British barrister to defend Lai in collusion trial

The High Court yesterday approved Jimmy Lai Chee-ying's bid to hire British barrister Timothy Owen KC as his defense lawyer for his collusion case involving national security.

Chief Judge of the High Court Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor ruled that Owen can serve as defense lawyer for the founder of the now-defunct Next Digital due to the unavailability of local barristers and the complexity of the case.

Owen mainly handles cases involving fraud, extradition and human rights, according to Britain's Bar Standards Board.

Lai is charged with collusion with external elements to endanger national security between July 1, 2020, and April 3, 2021, with his trial to start on December 1.

"In terms of legal analysis, how to balance the competing public interests of safeguarding national security and protecting the freedom of expression is extremely difficult and delicate," said Poon in a written judgment.

"Thus viewed, this case will be of immense importance to the development of local jurisprudence on the application of the National Security Law and the protection of the freedom of expression."

Poon added it is of public interest to have an expert like Owen to handle the defense.

The trial, which is expected to last 30 days, will be heard by national security judges Alex Lee Wan-tang, Esther Toh Lye-ping and Susana D'almada Remedios.

Lai had also appealed over the failure of his judicial reviews to prevent police inspecting his two mobile phones, but the High Court dismissed his appeal.

In his judicial review applications, Lai argued that the 2020 warrant did not authorize the police to seize digital materials, which he deemed as journalistic materials.

Although the 2022 warrant issued by magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen entitled the police to seize digital items, Lai's side argued that the magistrate had no power to issue such a warrant.

Rejecting Lai's appeal, Poon said: "In performing its judicial gate-keeping role in connection with journalistic material, the court has to balance the public interest to decide whether to issue the warrant with or without conditions ... it is a matter for the magistrate to decide having regard to the actual circumstances of the case."

leopold.chen@singtaonewscorp.com