Recent coverage by some foreign media outlets on the trial of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying has been marked by persistent inaccuracies. The case has repeatedly been described as “political persecution”, even though the proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with Hong Kong law and were based on extensive evidence examined in open court. Such depictions overlook the full judicial process and misrepresent the nature of the case, raising concerns about a fundamental misunderstanding of Hong Kong’s legal system and the operation of the rule of law.

It’s worth having a close reading of this landmark verdict handed down by the Court of First Instance of the High Court on Feb 9, which contains a detailed, legally reasoned sentencing decision for Lai. A fair understanding of Hong Kong’s legal framework and judicial practice will help provide a clearer picture of the case to the general public and the world.

Judgment based on facts and law

Those who are familiar with the facts and the process of the trial would agree that it was conducted in full compliance with due process of established common law principles. The defendant was represented by legal counsel and was given all the rights safeguarded under Hong Kong law, including the right to call witnesses, adduce evidence, challenge the prosecution’s case and make legal submissions. The court applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, admitting only evidence obtained lawfully and assessed to be relevant and reliable.

Throughout the proceedings, the trial judges made clear that the sole consideration before the court was whether the prosecution had proved each charge to have met the standard of proof. The court stated unequivocally that political views or ideological positions were irrelevant to its determination. The focus was only on the specific acts alleged to constitute the relevant criminal offenses under the law.

Evidence and procedure

The trial adhered firmly to the rule of law which includes complying with the requirements of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (NSL).

One cannot neglect the fact that according to the verdict, the prosecution has presented a coherent body of evidence supported by strong witness testimony and documentary materials, which include Lai’s former employees who have worked closely with Lai for a long time. Their testimony addressed the core factual issues in the case and was found by the court to be consistent and credible.

The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated a sustained pattern of conduct in which the defendant used media platforms under his control to publish content deemed to be provocative to hatred against the central and HKSAR governments. Lai went further to exhaust different means to seek foreign sanctions and other hostile measures against China including the HKSAR through contacts with overseas actors. The court held that these actions went beyond the scope of freedom of expression and posed risks to public order and national security. This verdict is consistent with the well-known provision Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “While everyone has the right to freedom of expression; … The exercise of such rights may be subject to certain restrictions, provided by law and are necessary. They are: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” By referring to the above-said provision, the verdict has certainly met the standard of international law.

Based on the comprehensive evidence, the court found that Lai’s acts constituted offenses of a “grave nature” under Article 29(4) of the NSL, a determination made by evaluating 10 key factors, including the modus operandi, frequency, persistency, scale of the offense, premeditation, and its actual and potential impact on the HKSAR and the nation. The court also confirmed that Lai’s conduct had directly contributed to foreign governments imposing sanctions and other hostile activities against the HKSAR and relevant officials, which is a core factor in finding the offenses to be of a grave nature.

Freedom of expression and its limits

Some foreign commentary has framed the case primarily as a question of “freedom of expression”. It must be noted, all the issues were addressed with serious consideration to fundamental human rights.

Moreover, Article 4 of the NSL stipulates the protection of freedom of speech, press, publication, association, assembly, procession, and demonstration, as provided for under the Basic Law and relevant international covenants. At the same time, Article 6 of the NSL requires that no person or organization engage in acts endangering national security.

Lai’s conduct clearly crossed the boundary of law. Colluding with external forces and disseminating seditious content, by doing so not only undermining China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but also endangering public order and the safety of Hong Kong residents. Hong Kong is famous for the rule of law. These offensive acts go beyond the boundary of law. The continuous acts of Lai harming national and the HKSAR’s interests is surely an issue under criminal law. As the court observed, the harm caused by Lai’s actions went far beyond ordinary political expression or advocacy, and his objectives were pursued at the expense of the interests and rights of others as well as of the State; the Hong Kong court determined Lai’s acts to be a conduct that no society adhering to the rule of law can tolerate. This is a reasonable judgment from any reasonable third eye.

Loaded media coverage reflects double standards

It is disappointing that the media in some well-established common-law countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, continues to denigrate Lai’s trial in Hong Kong, which is an act amounting to contempt of court. Those media demonstrated double standards by going against the Hong Kong court while taking an uncritical stance toward laws used to prosecute similar acts that endanger national security or incite social unrest in their home country — such as the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which prescribe much more severe criminal penalties for acts of colluding with foreign forces and jeopardizing national security or having a risk to harm social and public security or interest in their homes.

It seems that those media outlets have turned a blind eye to the robust enforcement of the above-said laws in their own jurisdictions while criticizing the Hong Kong court’s adjudication of Lai’s case. Such misleading reporting not only violates the general standard of journalism, but also in substance constitutes interference in China’s internal affairs and undermines the HKSAR’s judicial independence.

Judicial independence in HK

As it was the first case involving the offense of collusion with external forces under the NSL, Lai’s trial attracted wide attention. Hong Kong’s Judiciary firmly and carefully applied established legal principles as well as international standards related to national security. The verdict and the sentencing is fair and just. It reflects the determination of the Hong Kong court to provide a fair trial to the defendant through such lengthy and cautious process of due justice.

Applying the totality principle of sentencing and after making the deductions for mitigating factors, the court sentenced Lai to a total of 20 years’ imprisonment for the three counts in this case, with the sentences structured to be served partially consecutively and partially concurrently. The corporate defendants were fined a total of HK$3,004,500 ($384,000) without any mitigating deductions, while accomplices who pleaded guilty and provided evidence for the prosecution received appropriate sentence reductions in accordance with the law.

This truly reflects that the court of Hong Kong has carefully adhered to the sentencing principles of common law. I believe fair-minded third-party observers and commentators, after understanding the details of the case, will agree that this surely and fully reflects the integrity of the judgment, which firmly and faithfully upholds the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The author is a member of the Basic Law Committee under the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, and a Hong Kong SAR deputy to the NPC.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.