Alex Fan Hoi-kit says that by addressing threats robustly, the legal system ensures a stable and predictable environment

On Feb 9, the High Court delivered its sentencing in the case of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and his co-defendants regarding collusion with foreign forces or external elements to endanger national security“” and conspiracy to publish seditious publications. This case stands as the most landmark litigation since the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) took effect on June 30, 2020. Notably, it marks the first conviction and sentencing for the collusion offense under the NSL. Furthermore, the 20-year prison term handed to the mastermind, Lai, represents the heaviest sentence imposed under the NSL to date — a clear reflection of the gravity of the offenses involved.

From the perspective of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s criminal-justice evolution, Lai’s case demonstrates the organic integration of the NSL with the common law system, establishing a mature judicial framework for safeguarding national security. The trial was conducted in a fair, just, and transparent manner. The proceedings were presided over by a panel of three judges, with both the prosecution and defense represented by senior legal professionals. Adhering to established common law rules, the prosecution bore a rigorous burden of proof, while the defendant exercised his right to testify. Witnesses from both sides were subject to cross-examination, and legal representatives were afforded full opportunity to present arguments. The court’s judgment and reasons for sentencing provided an exhaustive analysis of the charges, the evidence, and the legal rationale behind the final verdict. As Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung previously noted, Hong Kong’s Judiciary operates with the same rigor as other developed common-law jurisdictions, ensuring that verdicts are based solely on evidence and law, free from external or public pressure.

A longstanding principle of the common law is that fundamental rights, such as “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press”, are not absolute. They may be reasonably restricted by law to protect national security, public safety, and public order. This principle was reaffirmed in Lai’s case. Evidence accepted by the court revealed that the defendant leveraged his social influence to maintain communication channels with foreign forces, repeatedly calling for sanctions or hostile actions against the HKSAR and the central government. Such conduct clearly overstepped legal boundaries, proving that “press freedom” cannot be used as a shield for acts that endanger national security.

In determining the sentence, the court did not act arbitrarily. It applied principles from the Ma Chun-man case, tailoring them to the specific context of this trial. The court identified several aggravating factors: The scale and sophistication of the conspiracy; the use of digital platforms to reach global audiences; and the fact that the calls for sanctions led to actual measures taken by foreign governments against Hong Kong officials. Under Article 29 of the NSL, offenses involving foreign entities are inherently more serious. As the mastermind and instigator, Lai’s culpability was deemed “grave”, justifying a higher sentencing starting point and the resulting 20-year term.

Throughout the legal process, certain external forces attempted to exert pressure on the HKSAR courts under the guise of “human rights” or “press freedom”. As a legal practitioner, I must state clearly: Such actions constitute a blatant interference with judicial independence. Hong Kong’s Judiciary has long earned international respect because its rulings are rooted in law and fact, not political sentiment. Any attempt to undermine the credibility of the courts through political maneuvering only serves to damage the rule of law.

Safeguarding national security is the bedrock of development and a constitutional duty in any law-based society. As this judgment illustrates, the law protects the legitimate exercise of rights, not illicit acts directed by foreign interests to undermine stability. As highlighted in the recently released white paper “Hong Kong: Safeguarding China’s National Security Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems”, the central authorities remain steadfast in implementing the “one country, two systems” principle, viewing the maintenance of sovereignty and security as the highest principle. By addressing threats firmly, the legal system ensures a stable and predictable environment — the very foundation on which Hong Kong’s prosperity and the long-term success of the “one country, two systems” framework depend.

The author is a barrister-at-law and a member of the Legislative Council.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.