The confirmation by Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s legal team that he will not appeal either his conviction, or his 20-year sentence, draws one of the most consequential national security prosecutions in Hong Kong’s history to a definite conclusion. What began as a closely watched legal drama has now reached its conclusion. With the appeal avenue abandoned, the court’s findings on conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and the publication of seditious materials stand as the final judicial account of the case.

In declining to pursue an appeal, the defense has effectively allowed the trial court’s judgment to stand as the final legal word. The original decision set out in an extensive 855-page verdict portrayed Lai as the “mastermind” and “driving force” behind a coordinated effort to invite foreign pressure on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and challenge the authority of its government.

Within any legal system, the decision not to appeal carries practical and symbolic weight. It closed the last formal channel through which the findings of fact or law might be contested. The judgment thus has become a settled precedent within Hong Kong’s jurisprudence. The case, in that sense, becomes a completed chapter in Hong Kong’s evolving national security regime.

In the months leading up to Lai’s sentencing, speculation often drifted beyond the courtroom. Some commentators entertained the possibility that foreign political actors might intervene diplomatically on Lai’s behalf.

Such speculations or expectations always rested more on political theater than on legal reality. Criminal proceedings conducted under Hong Kong law ultimately fall within its own jurisdiction. However intense the Western commentary may be, external political rhetoric or pressure should never alter the outcome of a jurisdiction’s judicial process.

Beijing and the Hong Kong SAR government have repeatedly maintained that the enforcement of Hong Kong’s national security laws is a matter for the SAR’s courts. The closing of Lai’s case underscores the principle that Western lobbying and diplomatic noise are no substitute for legal argument within the courtroom.

From the SAR government’s perspective, the verdict serves not only as punishment but also as deterrence. By identifying Lai as a principal actor in what the court characterized as a coordinated attempt to invite foreign interference, the judgment signals the seriousness with which the authorities intend to enforce national security legislation in Hong Kong.

In practical terms, the case illustrates how Hong Kong’s national security laws are meant to function as an instrument designed to prevent activities deemed to threaten the SAR’s political stability and China’s national security. Now that the appeal has been abandoned, the proceedings of Lai’s case move from the realm of active litigation to that of precedent and political memory. For Hong Kong, the case marks both an end and a signal: It marks the end to a protracted judicial battle, and a signal of how national security laws will continue to shape the city’s legal and political landscape in the years ahead.

The author is a Hong Kong solicitor and a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Law of the City University of Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.