Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) held that the solitary detention of Jimmy Lai by Hong Kong authorities was arbitrary and in violation of international human rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Jimmy Lai, a prominent pro-democracy advocate and founder of Apple Daily, was detained for over three years and prosecuted under Hong Kong’s National Security Law (NSL)—and other charges arising from his peaceful participation in protests, political commentary, and media work. The Working Group observed that his detention lacked a valid legal basis, punished him for exercising his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, denied him a fair trial due to political interference, and amounted to discrimination based on political opinion. The UNWGAD criticized the vague and overbroad provisions of the NSL, the reversal of the presumption of bail, and the use of criminal law to suppress legitimate dissent. Concluding that Jimmy Lai’s deprivation of liberty was an arbitrary detention, the Working Group called for his immediate and unconditional release, reparations, and urgent legal reforms to align Hong Kong’s laws with international human rights obligations.

---

Facts

Jimmy Lai Chee-ying is a British citizen and a resident of Hong Kong. He founded Next Digital Ltd. and Apple Daily, a Chinese-language newspaper widely read for its pro-democracy and anti-corruption content. Apple Daily gained significant popularity over time, reaching a circulation of 400,000 copies. 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.

Between February and April 2020, the police arrested Jimmy Lai at his home for allegedly organizing and participating in unauthorized public assemblies in 2019 and 2020. On August 10, 2020, the police arrested Lai again over his political writings and raided Apple Daily’s offices, seizing journalistic materials. That same day, policemen arrested some Next Media staff. In June 2021, the police froze HK$18 million in Lai’s company assets and accounts holdings over HK$500 million, and prosecuted other companies that belonged to Lai. Under intense pressure, Apple Daily shut down after 26 years of operation. 

Later in December 2020, the authorities revoked Lai’s bail on fraud charges and later added charges of sedition and collusion with foreign forces under the National Security Law (NSL). He briefly secured house arrest bail with strict conditions, but the prosecution appealed, and he returned to prison on 31 December 2020. By September 2022, Jimmy had already served multiple sentences related to participation in protests. He now remains in solitary confinement at Stanley Prison, facing NSL charges that could result in life imprisonment.

Jimmy Lai has faced multiple legal proceedings in Hong Kong which included proceedings under the NSL for seditious publications and collusion with foreign forces; four criminal proceedings related to protest assemblies in 2019–2020; regulatory actions stemming from an asset freeze affecting his role in Next Digital Ltd.; and a lease violation case alleging that he committed fraud by allowing a consultancy to use part of the Apple Daily premises. 

In the NSL cases, the charges stemmed from Lai’s journalistic work and meetings with foreign political figures—including US and UK politicians and human rights activists. The prosecution alleged that Lai’s articles and conversations encouraged foreign intervention and endangered national security. It denied his right to international legal counsel, invoking national security concerns to prevent his chosen overseas lawyer from representing him in court. Lai’s trial began on December 18, 2023, after repeated delays. On the eve of the trial, UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron called for his release, denouncing the prosecution as politically motivated. The prosecution closed its case on June 11, 2024. After the defence’s unsuccessful submission of “no case to answer,” the court adjourned the trial to 20 November 2024, when Lai began his testimony.

In the protest cases, Lai was convicted in all four. In the first case, concerning the 18 August 2019 Victoria Park protest, the court convicted him of organizing and participating in an unauthorized assembly. Although peaceful and attended by 1.7 million people, he received a 12-month sentence. A court of appeal later overturned the organizing conviction but upheld the participation charge. In the second and third protest cases on August 31 and October 1, 2019, Jimmy pleaded guilty and received eight-month sentences each. In the fourth case, concerning the June 4, 2020 Tiananmen vigil, he was convicted of incitement and sentenced to 13 months despite attending the event for 15 minutes.

In the regulatory cases, the authorities froze Lai’s assets and stripped him of voting rights in Next Digital Ltd. The company, once Hong Kong’s largest independent media group, was forced into liquidation and delisted in January 2023. These moves demonstrated the state’s punitive approach toward Lai and his media operations. 

