HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 51/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 December 2025.
1. This is a case mainly on one man at its core. He is Jimmy Lai Chee-ying (“D1”).
Cited by 17 cases · Cites 25 cases
|
HCCC 51/2022 [2025] HKCFI 6291 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 51 OF 2022 ________________
________________
____________________________________ R E A S O N S F O R V E R D I C T ____________________________________ Table of Contents Chapter 2 – Relevant Legal Principles Chapter 4 – Accomplice witnesses Chapter 6 – Senior Management of Apple Daily. Chapter 7 – D1’s political stance and its influence on Apple Daily. Chapter 8 – Meetings in Apple Daily. Chapter 9 – Apple Daily’s Charter and editorial independence. Chapter 10 – The Editorial (「蘋論」) and Apple Forum（「蘋果論壇」） Chapter 11 – Instances of D1 giving editorial directions
Chapter 14 – “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai”.
Chapter 16 – D1’s activities and conduct
Chapter 17 – Senior Management’s Response to the NSL.. Chapter 18 – Advertisement/ Crowdfunding campaigns & SWHK.. Chapter 19 – Andy’s association with Wayland and international lobbying
Chapter 20 – D1’s association with Wayland.
Chapter 21 – D1’s knowledge of IPAC..
Chapter 24 – Assessment of PWs Chapter 25 – Adverse measures by foreign countries
Chapter 26 – Summary of D1’s Personal background and his case.
Chapter 27 – Assessment of D1’s evidence.
Chapter 28 – D1’s foreign connections
Chapter 29 – Factual findings and verdicts 1.This is a case mainly on one man at its core. He is Jimmy Lai Chee-ying (“D1”). 2.To understand the man, we have to return to the beginning. According to D1, he was born into a well-to-do family in Mainland China in 1947. Due to the political unrest in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) at that time, his family lost its fortune and was broken up. His mother was sent to a labour camp and at the age of about 10 years old he had to find work in order to earn some money to feed his siblings. He worked as a porter at a train station and at the age of 12 he smuggled himself into Hong Kong at the bottom of a fishing boat. 3.His story was truly a rags to riches success story and by dint of his hard work and determination he eventually built a very successful textile business. After he sold it, he decided to go into the media business by setting up Apple Daily. As he told Father Sirico in a live chat program, he found it boring being a business man and the media business gave him a reason to fight which he loved. 4.D1 was no doubt a very savvy business man and it is unfortunate that his deep resentment and hatred for the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”) led him down a thorny path leading to his trial today. 5.Apple Daily was set up in 1995 and became a popular tabloid newspaper in Hong Kong known for its paparazzi and its reports on the entertainment industry. He also set up Apple Daily Taiwan a few years after setting up Apple Daily Hong Kong. 6.Shortly after the Occupy Central Movement in 2014, D1 became more active in making editorial policies and used Apple Daily to encourage people to seek for democracy and to take to the streets to put up resistance. This watershed moment was when Apple Daily “metamorphosed” into a newspaper that opposed the HKSAR and the PRC Government. From this time on, according to the senior management of Apple Daily, D1 wanted the newspaper to print the news with this “yellow” slant. There is nothing wrong with having an editorial slant but it will be seen from the evidence it went far beyond that premise. 7.D1 surrounded himself with like-minded individuals who were also keen on tearing down the CCP. First and foremost, there is the mysterious character, Mark Simon, whom he met in church and who quickly gained his trust to become his right hand man and confidante. Although D1 asserted in Court he did not know much of Mark Simon’s background apart from the fact that he used to work for a shipping company in Taiwan and was a member of a group in Hong Kong called The Republican Charter, he gave Mark Simon what appeared to be carte blanche to his money and management of some of his companies. 8.The stage was thus set amidst this background and the evidence will reveal what happened in the management of Apple Daily and how D1 was positioning Apple Daily to reflect anti-CCP views and later anti-PRC and anti-HKSAR views. D1 was also writing articles in his column “Sink or Swim, Smile” in Apple Daily poisoning the minds of his readers and invited writers to write in Apple Daily who also made venomous assertions against the PRC. 9.D1 at this time was also thinking geopolitically and was keen to enlist Taiwan as a leverage against the PRC. So in early 2017, D1 advocated for a greater US military presence in Taiwan to use it as a leverage against the PRC. Thus, D1 hired Jack Keane, a retired US general, and Paul Wolfowitz, a former US Deputy Secretary of Defense, to advise Tsai Ing-wen, the then leader of the Taiwan region for a period of two years which in our Verdict is referred to as the “Taiwan Consultancy”. D1 paid vast sums in remuneration to Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to advise Tsai to recruit retired US army generals to upgrade its military and technology, amongst other things. The coordinator for this project was Mark Simon and D1 kept a close eye on it through Mark Simon and Antonio Chiang, a right hand man of Tsai and a former Apple Daily Taiwan employee. 10.D1’s anti-China sentiment was also evident when he told his senior colleague (Cheung Kim-hung) in Apple Daily that he wanted to garner the attention of the Western Countries to act against the HK and Central authorities and impose sanctions on their officials. In pursuit of this agenda D1 also asked Mark Simon to engage James Cunningham, a former US consul in Hong Kong, to lobby for actions against the HKSAR in Washington. Subsequently, Cunningham informed D1 that the US would react strongly to the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law (“NSL”). 11.As can be seen in the evidence, D1 was obsessed with changing the CCP’s culture and values to one of western values and make China subservient to the might of the US and the West, turning China into a lackey of the West. 12.D1 believed that the Extradition Law Amendment Bill (“ELAB”) introduced in 2019 was a conspiracy between the CCP and the HKSAR deliberately designed to send opponents like himself against the CCP regime to the mainland. D1, through Mark Simon, loaned HK$5 million to the G20 campaign which was a global advertisement campaign against the ELAB. Apart from that, he had also instructed Mark Simon to donate GBP 20,000 to Hong Kong Watch set up by Benedict Rogers in London. 13.In a speech on 10 July 2019 to the Foundation of Defense of Democracies (“FDD”) in Washington, D1 said he had asked the then US Vice-President Pence to encourage Hong Kong people as Hong Kong was fighting the same war against China as the US and the US had the moral authority like a “nuclear weapon” which could finish China in a minute. D1 also told Maria Bartiromo of Fox News in an interview that he had asked Pence, Pompeo and Bolton to support Hong Kong as it fights “your war” in “your enemy camp”. 