Hong Kong’s now-closed Apple Daily newspaper published criticism of the controversial extradition bill that sparked the 2019 protests and the Beijing-imposed security legislation not simply for the “sake of criticising,” the defence has said in the national security trial of media mogul Jimmy Lai.
Senior Counsel Robert Pang, the lead defence lawyer for Lai, on Tuesday began cross-examining former associate editor Chan Pui-man after the prosecution finished their questioning in the early afternoon. Chan, who was charged alongside Lai, is testifying against her former boss.
The ex-employee agreed with Pang that Apple Daily did not “criticise simply for the sake of criticising, but in the hope that by drawing attention to these matters, the government would change its policies.”
The defence lawyer then put to Chan that Apple Daily’s coverage of the controversial extradition amendment bill in 2019, which triggered months-long protests and unrest, were critical towards the government.
The purpose of running critical articles was to “persuade those in power that the proposed bill was not a good idea,” Pang suggested as the trial at the West Kowloon Law Courts Building entered its 33rd day.
“It could be put that way,” Chan responded in Cantonese.
Lai, 76, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces under the national security law and one count of conspiring to publish “seditious” materials under the colonial-era legislation.
The prosecution had earlier sought to build a case that the media mogul intended, through the Apple Daily newspaper, to advocate for US sanctions on mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials in the wake of the Beijing-imposed national security law.
Pang on Tuesday questioned whether senior editors at Apple Daily were concerned about press freedom being curtailed by the national security law.
Chan said she was, and that she believed authorities should have conducted public consultation before enacting it. She added that Apple Daily’s critical coverage of the national security law reflected Lai’s stance.
Chan agreed with Pang that Lai had “tried his best” using the “means at his disposal” to prevent the national security law from coming into effect.
To the barrister’s statement that Lai suggested that pressure could “dissuade those in power” from enacting the security law, Chan also agreed.
Pang then questioned whether there were any laws in the city criminalising calls for foreign sanctions before the national security legislation was imposed, to which Chan said there were none.
Chan is one of six senior Apple Daily employees who pleaded guilty to conspiring to collude with foreign forces in November 2022. They will be sentenced after Lai’s trial, which began in December and is expected to last 80 days.
Editorial independence
Pang also drew the court’s attention to a charter drafted by Chan in 2019, in which she outlined the “professional ethics” for Apple Daily’s editorial approach.
Chan said she was instructed by Cheung Kim-hung, the former CEO of Apple Daily’s parent company Next Digital, to draw up the document with references to other news outlets’ media professionalism guidelines, including that of the BBC. Cheung was also charged in the case and is acting as a prosecution witness.
“Any news reports [at Apple Daily] shall adhere to the principles of truth, justice, objectivity, and independence,” Pang said as he read out passages from the charter.
“The editor-in-chief is the person in charge at the highest level of collections and editorial affairs of Apple Daily,” he said in another reference to the charter.
Chan said that was how Apple Daily conducted its daily operations on the “superficial level.”
“But in terms of actual operation… if, for example, Mr Lai orders [us] to hire [someone] as an editorial writer, then the editor-in-chief at the time Mr Ryan Law could not have possibly said no,” she said.
“But if I could put it to you,” Pang said, “you would not let Mr Lai affect your journalistic judgement.”
Chan responded that she would have allowed it if Lai “really insisted.”
The defence lawyer also suggested that Lai did not “micro manage” Apple Daily’s editorial affairs, as he did not attend the newspaper’s daily meetings and meeting minutes would not be seen by him.
Chan said it depended on the subject matter. “Sometimes he really didn’t care, but for some news that he valued, for example the July 1 storming of the legislature, he would give us instructions,” she said.
“But if he did not say anything, we would of course exercise our editorial independence, and there was no need to consider his opinions,” Chan added.
The court previously heard that Lai had full control over the editorial policy at Apple Daily, and that he was not a boss who employees could say no to.
Pang said Lai would not direct his employees on editorial matters, and instead would only make suggestions in a “courteous” manner. Chan agreed that Lai was courteous before the hearing was adjourned.
The trial will continue on Wednesday.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
latest national security stories
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