Finally, in the lease violation case, a court convicted Lai of fraud in October 2022 for allowing a consultancy firm to operate from Apple Daily’s premises without proper licensing. The authorities imposed NSL-style restrictions on the case, despite it being a commercial dispute. On December 10, 2022, the court sentenced him to five years and nine months’ imprisonment. Lai’s defense argued that the matter was civil and that the punishment was disproportionate, especially considering his age, prior detention records, and health condition. He is currently appealing the conviction and sentence.

The case has drawn sustained international concern. On January 22, 2024, five UN Special Rapporteurs issued a statement calling for Lai’s immediate and unconditional release. Shortly after, on January 31, 2024, the United Nations announced that the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had formally written to the Chinese authorities, raising serious concerns that key prosecution evidence in Lai’s trial may have been obtained through torture, and urging an immediate investigation into the allegations. Further diplomatic pressure followed. On October 16, 2024, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer informed Parliament that Lai’s case was a priority for the UK Government and called on the Hong Kong authorities to release him without delay. On October 23, 2024, responding to parliamentary questions about a visit to China, Foreign Secretary David Lammy confirmed that he had reiterated the UK’s call for Lai’s immediate release during meetings with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing.

---

Decision Overview

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) delivered an opinion on the matter. The central issue before the Working Group was whether the arrest, prosecution, and detention of Jimmy Lai by Hong Kong authorities, stemming from his exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, constituted an arbitrary detention in violation of international human rights law. 

The UNWGAD has classified arbitrary detention into five categories. Category I applies when there is no legal basis for the deprivation of liberty. Category II covers situations where individuals are detained for exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, or association. Category III relates to detentions resulting from serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Category IV addresses the prolonged administrative detention of migrants, asylum seekers, or refugees without proper judicial review. Lastly, Category V concerns cases where detention results from discrimination based on factors like political opinion, religion, or ethnicity.

On March 1, 2024, the Working Group sought information from the government regarding Lai’s detention and its legal basis, but received no response.

Category I: On the Legality of the Detention 

The UNWGAD considered Lai’s pretrial detention to be arbitrary under Category I, concluding that it violated Article 9(3) of the ICCPR (right to liberty and security of person). It emphasized that under international law, “liberty is recognized as a principle and detention as an exception in the interests of justice.” [para. 94] According to the Working Group, local authorities failed to justify the necessity of detaining Lai, an elderly man of good character, for an extended period without trial. The bail regime under Article 42 of the NSL, which reverses the presumption of bail, was especially problematic. As noted by the UNWGAD, the provision required vague and unrealistic thresholds, such as proving the accused will not continue to commit acts endangering national security, making it impossible for the accused to regulate their conduct and challenge their detention meaningfully.

The Working Group reiterated that bail conditions must be “set with the requisite degree of precision,” and any denial of bail must be individualized and reasonable. Lai’s continued pretrial detention, without adequate justification or exploration of less restrictive alternatives like bail, failed to meet these standards. [para. 95] Hence, the UNWGAD held that Lai’s detention lacked legal basis and was in contravention of Article 9 of the ICCPR.

Category II: On the Deprivation of Liberty and Freedom of Expression

The Working Group found that Lai’s arrest and continued detention were arbitrary under Category II because they stemmed directly from his legitimate exercise of internationally protected rights, specifically, the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), respectively. These rights are foundational to any democratic society, and restrictions on them must meet strict tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality, the UNWGAD said.

