Wallis Wang

There is no evidence to show that Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying had requested foreign sanctions after the national security law took effect on June 30, 2020, Lai's lawyer said at a national security trial yesterday.

On the 91st day of Lai's trial, the defense appealed to the court to rule that the 76-year-old, charged with two counts of collusion with foreign forces and one of publishing seditious materials, has no case to answer.

Senior counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, for Lai, said in a half-time submission that the prosecution's description of the now-defunct Apple Daily as Lai's political platform was "weird," as it was a newspaper that exercised the watchdog role of the fourth estate in criticizing the government and publishing commentaries from different perspectives.

Pang said press freedom and freedom of speech are protected by the Basic Law and Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.

Although press freedom is not a "trump card" for the case, the court should still consider such a context in deciding whether a publication has material that constitutes seditious content, he said.

Pang conceded that Lai had requested sanctions before the law was implemented but insisted he stopped doing so upon realizing it could constitute a criminal offense with the law's enactment.

Instead, Lai only expressed his views in articles and talk shows.

Regarding the conspiracy charge, Pang said it has to involve unlawful conduct or means, and without the "unlawful" element, the "conspiracy" would only amount to an agreement.

Lai, he said, might have reached agreements with some people, but they were made legally before the implementation of the law.

Pang said Lai stopped publishing seditious articles or collaborating with institutions after the law came into effect and there was no evidence to show he had continued to conspire after that.

Lai, he said, only wished to operate Apple Daily in accordance with the national security law and did not make any more agreements.

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang said Lai's agreements with others were struck before the law came into effect and continued after its implementation.

He disagreed with Pang's assertion that Lai was only expressing his personal opinions.

The judges said they would rule today whether Lai has a case to answer.

Judges to rule on whether Lai has case to answer