appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

Bernard Chan

The sentencing of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying has been cited by several Western officials and media outlets as further evidence that Hong Kong’s legal system is in decline.
Lai, the founder of the now-closed Apple Daily newspaper, faced multiple charges, including two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious publications. He was convicted last December and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment in February.
That same month, however, the Court of Appeal also overturned Lai’s conviction and sentence in a fraud case concerning the use of Apple Daily’s leased headquarters – a development that received comparatively little attention abroad.
In the fraud case, the Court of Appeal rejected the trial judge’s reasoning on the elements of fraud and quashed Lai’s conviction and sentence. In an earlier protest‑related case, an appellate court set aside his conviction for organising, but not participating in, an unauthorised assembly in 2019, while maintaining other findings. These rulings show that convictions in Hong Kong remain subject to appellate scrutiny.
Yet this case has never been viewed solely through a legal lens. In Washington, Lai’s case is viewed within the context of a more assertive US foreign policy. That approach has relied on coercive tools to pursue strategic aims, including sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Hong Kong has figured prominently within that broader policy framework.
Legislation and executive orders passed in the United States in 2019 and 2020 established mechanisms to impose sanctions on officials from the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong accused of undermining the city’s autonomy. Many have since faced asset freezes and financial restrictions.


Against this background, when Western officials criticise Beijing and Hong Kong over Lai, they rarely acknowledge that prosecutors argued – and the court accepted – that Lai used Apple Daily and his international contacts to encourage foreign governments to impose sanctions on Chinese officials.
Criticism has also focused on the structure of the judicial system. Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s courts exercise independent judicial power, including the power of final adjudication. When the national security law was enacted in 2020, some critics argued that suspects arrested within the city would routinely be transferred to the mainland for trial. Although the legislation includes a provision allowing transfer in three specified circumstances outlined in Article 55, it does not establish an automatic or routine removal of cases from the local courts.
In practice, national security cases – including Lai’s – have so far been heard in Hong Kong by panels of designated judges, rather than being sent to the Chinese mainland.
Lai has faced multiple prosecutions and received significant sentences. Yet, as earlier appellate rulings show, the courts have not consistently ruled against him, reflecting the independence and impartiality of Hong Kong courts. The appellate judgments were detailed and well-reasoned, and in two cases, the court found that the prosecution had failed to meet the required standards.
Foreign commentary has largely framed the case as evidence of political control over the courts, giving comparatively little weight to these rulings or to the sanctions regime Lai sought to mobilise.


This kind of politicisation of legal disputes is hardly unusual. In the United States, President Donald Trump has publicly criticised judges and prosecutors in his cases, questioned their motives and, when the rulings have gone against him, singled out judges by name while calling for action against political rivals. Such exchanges illustrate how legal disputes can become politicised in highly charged environments.
Similar tensions are visible in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe, where governments have implemented stricter counterterrorism and surveillance powers, including offences that affect the freedom of speech and association. These measures are justified domestically as necessary safeguards.
Judgments about proportionality often differ across jurisdictions, especially when a case is evaluated outside the constitutional and political framework in which it arose, as in Lai’s case.
The current debate in Westminster over jury trials illustrates how even established legal systems revisit procedural safeguards under pressure. A proposed bill would permit more cases to be heard by a judge alone, with ministers citing an 80,000-case backlog in the Crown Court. Many lawyers and MPs contend that reducing jury trials to ease the backlog would weaken a long-standing protection.
The UK, like Hong Kong, operates within the common law tradition, with its emphasis on procedural fairness and judicial independence. The controversy in Westminster shows that even mature common law systems consider adjusting procedures when confronted with institutional strain.
The debate over Lai’s case is unlikely to subside. Yet, if it is to be meaningful, it must be viewed within the full legal and geopolitical context in which the proceedings occurred. Courts can be criticised; judgments can be contested. But when legal analysis becomes subordinate to geopolitical rivalry, the result is not greater accountability but diminished objectivity.


Hong Kong IT analyst charged with murdering wife at their flat

Hong Kong hits out at US panel over Jimmy Lai hearing and sanctions bill

3 firms fined over HK$900,000 each for role in apprentice electrician’s death

22 months’ jail for Hong Kong driver who fatally struck student at traffic junction

Hong Kong courts

Don’t let geopolitical rivalry skew debate over Jimmy Lai’s sentencing

Chief Superintendent of the Hong Kong police for national security Steve Li Kwai-wah speaks to media at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts in Hong Kong on February 9 after Jimmy Lai Chee-ying was sentenced to 20 years in jail. Photo: EPA

Hong Kong slams UK for undermining rule of law with calls to release Jimmy Lai

Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper says in Britain’s six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration that the UK government will continue to press for Jimmy Lai’s release. Photo: dpa

Jimmy Lai was sentenced in February to 20 years in prison after a marathon national security trial with 156 days of public hearings. Photo: AFP

Let’s be clear: national security law update is not a power grab

Police officers stand guard outside the Court of Appeal on February 23 as it delivers its verdict on 12 appeals related to the unofficial primary election held in Hong Kong in July 2020. Photo: Dickson Lee

Beijing summons US envoy in Hong Kong over alert on national security law changes

The Hong Kong government headquarters in Admiralty. Photo: Jelly Tse

Mason’s legacy lies in the reputation he helped forge for Hong Kong’s final court

Former Australian chief justice Anthony Mason, one of the first non-permanent judges to join the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Photo: Handout

Opinion

Hong Kong Opinion

News

Hong Kong

Law and Crime

Courts can be criticised; judgments can be contested. But legal analysis should not be influenced by geopolitical rivalry


Courts can be criticised; judgments can be contested. But legal analysis should not be influenced by geopolitical rivalry.


Jimmy Lai Chee-ying

Jimmy Lai trial

Apple Daily

Hong Kong national security law (NSL)

Crime in Hong Kong

China

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


Don’t let geopolitical rivalry skew debate over Jimmy Lai’s sentencing

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Courts can be criticised; judgments can be contested. But legal analysis should not be influenced by geopolitical rivalry

Courts can be criticised; judgments can be contested. But legal analysis should not be influenced by geopolitical rivalry