The Working Group noted that Lai’s case concerned core political speech. The UNWGAD opined that he was detained and prosecuted for actions such as publishing articles and editorials critical of the government, engaging in political discourse, participating in peaceful protests, and advocating for democratic reforms and accountability. The Working Group observed that no evidence had been presented by the government to prove that Lai’s conduct involved violence or incitement to it. On the contrary, Lai’s actions were clearly non-violent expressions of dissent and political opinion. The UNWGAD stressed that States have an obligation not only to refrain from punishing peaceful political expression but to facilitate it. They recalled that “the enjoyment of the right to hold and participate in peaceful assemblies… entails the fulfilment by the State of its positive obligation” to enable such participation. [para. 99]

The Working Group also found that the proceedings against Lai, across both protest-related charges and regulatory cases (e.g., asset freezes, corporate liquidation, and lease violations), had the cumulative effect of silencing him and dismantling his media platform, Apple Daily. These actions were not isolated legal measures. In the UNWGAD’s view, they formed a pattern of political retaliation. The authorities’ use of vaguely defined and overbroad legal provisions under the NSL enabled them to target Lai’s speech and suppress dissent more generally. In particular, the Working Group criticized the disproportionate sentences imposed on Lai regarding his peaceful participation in public assemblies. Hong Kong courts, the UNWGAD said, imposed custodial sentences even in the absence of sentencing guidelines, justifying harsh punishments based on deterrence and Lai’s public profile. The Working Group rejected this approach, emphasizing that punishments for peaceful political participation must adhere to the principle of proportionality and cannot be grounded in political status or perceived influence. It underscored that “violations of laws restricting speech should not be punished by detention as such punishment is disproportionate.” [para. 101]

Finally, the UNWGAD condemned the NSL’s use in Lai’s prosecution for its lack of legal clarity and precision, making it impossible for individuals to foresee which actions might incur criminal liability. The law’s vague language—particularly the undefined notion of acts endangering national security—violated the principle of legal certainty and allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The Working Group reaffirmed that such vague legislation rendered any resulting detention arbitrary under international human rights law. Considering the aforementioned discussion, the UNWGAD concluded that Lai’s prosecution and imprisonment were not only unjustified but also served the purpose of deterring free expression and democratic participation. Accordingly, it held that Lai’s detention was arbitrary under Category II, in clear violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

Category III: On the Question of Fair Trial 

The Working Group identified serious breaches of Lai’s right to a fair trial. It raised alarm over the lack of judicial independence under the NSL, given the Chief Executive’s powers to designate and remove judges (Article 44), certify national security concerns (Article 47), and mandate non-jury trials (Article 46). The UNWGAD observed that such provisions allowed the executive to exert undue influence over the judiciary, violating the principle of an “independent and impartial tribunal” guaranteed by Article 14(1) of the ICCPR. [para. 110]

Additionally, Lai’s right to legal representation was undermined when authorities barred his counsel of choice, and local lawyers reportedly feared reprisal for representing him. The Working Group recalled that legal counsel must operate “free from fear of reprisal, interference, or intimidation.” It also highlighted allegations that a key prosecution witness may have given testimony under torture, a claim left uninvestigated by the authorities. These cumulative failures constituted a denial of justice and due process, rendering the entire proceedings against Lai manifestly unfair and arbitrary under international law.

Category V: On the Deprivation of Liberty and Intersectional Discrimination 

The UNWGAD concluded that Lai’s arrest and detention were discriminatory under Category V, since they were based on his political opinion and public identity as a pro-democracy advocate. It found that Lai’s targeting exemplified a broader pattern of criminal law misuse to silence journalists, human rights defenders, and political opponents. The Working Group recalled that Lai’s prominence as the founder of Apple Daily, his critical reporting on the Chinese government, and his vocal support for democracy had made him a marked target. Discrimination was also evident in some judicial remarks during sentencing, where the court emphasized that Lai and his co-accused were “well-known figures” likely to “draw a crowd,” suggesting that their influence justified harsher punishment. The UNWGAD viewed this reasoning as impermissibly punitive and grounded in political bias. It reaffirmed that no person should face unequal treatment in the enjoyment of their liberty due to their opinions or status. Lai’s detention thus constituted a violation of Articles 2(1) (non-discrimination), 9, and 26 (equality) of the ICCPR, falling squarely within the scope of Category V.

***

In conclusion, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention held that Jimmy Lai’s arrest, prosecution, and continued detention were arbitrary and violated multiple provisions of the ICCPR. The UNWGAD called for Lai’s immediate release, reparations, and alignment of domestic laws, especially the NSL, with international human rights standards.

---