14.D1 was also keen to enlist and groom young men in his fight and Chan Tsz-wah (“Wayland”) was one of them. D1, in order to spread his influence among the young, even asked Wayland to introduce Lau Cho-dik (“Finn Lau”) (known locally as Mutual Destruction Bro), who was based in London, to fly to Taipei to meet D1 at his home in January 2020. It was later agreed by them that Finn Lau would continue the fight on the international front and Finn Lau later joined the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (“IPAC”) when it was set up. 15.In anticipation of the enactment of the NSL, D1 set up his Twitter account and the Apple Daily English News online in order to reach politically influential US readership and encourage US politicians to follow D1’s advice and requests. 16.Even as late as 29 May 2020, D1 was still invoking his rhetoric that the CCP was a threat to world peace in an article in the New York Times. This was followed in his speech to the Hoover Institution where he again called for sanctions to “punish” China. 17.D1 was so intent on his mission of hatred towards China that even though he was on bail for another matter and one of the conditions was that he was not allowed to travel, nevertheless he still asked Mark Simon to arrange for him to meet “the senior people” in Washington, in the National Security Council and the State Department. D1 then applied in June 2020 for the lifting of his travel restriction concealing his intended meetings with the officials in Washington. His application was fortunately unsuccessful. 18.It is to be stressed that all D1’s actions and words to foreign countries to request for Sanctions, Blockades, Hostile Activities (“SBHA”) before the promulgation of the NSL are not the subject of any criminal charges but only serves as a background to the charges he faced. 19.D1’s rabid hatred of the CCP including the PRC and the HKSAR was intense and even at the time he gave his testimony in Court it was just as intense. We have documented hereinbelow his evidence in Court and after a careful analysis against the contemporaneous documentary evidence we will explain why at the end of the day we reject his evidence. 20.Very briefly stated, the issues in summary for the Court were:
21.Therefore with this short introduction we now take a look at the evidence that has emerged in the trial. 22.The present trial concerns the following defendants:
In this Reasons for Verdict, D2, D3 and D4 are collectively referred to as “the Corporate Defendants”. 23.The charges are as follows: Count 1 (against all defendants) Statement of Offence Conspiracy to print, publish, sell, offer for sale, distribute, display and/or reproduce seditious publications, contrary to sections 10(1)(c), 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 (“CO”). Particulars of Offence D1 and the Corporate Defendants, between the 1 April 2019 and 24 June 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, conspired together and with CHEUNG Kim-hung, CHAN Pui-man, LAW Wai-kwong, LAM Man-chung, FUNG Wai-kong, YEUNG Ching-kee and other persons, to print, publish, sell, offer for sale, distribute, display and/or reproduce seditious publications, having an intention:-
Count 2 (against all defendants) Statement of Offence Conspiracy to commit collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security, contrary to Article 29(4) of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Schedule to the Promulgation of National Law 2020 (“NSL 29(4)”)[1] and sections 159A and 159C of the CO. Particulars of Offence D1 and the Corporate Defendants, between 1 July 2020 and 24 June 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, conspired together and with CHEUNG Kim-hung, CHAN Pui-man, LAW Wai-kwong, LAM Man-chung, FUNG Wai-kong, YEUNG Ching-kee and other persons to request a foreign country or an institution, organisation or individual outside the mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao of the People’s Republic of China, to impose sanctions or blockade, or engage in other hostile activities against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the People’s Republic of China. Count 3 (against D1) Statement of Offence Conspiracy to commit collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security, contrary to NSL 29(4) and sections 159A and 159C of the CO. Particulars of Offence D1, between the 1 July 2020 and 15 February 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, conspired together with CHAN Tsz-wah, Mark Herman Simon, LI Yu-hin, LAU Cho-dik and other persons to request a foreign country or an institution, organisation or individual outside the mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao of the People’s Republic of China, to impose sanctions or blockade, or engage in other hostile activities against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the People’s Republic of China. 24.There is on the Indictment a substantive charge of “collusion” under NSL 29(4) (Count 4) against D1 alone which is related to Count 3. However, the prosecution has elected to proceed with the conspiracy charge and not the related substantive charge. Therefore, Count 4 is left on the Indictment with our leave. Application for stay of proceedings 25.Before the commencement of the trial, on 2 May 2023 D1 applied for a stay of proceedings on the bases that: (1) the criminal proceedings against him would necessarily constitute a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal; and (2) a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that the ensuing trial will not be free from political interference. It was submitted that, on either basis, the trial would amount to an abuse of process. Having heard counsel, on 29 May 2023 we dismissed the stay application with reasons given[2]. 26.At the outset of the trial, the defendants challenged the validity of Count 1 on the basis that it had been time-barred. Having heard submissions from the parties, on 22 December 2023 we handed down our ruling that the charge was not time-barred[3]. On 2 January 2024, D1 applied to re-open the time-bar issue on the basis that there were some perceived ambiguities in the aforesaid ruling. That application was also dismissed by the bench with reasons given on the same date[4]. The prosecution case 27.By way of background, in 2019 there was a prolonged period of serious social unrest and public disorder in Hong Kong in connection with the introduction of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill. Despite the fact that the HKSAR Government announced in September 2019 that the bill would be withdrawn and did formally withdraw the bill in October that year, the protests and the accompanying disorder and violence did not abate until sometime after the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. From then onwards, however, the protest metamorphosed into a resistance movement of which D1 (the founder of Apple Daily) and his newspaper were amongst those in the forefront. Gradually, social order was only eventually restored in Hong Kong subsequent to the resolute enactment of the NSL by the National People’s Congress on 30 June 2020. 28.The prosecution alleged that:
The defence case 29.D1 elected to give evidence in his defence. His case was:
30.The corporate defendants, D2, D3 and D4, elected not to give evidence or to call any witnesses. Their case was that the senior management identified by the prosecution did not constitute the directing mind and will of the corporate defendants and therefore did not render the corporate defendants guilty. Chapter 2 – Relevant Legal Principles Section 159A(1) & (2), CO 31.The Charges which the defendants faced was a statutory conspiracy brought under sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. Section 159A(1) and (2) provided as follows:
Nature of a conspiracy 32.There can be no dispute that conspiracy is an inchoate offence. In HKSAR v Lai Kam Fat[5], Ma CJ, giving the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal, said[6]:
33.Therefore, the crime of conspiracy is completed the moment two or more persons have agreed that they will do, at once or at some future time, certain things. It is not necessary in order to complete the offence that any one thing should be done beyond the agreement: R v Aspinall[7]. It is well-established that a conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. Rather, it will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry out the design: DPP v Doot & Ors[8]. 34.Furthermore, as pointed out by the House of Lords in R v Anderson[9], what constitutes a statutory conspiracy is a matter of construction of the relevant provisions. It is not desirable to introduce ideas derived from the civil law of contract to a conspiracy. 35.It has also been authoritatively affirmed by the Court of Final Appeal that, for the purpose of establishing guilt for a conspiracy charge, what the prosecution has to prove is that the defendant under consideration agreed with at least one of the named co-conspirators to commit a course of conduct which, if executed in accordance with their intentions, would necessarily involve the commission of the relevant substantive offence by one or more of them: HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar[10]. 36.Lastly, we agree with the submission of the prosecution that a defendant would be criminally liable even though the agreement in question was not illegal at the time he joined in but was subsequently rendered illegal by a change in the law, provided that the agreement remained in existence after the change of the law and that the defendant remained a party to that agreement with one or more persons with the necessary intention. Whether or not this is in fact the case is a fact-sensitive issue: see Agius v R[11]; HKSAR v Ng Gordon ching-hang & Ors[12]. See also R v Boyle[13], where it was held by the English Court of Appeal that a charge of conspiracy to defraud could be brought under s.12(1) against conspirators who, before that section came into force, agreed to pursue and after that date did pursue a course of conduct which amounted to or involved the commission of specific criminal offences which would have been charged as a statutory conspiracy contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977. This case shows that the making of a new agreement is not necessary for the Criminal Law Act 1977 to be applicable. It is sufficient that the parties simply continued to pursue their agreement as before. One thing clear though is that a defendant is not to be punished in respect of things done before the change in the law, but in respect of things done after that. “Frustration” 37.Based on the above, we reject without hesitation the following submissions made by leading counsel on behalf of D1, both at the close of the prosecution case (half time) and at closing that: (1) the doctrine of “frustration” in contract law should be applicable to a criminal conspiracy; (2) the NSL, which renders previously non-illegal activities criminal after its promulgation, constituted in the present case a “frustrating event”; (3) thus, D1 was discharged from his liabilities under any previous agreements which were rendered criminal by the NSL; and (4) as a result, D1 could not be convicted of the conspiracies charged, unless there was evidence showing that he became a party to similar “new agreements” with others after the promulgation of the NSL. As aforesaid, there is no warrant for the application of the contractual doctrine of “frustration” to a criminal conspiracy. Secondly, in view of the way the prosecution put their case, the question for this Court to decide is whether any of the previous agreements which the prosecution say were made before the NSL in fact continued after the NSL as alleged; if so, whether any of the defendants (including D1) remained a party to any of those agreements with intention to carry them out. This, as we have said, is a fact-sensitive issue to be decided according to the evidence. 38.We shall explain more fully our reasons for dismissing D1’s submission at half time in due course. Proof of a conspiracy 39.We agree with the prosecution that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the date the conspiracy started. What is important is that the conspiracy which was the subject matter of the charge existed during the charge period. As pointed out by the English Court of Appeal in R v Siracusa[14], the origins of all conspiracies are concealed and it is usually quite impossible to establish when or where the initial agreement was made, or when or where other conspirators were recruited. The very existence of the agreement can only be inferred from overt acts. Furthermore, participation in a conspiracy is infinitely variable: it can be active or passive. If the majority shareholder and director of a company consents to the company being used for drug smuggling carried out in the company's name by a fellow director and minority shareholder, he is guilty of conspiracy. Consent, that is the agreement or adherence to the agreement, can be inferred if it is proved that he knew what was going on and the intention to participate in the furtherance of the criminal purpose is also established by his failure to stop the unlawful activity. 40.As we have said, a conspiracy is a continuing offence. If a conspiracy is already formed and a person joins it afterwards, he is equally guilty: R v Murphy[15]. Conspirators may join in at various times, each attaching himself to that agreement. Any one of them may not know all the other parties to the conspiracy, but only that there are other parties. Any one of them may not know the full extent of the scheme to which he attaches himself, but what each must know is that there is coming into existence, or is in existence, a scheme which goes beyond the illegal act which he agrees to do: R v Sheik Abdul Rahman Bux & Ors[16]; R v Meyrick[17]; and R v Chrastny[18]. Others may join in and some conspirators may not know of the others as long as each agrees to give effect to a common object or purpose. Nor is the prosecution required to prove a defendant has known the full extent of the conspiracy to which he attaches himself: R v Griffiths and Others[19]. 41.The agreement which is the subject of the conspiracy can be expressed or implied or partly expressed or partly implied. It is sufficient upon proving beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a meeting of minds between more than one person. Proof of the existence of a conspiracy is generally a “matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them”: R v Brisac[20]; and Churchill v Walton[21]. 42.In most cases, the intention and elements of the offence can be inferred from the overt acts and declarations including out of court statements whether made in the presence of a particular defendant or not. These inferences may be drawn to prove facts in issue and to provide the factual foundation for inferring facts in issue. Such use does not amount to hearsay use of the statements and distinct from the co-conspirators’ rule: Ahern v The Queen[22], applied in Oei Hengky Wiryo v HKSAR (No. 2)[23]. 43.It goes without saying, however, that no adverse inference against the defendant could be drawn unless it is the only reasonable inference on the evidence: HKSAR v Wong Tak Keung[24]. This is just an extension of the basic principle that the prosecution bear the burden of proof and have to prove the guilt of a defendant beyond reasonable doubt. Article 29(4) of the National Security Law (NSL 29(4)) 44.Part 4 of the NSL consists of NSL 29 and NSL 30. The relevant part of NSL 29(4) is reproduced as follows:
