A judge has argued that an interpretation of Hong Kong’s national security law by Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s defence team may not reflect Beijing’s true intentions, after the former media boss’ lawyers argued that the legislation did not penalise calls for sanctions against select Chinese officials.
Advertisement
Lai’s lawyers on Monday argued that a strict literal approach was necessary to decipher the Beijing-imposed legislation as they resumed presenting verbal arguments at West Kowloon Court for the close of the Apple Daily tabloid founder’s national security trial.
Robert Pang Yiu-hung SC argued the law only banned attempts to instigate sanctions, blockades or other hostile responses from foreign states against central and local authorities, rather than individual officials.
He insisted the law only intended to safeguard national security instead of the interests of individuals and urged the three presiding High Court judges to avoid interpreting the law based on expedience.
But Mr Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang said the court should interpret the law purposively, noting that Beijing would have intended for the legislation to counteract all forms of foreign interference, including a 2019 American act that permitted economic sanctions against mainland Chinese and city officials.
Advertisement
Pang said that was not necessarily true because “at the time so much was going on”, but did not elaborate further.