Case Summary and Outcome

The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance held that Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and related defendants were criminally liable for conspiratorial conduct carried out through expressive media activities. The case concerned the use of the newspaper Apple Daily as a platform for sustained political expression, raising the issue of when journalistic and editorial activity ceased to be constitutionally protected speech and instead constituted criminal conspiracy, particularly in relation to the publication of allegedly seditious materials and the solicitation of foreign intervention. The Court reasoned that freedom of expression, while fundamental, was not absolute—and that where expressive acts were organized, coordinated, and sustained pursuant to an agreement with the intention to “excite disaffection” in order to undermine the legitimacy of the authorities or to request hostile foreign intervention, they fell outside constitutional protection. It emphasized conspiracy principles, focusing on agreement, intent, and continuity, to conclude that the cumulative editorial stance, institutional coordination, and corporate influence demonstrated a common criminal design rather than mere dissenting expression. The Court therefore convicted Jimmy Lai on all relevant counts and other defendants on the applicable charges, leaving punishment to be determined under the sentencing framework of the Crimes Ordinance and the National Security Law (NSL).

On 9 February 2026, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region sentenced Lai Chee Ying (Jimmy Lai), founder of Apple Daily, to 20 years’ imprisonment at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts.

---

Facts

Jimmy Lai, a prominent businessman and social activist in Hong Kong, founded Next Digital Limited and established the newspaper Apple Daily in 1995, a publication that initially focused on tabloid news but later shifted its editorial stance. Born in Mainland China in 1947, Lai’s family experienced severe disruption amid political unrest, during which “his family lost its fortune and was broken up.” [para. 2] At approximately 12 years old, he left Mainland China and entered Hong Kong. Lai later established himself in Hong Kong, first through work in the textile industry, where he built a successful business, and subsequently by entering the media sector. He later stated that the media business gave him “a reason to fight.” [para. 3]

In its early years, Apple Daily became a widely read tabloid, known for its coverage of entertainment news and celebrity reporting. Following the Occupy Central Movement with Love and Peace in 2014, a single-purpose Hong Kong civil disobedience campaign initiated by Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, Benny Tai, and Chan Kin-man on 27 March 2013, Jimmy Lai became involved in the newspaper’s editorial direction. For years, Jimmy Lai actively campaigned for democracy and criticized local authorities. He became a target of intimidation, most notably in January 2015, when masked men threw petrol bombs at both his home and the headquarters of his media company.

In 2019, Hong Kong experienced an extended period of public protests and social unrest connected to the proposed Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill. Although the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government withdrew the bill in October, 2019, “the protests and the accompanying disorder and violence did not abate.” [para. 27] The situation later evolved, and the protest movement “metamorphosed into a resistance movement.” [para. 27] During this period, the Apple Daily continued to operate in both print and digital formats, and Jimmy Lai remained its founder and a central figure in its management.

In 2019, criminal proceedings were subsequently instituted against Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, Apple Daily Limited, Apple Daily Printing Limited, and AD Internet Limited. The indictment alleged conduct that occurred between April 2019 and June 2021. The first count alleged that, between 1 April 2019 and 24 June 2021, Jimmy Lai and others conspired “to print, publish, sell, offer for sale, distribute, display and/or reproduce seditious publications” with specified unlawful intentions. [para. 23] The second count alleged that, between 1 July 2020 and 24 June 2021, the defendants conspired “to request a foreign country or an institution, organisation or individual … to impose sanctions or blockade, or engage in other hostile activities” against the HKSAR or the People’s Republic of China (PRC). [para. 23] The third count alleged that Jimmy Lai, between 1 July 2020 and 15 February 2021, conspired with others to make similar requests for sanctions or hostile activities.

Before the beginning of the evidentiary phase, Jimmy Lai filed an application for a stay of proceedings. The application asserted that the continuation of the prosecution would necessarily violate his constitutional right to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and that “a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that the ensuing trial will not be free from political interference.” [para. 25] It was argued that, on either basis, the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process. On 29 May 2023, after hearing the submissions from both sides, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance dismissed the application. 

At the outset of the trial, after arraignment—but before the close of the prosecution’s case—, Jimmy Lai and the other defendants raised a further preliminary challenge concerning the validity of Count 1. They contended that the charge of conspiracy to publish seditious publications was statute-barred. After hearing submissions from both parties, the Court ruled on 22 December 2023 that “the charge was not time-barred.” [para. 26] Subsequently, on 2 January 2024, Jimmy Lai applied to re-open the time-bar issue, asserting that there were “some perceived ambiguities” in the earlier ruling. That application was also dismissed by the court on the same date. [para. 26]

Following the dismissal of the stay application and the resolution of the time-bar challenges, the proceedings moved beyond preliminary procedural issues. The trial then proceeded to hear evidence concerning the factual background of the case, the charged periods, and the alleged conspiracies involving Jimmy Lai and the other defendants, in accordance with the indictment. The trial began on 18 December 2023, and it was concluded on 28 August 2025. 