45.For the sake of completeness, we shall also reproduce NSL 30:
Similar legislations in other Common Law jurisdictions 46.The Prosecution has rightly pointed out that Hong Kong is not unique in having a law safeguarding national security. Other common law jurisdictions have similar legislations[25]. To name a few examples:
It goes without saying that even if the same word is used repeatedly in one jurisdiction, it may bear different meanings in different legislations, not to say different legislations in different jurisdictions. That leads us to the following. Construction of the NSL 47.It was held by the Court of Final Appeal in HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying[26] that the NSL should be construed in light of its ordinary meaning, purpose and context. In so doing, regard could be made to the Explanations[27] and Decisions[28] made in proceedings of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (“NPCSC”) regarding promulgation of the NSL as a law of the HKSAR, as extrinsic materials relevant to the consideration of the context and purpose of the NSL. 48.In HKSAR v Lui Sai Yu[29], the Court of Final Appeal reiterated the principle of interpretation of the NSL laid down in HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying[30] that the NSL functioned coherently with the HKSAR’s legal system, and sought “convergence, compatibility and complementarity” with local laws unless they were expressly or impliedly displaced in the event of inconsistency pursuant to NSL 62. Moreover, it was held that the approach to construction to the NSL is the common law approach as established in Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen[31]. The social context leading to the NSL 49.The social context leading to the enactment of the NSL can be seen in “The Explanation on “the Draft Decision of the National People’s Congress on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Safeguard National Security” (“The Explanation”)[32]. The Explanation began by identifying the concerns of the Central Authorities in the light of recent events in Hong Kong:
50.As explained in the Explanation, the NSL was enacted in full awareness that national security in Hong Kong could be undermined by non-violent acts such as inciting public hatred and paralysing governance by the government and operation of the legislature. As noted by Poon CJHC in the judgement of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi[33]:
51.In construing NSL 29, we note first that the word “collusion” appears only in NSL 1 and the heading of Part 4, but not in NSL 29 or NSL 30. NSL 1 (General Principles) says that the NSL is enacted for the purpose of:
52.Secondly, we note that the word “collusion” is not defined in the NSL, nor are the terms “sanctions”, “blockade” and “hostile activities” used in NSL 29(4). If any of these terms were intended to be a term of art which bear a different meaning to what is commonly understood, then we would expect definitions to be given. 53.As aforesaid, the NSL should be construed in light of its ordinary meaning, purpose and context. As regards the ordinary meaning of the words used in a statutory provision, Lord Reid in Pinner v Everett [34] had the following to say,
54.The importance of attaching the natural or ordinary meaning to the words used in a statutory provision was also stressed by Lord Diplock in Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs[35]:
55.We also bear in mind the following general principle stated in Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation concerning the use of a heading in construing a statutory provision:
It is noted that a statement to similar effect in an earlier edition of this book was judicially approved by the Federal Court of Australia in Liebert Corpn Australia Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs[38]. 56.Having considered the provisions of NSL 1, NSL 29 and NSL 30 in Part 4, in our judgment the word “collusion” contained in NSL 1 and the heading of Part 4 only serves as a brief guide to the content of NSL 29 and NSL 30 and does not have the effect limiting the latter two articles.; 57.Secondly, having taken into account:
we come to the conclusion that:
58.In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, we have fully considered the contrary submissions made on behalf of D1 in their written closing which we do not intend to repeat here. With respect, there is no merit to any of those submissions. In particular:
The elements of Count 2 and Count 3 59.In our judgment, the substantive offence of “collusion” under NSL 29 (4) consists of the following elements:
We note that the provision of NSL 29(4) does not require that the request in question resulted in any SBHA. In other words, the offence under NSL 29(4) is an “action crime” rather than a “result crime”. 60.It follows that the elements of the offence of “conspiracy to commit collusion” are as follows:
61.Count 2 and Count 3 being inchoate offences, it is not necessary that a request for sanction had actually been made or that a sanction had actually been imposed. This, in our judgment, is consistent with the purpose of “preventing … collusion with a foreign country … to endanger national security” stated in NSL 1. 62.During the course of his closing speech, leading counsel for D1 submitted that it was an element of Counts 2 and 3 that an accused (who was a party to the agreement) had the intention to commit an act which he knew to be illegal. In other words, it is the defence submission that the prosecution has to prove that the accused had knowledge of the illegality of the agreement. With respect, we disagree, the reasons being that the defence proposition:
63.In this regard, we note that several accomplice witnesses gave evidence either that they had taken steps to avoid getting into trouble with the NSL or that they did not intend to do acts which would be illegal. In our judgment, however, if all the elements of the offence were proved to be present, then their mistaken belief about the legality of their act would not afford them a defence. Sections 9 & 10 of the Crimes Ordinance 64.Section 9 of the Crimes Ordinance (“CO”) provides:
65.Section 10 of the CO provides:
The judgments in HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi 66.In HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi[40], the Court of Final Appeal held that the intention to incite others to violence or public disorder is not an element of the offence under section 10 of the CO. 67.Insofar as it is relevant to the present case, it was the judgment of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi[41] (which was not challenged on further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal) that:
