for ... may therefore be subject to certain necessary restrictions, for respect of the rights or reputations of others; for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.” Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance also makes the same stipulation.

Evidence submitted by the prosecution convinced the judges that Lai lobbied foreign nations to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile activities against China and its HKSAR, and stirred up hatred against the central and HKSAR governments. No country or jurisdiction in the world would tolerate such acts; and any other responsible government would deal with these unlawful acts with swift and powerful legal measures.

The court in the process of adjudicating Lai’s case demonstrated respect for the principles of common law, procedural justice and the core values of the rule of law. This landmark case will be an important precedent for the future.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council and a deputy to the National People's Congress.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.