---

Decision Overview

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee Wan-Tang of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance delivered the decision. The primary issues before the Court concerned multiple criminal charges arising from alleged conspiracies involving the publication of materials and engagement with foreign actors; however, among these issues, the Court addressed questions bearing directly on freedom of expression. These included whether the publication of articles, editorials, and related materials fell within the scope of protected expression, the extent to which expressive activities through a media platform could attract criminal liability, and how statutory offences concerning sedition and national security interacted with the exercise of expressive freedoms. The decision introduced these issues in the context of the charged periods and the conduct alleged against the defendants, setting out the framework within which the Court examined the boundaries and limitations of freedom of expression under Hong Kong law as applied to the facts of the case.

Jimmy Lai’s contentions regarding freedom of expression were primarily advanced in response to the charge of conspiracy to publish seditious publications. They were framed as a defence grounded in constitutional and human rights protections applicable in Hong Kong. He contended that the publications relied upon by the prosecution constituted legitimate journalistic and political expressions rather than criminal conduct. In addressing Count 1, Lai maintained that “the articles in question were not seditious and there was no conspiracy to publish seditious articles.” [para. 29(1)] His position was that the content published by the Apple Daily, including editorials, opinion columns, and commentary, fell within the scope of lawful expression on matters of public interest, particularly issues relating to governance, public policy, and political developments.

Jimmy Lai further contended that the opinions disseminated through the Apple Daily represented an exercise of press freedom and freedom of expression as protected under Hong Kong’s constitutional framework. He asserted that the newspaper’s publications reflected opinions, criticisms, and commentary that were part of open political discourse, rather than attempts to incite hatred, violence, or unlawful conduct. In this regard, he rejected the characterization of the published materials as exceeding permissible expressive limits, emphasizing that disagreement with government policies or criticism of authorities did not, in itself, remove such expression from constitutional protection. 

Moreover, Jimmy Lai disputed the prosecution’s allegation that the publication of the articles formed part of a broader conspiratorial agreement. He contended that there was no coordinated plan or agreement to use the newspaper as a vehicle for unlawful expression. His defense maintained that editorial decisions and published content were the product of journalistic processes rather than the implementation of a criminal scheme. In this context, he challenged the prosecution’s reliance on internal communications and editorial practices as evidence of conspiracy, asserting that these matters were consistent with normal newsroom operations and editorial independence.

Jimmy Lai also advanced the position that, following the promulgation of the National Security Law, he and the Apple Daily ceased any conduct that could be construed as requesting sanctions or hostile actions, and that continued publication of opinions and commentary did not amount to unlawful expression. He maintained that expressive activities after that period remained within lawful bounds and did not constitute criminalized speech. In summary, his contentions on freedom of expression rested on the assertion that the charged publications were protected political and journalistic speech, that no conspiracy to engage in sedition existed, and that the prosecution’s case impermissibly treated protected speech as criminal conduct.

On the other hand, the Hong Kong Government contended that Jimmy Lai’s right to freedom of expression was not absolute and was subject to lawful restrictions imposed for legitimate purposes under Hong Kong’s constitutional and statutory framework. The Government maintained that while freedom of expression and freedom of the press were protected rights, those protections did not extend to expression that crossed into criminal conduct, including sedition or acts endangering national security. It emphasized that the case did not concern the mere expression of unpopular opinions, but rather conduct alleged to fall outside the permissible scope of protected speech.

The government argued that the publications at issue were not isolated expressions of opinions but formed part of a coordinated course of conduct. It contended that the defendants agreed to use the Apple Daily as a platform to publish materials with specific unlawful intentions: to “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection” against the Central Authorities and the HKSAR government, to “raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Hong Kong,” and to “incite persons to violence” or “counsel disobedience to law.” [para. 23] On this basis, the government asserted that the alleged conduct fell squarely within the statutory definition of seditious publications and was therefore not protected by freedom of expression guarantees.

In addressing the issue of constitutional protections, the government contended that Hong Kong law permitted restrictions on expression where such restrictions were prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims. It relied on provisions of the Crimes Ordinance and the National Security Law as lawful bases for restricting expression that threatened public order or national security. The government emphasized that the enactment of the National Security Law reflected a legislative determination that certain forms of conduct, including requesting foreign sanctions or hostile activities, posed a serious risk to national security and justified criminal prohibition.

