The Hong Kong High Court has convicted Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper, of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security and conspiring to publish seditious publications. Lai’s case is one of the most representative cases since the implementation of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL), with profound implications for the city’s rule of law, freedom of the press, and national security governance.

The case was tried by three judges designated for national security cases, lasting 156 days, with a judgment spanning 855 pages. Hong Kong practices common law, and the Basic Law establishes the constitutional status of judicial independence. Judges in Hong Kong adjudicate cases in accordance with the law and due process, without fear or favor, fairly, openly, and independently, bearing the responsibility of safeguarding the rule of law and maintaining judicial justice, free from interference by external parties, including administrative authorities.

The court cited numerous articles, witness testimonies, and records of Lai’s contacts with foreign politicians, proving that he promoted foreign governments to impose sanctions on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China as a whole, and incited hatred against the central and HKSAR governments. The court ruled that his conduct went beyond the scope of press freedom and constituted sedition and acts endangering national security. The judgment highlights the Judiciary’s delineation of the boundaries between “freedom of speech”, “freedom of the press”, and “national security” in national security cases.

The judgment in Lai’s case once again demonstrates Hong Kong’s robust rule of law and judicial independence. The court’s decision was based solely on legal provisions and evidence, not on political views

As a defendant, Lai fully enjoyed the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Basic Law and other Hong Kong laws, including the NSL, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, and the right to an open trial. Both the prosecution and defense were treated fairly by the court, and all proceedings were conducted strictly according to law. Although Lai was convicted, he still retains the right to appeal under the law.

As the court’s judgment pointed out, the legislative purpose of the NSL is to firmly and comprehensively implement the principles of “one country, two systems”, “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong”, and a high degree of autonomy; to safeguard national security; to prevent, suppress, and punish acts and activities that endanger national security; to maintain the prosperity and stability of the HKSAR; and to protect the lawful rights and interests of residents. Hong Kong is by no means the only jurisdiction with national security legislation. Other common law jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Singapore also have similar laws. Individual freedoms and rights are not without limits; every country or jurisdiction has the right to enact laws to safeguard national security according to its own needs. This is a global norm. Western media outlets in the US and UK should adopt a fair and impartial attitude toward the judgment in Lai’s case, rather than making biased or defamatory comments. Western governments should also refrain from using the judgment to smear China and the HKSAR’s judicial system or attempt to interfere in China’s internal affairs.

The judgment in Lai’s case once again demonstrates Hong Kong’s robust rule of law and judicial independence. The court’s decision was based solely on legal provisions and evidence, not on political views. It also proves that the NSL effectively strengthens the mechanism for safeguarding national security, protects the lives and property of Hong Kong residents, and serves as a warning to potential offenders. Hong Kong is no longer defenseless in terms of national security; endangering national security now carries a heavy price.

The author is vice-president of the Small and Medium Law Firms Association of Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.