Time to prosecute has expired: defense

Media mogul Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s lawyers said the court should deal with legal arguments about the prosecution time limit of his offenses as his national security trial started yesterday.

The trial began at 10am at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court.

The 76-year-old founder of defunct Apple Daily was escorted to the courtroom looking relaxed.

He put on headphones as his legal team told the court he is slightly hard of hearing but does not require interpretation.

As the trial began, Toh rebutted a local media report on Friday that the court had rejected Lai’s application to allow overseas witnesses to testify via live stream.

Lai’s legal team also confirmed that they have not made such a request.

The first day of the trial focused on legal arguments raised by the defense side as they contend that the charges lay four days over the six-month prosecution limit stated in the colonial-era Crimes Ordinance.

Senior counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung from Lai’s legal team cited section 159D of the Crimes Ordinance that proceedings of conspiracy charge “may not be instituted for that offense because any time limit applicable to the institution of any such proceedings has expired.”

He also cited section 11 of the ordinance, stating that the time bar for the prosecution should be six months from the date when the alleged offense began.

Pang suggested two “important” dates: April 19, 2019, the publication date of the first alleged seditious article; and June 24, 2021, when the last piece of alleged seditious articles was published.

He said by counting a six-month time bar, the prosecution should have brought Lai to court on October 1, 2019, or December 24, 2021 – but the prosecution filed legal proceedings on December 28, 2021, which had exceeded the time limit.

“[The prosecution] is out of time, therefore, there is no jurisdiction for the court,” Pang said.

But national security judge Alex Lee Wan-tang raised concern after hearing the defense’s claim.

He asked the defense whether, if the defendant conspired to commit a series of offenses and each offense was prosecuted separately, the first charge could become invalid while the other charges remain valid.

Lee asked the defense that if a person joins the conspiracy agreement six months after the alleged offense began, it would be “highly unfair” if they were not prosecuted.

The defense agreed, adding each new conspiracy charge would need to be brought to court and prosecuted as a new case while saying it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prosecute within the six-month time frame.

“What the prosecution should do is to prosecute within six months, then it is no injustice in them if a substantial offense is committed,” Pang said.

Pang also raised doubts about definitions of “begun” and “institute” in the ordinance, in which he cited several British court cases.

He also argued that the proceedings should not start until the defendant attended the court to answer his charges.

Lee identified the differences between the defense and prosecution in interpreting definitions of “begun” and “institute” in which the prosecution regarded both words with the same meaning, and it is already sufficient to lay information before a magistrate.

The defense said additional materials over the dispute would be submitted to the court, and the judges ended the first day of trial an hour earlier than scheduled upon the defense’s request for more preparation time.

The prosecution will present its case today.

eunice.lam@singtaonewscorp.com