Don’t let geopolitical rivalry skew debate over Jimmy Lai’s sentencing

Chief Superintendent of the Hong Kong police for national security Steve Li Kwai-wah speaks to media at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts in Hong Kong on February 9 after Jimmy Lai Chee-ying was sentenced to 20 years in jail.

Photo: EPA The sentencing of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying has been cited by several Western officials and media outlets as further evidence that Hong Kong’s legal system is in decline.

Lai, the founder of the now-closed Apple Daily newspaper, faced multiple charges, including two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious publications.

He was convicted last December and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment in February.

That same month, however, the Court of Appeal also overturned Lai’s conviction and sentence in a fraud case concerning the use of Apple Daily’s leased headquarters – a development that received comparatively little attention abroad.

In the fraud case, the Court of Appeal rejected the trial judge’s reasoning on the elements of fraud and quashed Lai’s conviction and sentence.

In an earlier protest‑related case, an appellate court set aside his conviction for organising, but not participating in, an unauthorised assembly in 2019, while maintaining other findings.

These rulings show that convictions in Hong Kong remain subject to appellate scrutiny.

Yet this case has never been viewed solely through a legal lens.

In Washington, Lai’s case is viewed within the context of a more assertive US foreign policy.

That approach has relied on coercive tools to pursue strategic aims, including sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Hong Kong has figured prominently within that broader policy framework.

Legislation and executive orders passed in the United States in 2019 and 2020 established mechanisms to impose sanctions on officials from the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong accused of undermining the city’s autonomy.

Many have since faced asset freezes and financial restrictions.

Against this background, when Western officials criticise Beijing and Hong Kong over Lai, they rarely acknowledge that prosecutors argued – and the court accepted – that Lai used Apple Daily and his international contacts to encourage foreign governments to impose sanctions on Chinese officials.

Criticism has also focused on the structure of the judicial system.

Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s courts exercise independent judicial power, including the power of final adjudication.

When the national

原文链接: 南华早报