68.At the hearing before the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi, the applicant conceded at the hearing that the offence under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes Ordinance (uttering seditious words) was an offence of “basic intent”, so that the prosecution only needs to prove that the accused intended to utter the seditious words and he knew that the utterance was having a seditious intention prescribed under section 9(1). Therefore, the Court of Appeal was not required to decide whether or not the offences under section 10 of the CO were ones of “basic intent” or “specific intent”[42]. In view of our factual findings, which we will come to in due course, it is also not necessary for us to deal with this point. The operation of section 9(2) of the CO 69.The offences of “sedition” under the CO has now been repealed and replaced by the new offences created under Part 3, Division 4 (Acts with Seditious Intention etc) of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (Instrument A305). We note that, however, that the structure of the new offences are modelled on the old provisions in the CO in that section 23(2) of A305 defines what constitutes a “seditious intention”; sections 23(3) & (4) provide for intentions which are not considered as “seditious”; and section 24 is the offence-creating provision. It is noted that statutory regard has been given to the judgments of the Courts in HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi that proof of an intention to incite public disorder or to incite violence is not necessary: section 25. 70.As regards section 23(3) of A305, we note that the word “only” which appears in the old section 9(2) of the CO is retained:
71.In our judgment, the use of the word “only” in section 23(3) of A305 is purposeful and important, in that it evinces the legislative intention to restrict the operation of sections 23(3) and (4) of A305 as they did in respect of the old section 9(2) of the CO. Properly understood, the operation of the old section 9(2) of the CO is such that an act or a publication in question could be “seditious”, if the intentions referred to in section 9(2) are not the “only” intentions for the act or publication. For example, if an accused in uttering a seditious speech had the intention “to point out errors or defects in the Government with a view to the remedying of such error or defects” (“the first intention”) and at the same time he also had the intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government of HKSAR (“the second intention”), then section 9(2) would not be applicable and the accused would still be guilty of the offence of “uttering seditious words” under section 10(1)(b). This is because “the first intention” is not the “only” intention for the speech. The elements of Count 1 72.In our judgment, the elements of the conspiracy charged in Count 1 consists of the following elements:
73.Count 1 being an inchoate offence, it is not necessary that any “seditious publications” had in fact been produced or published. It is also not necessary for the prosecution to prove that an accused (who was a party to the agreement) had knowledge of the illegality of the agreement. Corporate criminal liability – the directing mind 74.It is well accepted that a company can be guilty of both statutory[43] and common law offences[44], even those requiring mens rea. However, a company cannot be indicted for a crime for which the only punishment is imprisonment[45]. 75.As submitted by the prosecution and not challenged by the defence, that a company may be found guilty of offences under the NSL for the following reasons:
The finding of guilt is under the doctrine of attribution, where the conduct of individuals representing the “directing mind and will” of the company is attributed to the company. Thus the company may also be held criminally liable. It is a question of law whether, once the facts have been ascertained, a person in doing particular things is to be regarded as the company or merely as the company's servant or agent: Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass[46]. 76.Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe NPJ, who gave the majority judgment of the Court of Final Appeal[47] in Moulin Global Eyecare Trading Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue[48], pointed out that the emphasis of “merely” is markedly different[49]. His lordship said[50],
77.Lord Walker reviewed a series of case authorities including El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc[51]and Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission[52]. Meridian was an appeal from New Zealand to the Privy Council where it was held that the chief investment officer of an investment management company was its directing mind and will and so his knowledge was attributable to the company. Lord Walker said that Meridian “is now rightly regarded as the leading case on the topic of attribution in company law”. His Lordship said:
As regards cases in the third category, it is the Court’s task to determine the intention of the legislature from the statutory language, purpose and context and to fashion a special rule where it is dealing. As Lord Hoffmann explained in Meridian[53]:
78.See also R v St Regis Paper Company Ltd[54] , where it was held by the English Court of Appeal, applying Meridian, that the conventional approach to attributing criminal liability to a corporate body for offences requiring proof of mens rea required a controlling officer of the corporation to have performed the proscribed conduct with the relevant guilty intention; on the basis of that approach the question for a jury would be whether those who had committed the offence with the requisite intention constituted the “directing mind and will” of the corporation. Such persons would normally be the board of directors, the managing director and other superior officers of the company who carried out the functions of management and spoke and acted as the company. There might, however, be cases where, although the Court considered that the law was intended to apply to companies, insistence on the primary rules of attribution would in practice defeat that intention: in such cases the Court had to fashion, on the basis of interpretation of the relevant statute or regulation, a special rule of attribution geared to the purposes of the statute or regulation. 79.Both the prosecution and the defence respectively asked that this Court take judicial notice of certain matters which they say are relevant to this case. We note that the prosecution made their request in their written closing submissions together with references to the relevant legal principles and materials in support. On the other hand, the defence request was a last minute decision made during oral closing and not forewarned in their written submissions. Legal principles 80.When judicial notice of a fact is taken, a Court may accept that fact as proven without requiring proof of it in the normal way. The following legal principles taken from Phipson on Evidence (20th edition) on “judicial notice” is not in dispute:
The sources consulted by the judge may include reports of previous cases, certificates from various officials, works of reference, and oral statements of witnesses: Cross and Tapper on Evidence (13th edition)[57]. As the prosecution pointed out, and it is not in dispute, that judges may, in arriving at their decisions, use their general information and knowledge of the common affairs of life which men of ordinary intelligence possess, so long as they do not act on their own private knowledge or belief regarding the facts of a particular case: R v Sutton[58]. Application to the present case 81.Applying the above legal principles to the present case and the relevant materials referred to by the prosecution in their written closing submissions, we consider that the following matters are proper subjects of judicial notice:
82.In fact, even without resorting to the taking of judicial notice, the above matters had already been referred to during the course of the trial by the witnesses, previous judgments of the Courts[59], and the relevant legislative and public documents (including the Explanation). Furthermore, we are satisfied that the above matters are relevant in that they provided the necessary social background and setting which assist this Court to have a full picture of the various incidents canvassed in this trial. 83.The defence also applied for us to take judicial notice of five matters which, they submit, were “notorious facts”:
84.We note that the legal team for D1 has not referred us to any materials which supported any of the above. We are of the view that items (1), (2) and (4) are not proper subjects of judicial notice. Besides, we are also unable to see the relevance of any of the five items to the present trial. Therefore, the defence application is refused. The grounds 85.At the close of the prosecution case, a no-case submission was made on behalf of D1 on the following grounds:
The relevant legal principles 86.It is agreed by both parties that the seminal case on no-case submissions is R v Galbraith[60]. It has been held in Re Secretary for Justice’s Reference (Nos 1-3/2021)[61] that on a proper application of the no case to answer test in R v Galbraith, the prosecution was not required to show that the jury could not reasonably reach any alternative inference contended for. The question was whether it was properly open to the jury to reach the inference contended for by the prosecution. If there was an inference of guilt which was reasonably open to the jury to draw, the case could be left to the jury, notwithstanding there might be another inference consistent with innocence. 87.As to how a trial judge should approach a prosecution’s case based on inferences when faced with a no-case submission, it was held in Re Secretary for Justice’s Reference (Nos 1-3/2021) that the following passage of Kempster JA in Attorney General v Li Fook Shiu Ronald[62], which is about an application to discharge made under section 22 of the Complex Commercial Crimes Ordinance, Cap 394, is also applicable in an application of no-case to answer:
Reasons for ruling 88.We have already set out the relevant legal principles on the law of “conspiracy”, the offence of “collusion” under NSL 29(4) and also the offence of “sedition” under sections 9 and 10 of the CO. We have already given reasons why we rejected the defence submission on “frustration”. 89.Having considered the submission of the parties, we came to the following decisions:
90.For the above reasons we found that D1 had a case to answer on all three Counts. 91.D1 was the founder of Next Digital Limited (Chinese name: 壹傳媒有限公司) (“NDL”). 92.At all material times,
The Corporate Defendants were subsidiaries of NDL[66]. 93.During the charge period of Count 1, NDL was listed on the Hong Kong Main Board and D1 was the majority shareholder of NDL who held approximately 71% of its shares[67]. 94.The Board of Directors of NDL consisted of the following[68]:
95.Besides, the following persons occupied the following positions in NDL and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as the “Group”)[69]:
96.During the period specified below, the following persons were directors of D2[70]:
Apple Daily Printing Limited (D3) 97.During the period specified below, the following persons were directors of D3[71]:
98.During the period specified below, the following persons were directors of D4[72]:
Chapter 4 – Accomplice witnesses 99.The prosecution called the following civilians to give factual evidence against the defendants:
Personal background 100.Cheung Kim-hung graduated from the Chinese University of Hong Kong with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Science and Journalism in 1983. 101.Before joining Next Magazine in 1991 as Financial Editor, Cheung Kim-hung had worked in various newspapers including Financial News, Ming Pao and Hong Kong Economic Times. With the development of the business of Next Magazine, other magazines were later published. In 1994, Cheung Kim-hung was promoted by D1 to Editor-in-Chief. In 1995, D1 set up Apple Daily in Hong Kong. In 1999, the company became publicly listed. In 2000, D1 decided to establish Next Magazine in Taiwan and Cheung Kim-hung went there with him and assisted in setting up the magazine, as a result of which he handed over the post of Editor-in-Chief in Hong Kong and spent most of his time in Taiwan working closely with D1. In April 2005, however, Cheung Kim-hung decided to take a rest and he quitted Next Magazine Taiwan, as it was by then established. 102.In 2010, at the invitation of D1, Cheung Kim-hung re-joined Next Magazine in Hong Kong as Content Advisor. In April 2011, he was transferred by D1 from Next Magazine to Apple Daily and became its Editor-in-Chief. Between April 2011 and December 2014, Cheung Kim-hung became the registered Editor of Apple Daily for the purpose of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance and worked as its Associate Publisher. In 2016, he was promoted by D1 to Publisher. He was further promoted by D1 to Deputy CEO of the Group in 2017 and CEO in February 2018. 103.Besides, Cheung Kim-hung was a director of NDL’s subsidiaries including the Corporate Defendants. Charges 104.Cheung Kim-hung was arrested on 17 June 2021 and subsequently charged with the offence of conspiracy to commit collusion (Count 2). Afterwards, he was additionally charged with the offence of conspiracy to publish seditious publications (Count 1). 105.On 17 May 2022, he pleaded guilty at committal in the Magistrates’ Court to Count 2 and the other charge was left on court file upon the prosecution’s application. Personal background 106.Chan Pui-man was born and educated in Hong Kong. She received university education and majored in Business Administration. She first joined Apple Daily in December 1996. Before that, she had worked in Capital Magazine and Sing Tao Daily. She joined Apple Daily as a senior reporter and was subsequently promoted to principal reporter, news editor, and Editor-in-Chief. She worked mainly in the local news section. 107.In 2016, Chan Pui-man was diagnosed with cancer. She took sick leave for about seven months. When she resumed work, she was concerned that she might not be able to cope with the workload and pressure of being Editor-in-Chief. At that time, there was a vacancy for the post of Associate Publisher. With the blessings of Cheung Kim-hung, she took up that position in 2017, responsible for the print form of Apple Daily. Charges 108.Chan Pui-man was arrested on 17 June 2021 when the premises of Apple Daily was searched by the police for a second time[73]. She was released on police bail until 21 July 2021, on which day she was re-arrested and was charged with two charges, namely: conspiracy to publish seditious publications (Count 1); and conspiracy to commit collusion (Count 2). 