The Hong Kong Government further contended that the objectives pursued by the restrictions were the protection of national security, the maintenance of public order, and the safeguarding of the constitutional order of the HKSAR. It argued that, during the charged periods, Hong Kong experienced prolonged social unrest and violence, and that the alleged publications and related conduct had to be assessed against that factual background. In this context, the government maintained that the restrictions imposed were directed not at suppressing legitimate debate, but at preventing conduct that endangered national security or undermined social stability. Lastly, the government rejected the characterization of the prosecution as an attempt to criminalize journalism or political commentary. It contended that editorial freedom did not immunize coordinated publication decisions made pursuant to an alleged conspiracy with unlawful objectives. The government’s position was that freedom of expression did not protect agreements to publish content with criminal intent, and that the defendants’ conduct, as alleged, exceeded the boundaries of lawful expression recognized under Hong Kong law.

The Court began its analysis by framing Count 1 as the charge that most directly implicated freedom of expression, because it required the Court to determine when sustained journalistic and editorial activity crossed from constitutionally protected expression into criminally punishable conduct. It emphasized that the case did not concern the permissibility of dissenting political views, but whether expressive activity had been deliberately organized and deployed pursuant to an agreement to achieve statutorily prohibited ends. The Court stressed at the outset that the case was “mainly on one man at its core,” Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, but that his role had to be examined through the institutional machinery of the Apple Daily, which functioned as the medium through which the expressive conduct occurred. [para. 1]

Before addressing the facts, the Court anchored its reasoning in the conspiracy doctrine—which it regarded as essential to understanding how expression could acquire criminal character. It reaffirmed that conspiracy was “an inchoate offence” constituted by agreement and intention, and that it “does not require the actual carrying out of the agreed upon acts.” [para. 32] The Court emphasized that conspiracy criminalized the intention itself, not merely the content of any particular publication. It further stressed that conspiracy was a continuing offence, explaining that it “does not end with the making of the agreement” but continued “so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry out the design.” [para. 33] This legal framework allowed the Court to examine the Apple Daily’s publications cumulatively and contextually, rather than as isolated exercises of press freedom.

On the issue of conspiracy to publish seditious publications (Count 1)

Turning to Count 1, the Court acknowledged that freedom of expression protected robust criticism of the government, even where such criticism was harsh, provocative, or deeply unpopular. However, it emphasized that the statutory offence of sedition turned on intention— specifically the intention “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection” against the Central Authorities or the HKSAR Government. [para. 23(a)] The Court therefore framed the issue not as whether individual articles were offensive or polemical, but whether there existed a sustained agreement to use a mass media platform to pursue those prohibited objectives through expressive means.

The Court identified a critical historical shift in the Apple Daily’s editorial posture following the 2014 Occupy Central Movement. It found that, after that period, Apple Daily underwent what the Court described as a “metamorphosis” into a newspaper that opposed the HKSAR and the  PRC’s governments as institutions. [para. 6] Senior management evidence established that Jimmy Lai wanted the newspaper to adopt a distinctly “yellow” editorial stance. [para. 6] The Court accepted that “there is nothing wrong with having an editorial slant,” but concluded that the evidence showed that the newspaper’s practices “went far beyond that premise.” [para. 6] This observation marked the Court’s first clear delineation between protected editorial positioning and conduct capable of grounding criminal liability.

The Court then examined in detail how this editorial stance was operationalized through the Apple Daily’s internal structures. It analyzed the editorial workflow—including lunchbox meetings, Slack communications, and editorial conferences—which collectively governed how political events were selected, framed, and emphasized. The Court treated these mechanisms as critical because they demonstrated institutional coordination rather than spontaneous expression. It found that senior editors did not act in isolation, but worked within an agreed framework that aligned with Jimmy Lai’s political objectives.

Particular attention was paid to the Editorial (蘋論) and Apple Forum sections, which the Court regarded as carrying special institutional authority. The Court observed that these sections consistently advanced themes portraying the Central Authorities and the HKSAR Government as illegitimate, oppressive, and hostile to the people. It noted that these themes were not episodic or reactive, but sustained and repetitive, reinforcing a narrative of antagonism over time. The Court highlighted that the cumulative effect of this repetition was central to its assessment of intent, because it demonstrated persistence and coordination rather than isolated journalistic excess.

The Court then referred to a series of specific events illustrating Jimmy Lai’s influence over editorial direction. It discussed occasions on which Lai commented directly on the Apple Daily’s headlines, including his reaction to how politically sensitive events were framed. It examined evidence that Lai provided materials to senior editors for incorporation into coverage, including politically charged documents supplied on 4 June 2019. The Court also analyzed Lai’s involvement in shaping coverage of major protest events, including those on 9 June 2019 and 16 June 2019, which it regarded as moments of heightened political sensitivity requiring editorial choices with clear expressive impact.

