On Dec 15, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered a monumental 855-page judgment in Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s national security case. While the judicial decision is a massive fact-finding exercise, its true jurisprudential value lies in how it navigates the tension between lawful news reporting and acts endangering national security. The court’s treatment of the collusion charges under Article 29 of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) and sedition under the Crimes Ordinance offers a blueprint for how the rule of law can penalize specific criminal conduct without dismantling the fundamental principles of press freedom.

Crucially, the judgment draws a sharp line between the profession of journalism and the specific criminal acts for which the defendant was convicted. The court made it clear that the prosecution was not an indictment of news work itself. Instead, it targeted the prohibited behavior of conspiring to request foreign sanctions against the Hong Kong SAR and the People’s Republic of China, alongside the conspiracy to publish seditious material.

The court identified Lai not merely as a media proprietor but as the “mastermind” (paragraphs 1,759, 1,762, 1,782 and 1,811) of those operations. The accepted evidence showed that Lai’s actions went well beyond reporting or critique. His intent, the court found, was to leverage his platforms to shake the State’s governance and facilitate hostile foreign action. This distinction is vital: The judgment underscores that the “shield” of journalism does not confer immunity for conduct that meets the legal threshold of collusion or sedition.

Lai’s case stands as a significant legal milestone. By isolating the defendant’s specific intent to destabilize governance, the court has demarcated the zone of criminal liability from the protected sphere of journalism. In doing so, it seeks to uphold the dual necessities of safeguarding national security and preserving the vibrant media landscape essential to Hong Kong’s international standing

The decision also reinforces the legislative logic of the NSL. The court framed the law as a preventative measure against genuine security threats rather than a blunt instrument to curb legitimate press freedom.

By applying the “literal rule” to respect the statutory text alongside the “purposive rule” to contextualize it, the court confined the law’s application to actual dangers such as soliciting punitive measures from foreign governments. This rigorous approach affirms that while the NSL punishes conduct that endangers national security, it leaves the necessary space for lawful reporting and commentary to continue.

Finally, the judgment on Lai must be read against the backdrop of Hong Kong’s status as an international financial center. A global hub relies on the rule of law and the free flow of information. The ruling suggests that maintaining a diverse media environment is not only compatible with national security enforcement but essential to it.

Rather than signaling a blanket suppression of speech, the decision delineates the legal boundaries within which a free press operates. By clearly marking where political expression ends and criminal conspiracy begins, the court affirms a legal environment that remains stable, open, and predictable for international business and media alike.

Lai’s case stands as a significant legal milestone. By isolating the defendant’s specific intent to destabilize governance, the court has demarcated the zone of criminal liability from the protected sphere of journalism. In doing so, it seeks to uphold the dual necessities of safeguarding national security and preserving the vibrant media landscape essential to Hong Kong’s international standing.

The author is a solicitor in Hong Kong, has a doctorate in constitutional law from Tsinghua University, and is a postdoctoral fellow in the School of Law at the City University of Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.