Lawyers for former Hong Kong media boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying have argued that his “armchair punditry” did not support prosecutors’ contention that he masterminded a conspiracy to instigate Western sanctions, prompting a judge to note that his comments could be interpreted as “disguised requests”.
Advertisement
Lai’s lawyers and the three presiding judges hearing his national security trial found themselves entangled in a recurring debate on the interpretation of allegedly incriminating remarks made by the outspoken Beijing critic, as the defence pressed on with its closing speech at West Kowloon Court on Thursday.
Defence lawyer Robert Pang Yiu-hung SC argued that the court could not conclude that Lai, 77, must have sought foreign interference through sharp criticisms made after the national security law’s implementation in June 2020.
He noted that some of those comments, which covered Beijing’s “wolf-warrior” style of diplomacy and US embargoes on hi-tech exports to mainland China, could have been made by anyone in a local restaurant “over a dim sum table”.
“If you take it neutrally, he’s concerned with human rights, he’s being careful with his words. How can then you draw the inference, not that he was just requesting sanctions, but he was also part of a conspiracy to do so?” Pang said.
That contention did not appear to convince the three High Court judges, who warned against examining selected pieces of evidence in isolation.