The Court further examined the Apple Daily’s reporting and editorial stance toward protest-related developments, including sympathetic coverage of demonstrations and sustained criticism of the authorities’ response. It noted that such coverage was accompanied by initiatives that actively mobilized readership engagement, such as subscription campaigns and fundraising-related publicity, which the Court treated as reinforcing the newspaper’s role as an instrument of political mobilization rather than detached reportage. 

Upon addressing the defense’s argument that the contested publications were protected by editorial independence, the Court applied orthodox conspiracy principles. It held that participation in a conspiracy could be “active or passive,” and that agreement could be inferred where a party “knew what was going on” and failed to stop it. [para. 39] The Court argued that conspiracies were rarely proved by express agreement and that their existence was “generally a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common.” [para. 41] Considering this, it concluded that Jimmy Lai’s knowledge of, endorsement of, and strategic interventions in editorial matters supported the inference of a meeting of minds with senior editors.

In assessing the intent element, the Court was careful to articulate the constitutional boundary it was enforcing. It stressed that its conclusion did not rest on isolated phrases, rhetorical excesses, or unpopular opinions. Instead, it rested on the “overall editorial stance” and its cumulative effect when viewed against the organizational context of the Apple Daily. [para. 6] The Court found that the persistent portrayal of the authorities as enemies of the people, combined with the delegitimization of lawful governance, supported the inference that the publications were intended to excite disaffection within the meaning of the statute. [para. 23(a)]

Regarding Count 1, the Court reaffirmed that its verdict did not criminalize journalism or political opposition as such. Rather, it sanctioned a sustained agreement to use expressive activity for prohibited purposes. The defendants were therefore convicted not for what they believed, but for what they agreed to do with the expressive machinery they controlled, as demonstrated by the evidence and assessed under settled principles of criminal law. 

On the issue of collusion with foreign forces through expressive acts (Counts 2 and 3)

In relation to Counts 2 and 3, the Court’s analysis was less centrally concerned with freedom of expression, but it nevertheless addressed how expressive activity could constitute the act of collusion under Article 29(4) of the National Security Law. The Court noted that the offence targeted the act of “requesting” a foreign country or external element to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile activities, and that such a request could be made through written or spoken expression. [para. 44] On this point, the Court held that liability did not depend on whether the request was successful, nor on whether foreign measures were ultimately imposed, but on whether the expressive act objectively amounted to a solicitation of hostile action. [para. 44]

Regarding Count 2 specifically, the Court considered that, after the promulgation of the National Security Law on 30 June 2020, the defendants continued to agree to use the Apple Daily and its associated platforms to convey messages to foreign audiences advocating adverse measures against the HKSAR and the PRC. It rejected the defense’s contention that such expressive conduct ceased after the National Security Law came into force, concluding instead that “they did not stop but continued to carry out their agreement.” [para. 28(4)] The Court underscored that, although pre-NSL expressive conduct could not itself be punished, it provided critical context demonstrating the continuity of intent, which was relevant to establishing that the agreement persisted into the post-NSL period. 

With respect to Count 3, the Court focused on Jimmy Lai’s personal role in expressive and communicative acts directed at foreign individuals and institutions. It found that Lai entered into and maintained an agreement with external actors to solicit foreign intervention, and that this agreement continued after the NSL’s enactment. The Court rejected Lai’s denial that he sought sanctions, stating that, when assessed against contemporaneous documentary evidence, his testimony could not be accepted. The Court further observed that Lai consistently sought “actions and not words” from foreign governments, language the Court adopted to characterize the concrete and operational nature of the requests conveyed through expressive means. [para. 781]

In its conclusion, the Court reiterated that the defendants were not convicted for holding or expressing dissenting political views, but for entering into and maintaining criminal conspiracies that employed expressive activity as a means to achieve prohibited ends. It accordingly found Jimmy Lai guilty on Counts 1, 2, and 3, and found the other defendants guilty on Counts 1 and 2, subject to the application of principles of corporate criminal liability. The Court noted that sentencing was governed by the statutory frameworks of the Crimes Ordinance and the National Security Law, under which the offence of collusion carried a penalty ranging from a minimum of three years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment in grave cases. [para. 44]

Sentencing

On 9 February 2026, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region sentenced Lai Chee Ying (Jimmy Lai), founder of Apple Daily, to 20 years’ imprisonment at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts. The sentence followed his conviction on 15 December 2025 on two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious publications. This case marked the first prosecution in Hong Kong for the offence of collusion with foreign forces, and Mr Lai’s sentence represents the longest imposed since the enactment of the National Security Law. Now 78 years old and in rapidly deteriorating health, Mr Lai—a British citizen and recognised prisoner of conscience—has already spent more than five years in solitary confinement and faces the prospect of spending the remainder of his life in prison. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had ruled last year that Mr Lai’s detention is unlawful and arbitrary, calling for his immediate release, a position echoed by five UN Special Rapporteurs.

 

---