109.On 17 May 2022, before the committing magistrate, Chan Pui-man pleaded guilty to Count 2, whilst the other charge was left on court file on the application of the prosecution. Personal background 110.Yeung Ching-kee was born in the Mainland where he also received university education. He came to Hong Kong in about 1993. After doing a few jobs, he joined Apple Daily in February 1998 as a senior reporter in the Chinese news department and was subsequently promoted to assistant editorial writer and news editor (「採訪主任」). Eventually, in 2015 he became the editorial writer of the newspaper and remained in that post up to the time of his arrest. As editorial writer, his job consisted of two main areas: (1) as one of the writers of “Apple Editorial” (「蘋論」); and (2) in charge of “Apple Forum” (which was in section A of the newspaper). At the material time, Yeung Ching-kee, was the editorial writer of Apple Daily with the pen-name “LI Ping” (「李平」). Charges 111.On 23 June 2021, Yeung Ching-kee was arrested by the police. On 17 May 2022, Yeung Ching-kee pleaded guilty at committal to Count 2, whilst the other charge was left on court’s file. Personal background 112.Andy was born in 1990. He completed tertiary education and can read and write Chinese and English. In 2019, he worked as a computer programmer and accepted jobs on a project basis. By 2019, he had accumulated savings of about HK$4 million odd. Charges 113.On 10 August 2020, Andy was arrested for collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security and other offences. On 24 March 2021, he was charged with the offences of (1) conspiracy to commit collusion; (2) conspiracy to assist offender; and (3) possession of firearms or ammunition without a licence. 114.On 7 July 2021, he pleaded guilty at committal in the Magistrates’ Court to the offence in charge (1). The other charges were left on court file upon the application of the prosecution. Personal background 115.Wayland was born in 1991. He held a bachelor degree in law and a master degree in China Law. At the material time, he worked in a firm of solicitors as a paralegal. Charges 116.Wayland was arrested by the police on 10 October 2020 for “assisting an offender” but was soon released on police bail. On 15 February 2021, he was re-arrested for the offence of collusion. 117.Eventually, on 7 July 2021 Wayland pleaded guilty at committal in the Magistrates’ Court to the charge of conspiracy to commit collusion. Upon the application of the prosecution, the other charge was left on court file. Personal background 118.Royston completed university education. He first joined the Next Digital Group in 1993 as Financial Controller. Between 1 January 2016 and 25 August 2020, he was the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of the Group. Between October 2019 and 2 July 2021, he was its Chief Operating Officer (“COO”). Besides, he was also:
After Royston resigned from all his posts in the Group on 2 July 2021, he then became its consultant up to 3 September 2021. 119.Royston was first arrested by the police on 10 August 2020 for fraud and collusion and was released on the following day. On 2 December 2020, he was charged with D1 and Wong Wai-keung for fraud. On 17 June 2021, he was re-arrested for the present case and was again released on police bail on the following day. 120.On 16 February 2022, Royston was granted an immunity[74] by the prosecution on the condition that he gave true and full evidence in the trial of the fraud charge (which had already been heard in the District Court) and in the present trial. 121.Purely for the sake of completeness, we should mention that the other alleged co-conspirators Law Wai-kwong, Lam Man-chung and Fung Wai-kong named in Count 2 had also pleaded guilty at the committal in the Magistrates’ Court on 17 May 2022. However, they are not witnesses in the present trial. 122.Needless to say, the fact that some of the named co-conspirators have pleaded guilty can have no bearing on our decision in the respective case of D1 and the Corporate Defendants. Our task is to decide whether the present defendants are guilty or not guilty of any of the offences they face on the evidence given in this trial. The admission of guilt of the named co-conspirators does not take the respective case against D1 and the Corporate Defendants any further. 123.On the other hand, when considering the evidence of an accomplice witness who has either pleaded guilty or been granted an immunity, we bear in mind that he or she would have an obvious incentive to fabricate evidence against the present defendants. Because of this, we would approach their evidence with caution. We ask ourselves whether any of the accomplice witnesses, especially Cheung Kim-hung and Wayland who gave direct evidence against D1, may have tailored his or her evidence to implicate the defendants falsely or whether we can be sure, despite the potential benefit to he or she of giving evidence against the defendants, that he or she has told the Court the truth. It is only when we are sure that an accomplice witness has told us the truth that we may rely on his or her evidence. 124.According to the admitted facts, on 27 January 1995 「蘋果日報」 was first registered as a local newspaper[75]. Its English name, “Apple Daily”, was provided on 20 June of the same year[76]. 125.Apple Daily had both a print version (“Print Form”) and an online version (“Digital Form”)[77]:
126.Apart from publication in the Print Form and the Digital Form, Apple Daily also maintained various social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, PSCP.TV and YouTube, where posts were published providing links to its content and articles published in the Print Form and/or the Digital Form as applicable. These links contain a reproduction, in whole or in part, of the content published in the Print Form and the Digital Form[83]. 127.Based on the above, we are sure and we find at all material times Apple Daily was a widely circulated newspaper in Hong Kong and its readership was not restricted to the local population. 128.According to Chan Pui-man, whose evidence we accept, the news reported in the Print Form came from the Digital Form. Therefore, whilst not all the news reported in the Digital Form would be reported in the Print Form, the news published in the Print Form would be found in the Digital Form. Chapter 6 – Senior Management of Apple Daily Cheung Kim-hung’s role in Apple Daily 129.At the time of his arrest, Cheung Kim-hung was the Chief Executive Officer of Next Digital Group and the Publisher of Apple Daily responsible for its operation and publication. 130.As regards the division of responsibility between D1 and Cheung Kim-hung, Cheung Kim-hung said that D1 as the Chairman was the ultimate decision-maker and the top leader of the Group, whereas he as a CEO was to carry out the instructions given to him by D1. However, between February 2018 and May 2020, D1 was in fact actively involved in the Group making decisions and handling the operation. 131.Cheung Kim-hung explained the respective roles of Publisher and Editor-in-chief as follows:
132.As to whether D1 had in fact given any editorial direction or policy for Apple Daily, we would come to that in due course. Other than that, we accept the above evidence of Cheung Kim-hung as to his role in Apple Daily. Senior Management of Apple Daily 133.Based on the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man, putting aside D1 for the moment, we are sure and we find that the senior management of Apple Daily, as far as news reporting was concerned, included Cheung Kim-hung and the following persons:
Chapter 7 – D1’s political stance and its influence on Apple Daily 134.One thing has to be stressed: D1 is not on trial for his political views and he is free to hold whatever views he likes on politics. However, it would be an entirely different matter if D1 intentionally put his thoughts into action and conducted himself in such a way which was prohibited by law. 135.It is the prosecution case that D1’s political stance and the views expressed in his articles formed the major plank of the editorial policies of Apple Daily. It is also alleged that he was using the newspaper as a platform to attack the HKSAR Government and the Chinese Communist Party and to promote his political agenda. As such, an understanding of his political views and stance could provide a useful background in ascertaining his intention and purpose at the material times. It would also be relevant in assessing to what extent (if any) he was prepared and determined to use his newspaper as a platform for spreading his political ideas and to implement his political agenda. D1’s stance on US-Taiwan relationship 136.There is no dispute that D1 had a residence in Yang Ming Shan, Taipei. There is also no dispute that he established and ran Taiwan Next Magazine and Apple Daily Taiwan. 137.However, there is evidence which shows that D1’s interests in Taiwan was not only restricted to business but also politics. As can be seen in due course, D1 supported the idea of the US using Taiwan to leverage against what he called “China’s belligerence”. It needs to be emphasized that D1’s interests or involvement in Taiwan politics is not a subject matter of any of the charges. According to Chan Pui-man (whose evidence in this regard was not challenged), when D1 expressed his views of the current social situation in Hong Kong, he would also make reference to the situation in Taiwan. This was because D1 took the stance that the fate of Hong Kong was related to that of Taiwan. 138.D1 said that he first met Tsai Ing-wen at a party organized by the US Consulate in Taiwan. That was before she was elected as the leader of Taiwan. After Tsai had taken that office in 2016, it was through the arrangement of Antonio Chiang (who D1 described as her right-hand man) that D1 had meetings with her for a few times. Those meetings were sometimes just about the policy of Taiwan which he was unable to remember clearly. D1 said that he thought it was “more a PR for her than anything” that she wanted to have discussion with him. Antonio Chiang (江春男) 139.D1 said that Antonio Chiang was a very famous writer whom he had known before he went to Taiwan to establish his business there. When D1 first established Next Magazine Taiwan, Chiang was their editorial writer. After that, Antonio Chiang was employed by Apple Daily Taiwan. In 2016, Antonio Chiang was the head of China Academy of Culture (「中華文化協會」), which was a pseudo-government organization of the Taiwan Region. 140.There is evidence to show that Antonio Chiang had been receiving substantial sums from D1’s company while he was acting as an aide to Tsai Ing-wen. In cross-examination, D1 was shown a series of emails on 25 March 2020 among Chen Chuan-chin (Johnny) of Next Media Taiwan on the one hand and Hung Chi-keung (Dennis), Cheung Kim-hung and Royston on the other[84]. According to those emails, D1 was said to have told Ip Yut-kin (the then Chairman of Next Media Taiwan) that Next Media Taiwan should pay Antonio Chiang a sum of NT$209,606 per month even though he was not writing anything for them. There was also a document showing that Antonio Chiang had been paid the monthly payment as “consultancy fee” between 27 November 2017 and 29 February 2020 (for a total of NT$5,868,968)[85]. D1 said in Court that there was a misunderstanding in that they thought Antonio Chiang had been of some use to D1 and that was why they continued to pay him even though he did not contribute any articles. D1 said that the payment was meant to be for editorial writings. When D1 realised that Antonia Chiang had been paid without writing, he asked that the payment be stopped immediately[86]. D1 denied that he had asked people to continue to pay Antonio Chiang even though the latter was not writing any editorials for Apple Daily Taiwan. 141.On 12 December 2016, D1 messaged Antonio Chiang by WhatsApp and said[87]:
142.In D1’s examination-in-chief, when asked by his counsel whether he was advocating greater military presence of the US in the region in order to threaten China, he said that what he was saying was that the US actually was increasing their presence already now at that time in Asia Pacific. He thought that the fact that the US was increasing their military presence in Asia Pacific would reduce the risk of conflict with China. Arranging Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane as Tsai’s consultants 143.D1 said that as Antonio Chiang mentioned to him that Tsai Ing-wen would like to know more about the sentiment and attitude of the Trump administration toward Taiwan, D1 introduced Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to Tsai[88]. 144.Both Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane were D1’s personal friends. According to D1, Paul Wolfowitz was formerly US ambassador to Indonesia and Deputy Secretary of Defence. He has extensive experience in dealing with Asia policy in the United States. D1 knew Paul Wolfowitz offhandedly before he hired the latter to be his consultant when he went to Myanmar looking for investment opportunity back in 2013. D1 said Jack Keane was formerly a US General and he became the personal advisor to President Trump in January 2017. In cross-examination, D1 said that he believed at the time that Jack Keane was close to Trump. 145.D1 was obviously aware of the sensitivity of a US retired general (whom he believed was close to the Trump administration) giving advice to the Taiwan region. This is because D1 texted his much-trusted personal assistant Mark Simon on 5 January 2017 and said[89],
146.D1 was eager to see the strengthening of the ties between the US and Taiwan, military or otherwise. On 21 July 2017, D1 informed Antonio Chiang that[90]:
On 19 August 2017, D1 messaged Antonio Chiang again and advised[91]:
147.D1 was not only eager to have Wolfowitz and Keane acting as Taiwan’s consultants, but was also paying for their service. On 23 April 2018, Mark Simon texted D1 and said, among other things, that[92]:
Later on the same day, Royston sent a WhatsApp message and asked D1 to confirm, among other things, a request for US$400,000 for Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane. D1 replied, “Royston, Ok. Thanks. Jimmy”[93]. 148.On 8 May 2018, D1 texted Mark Simon and asked whether “Antonio” was in Japan with “Paul” and “Jack” and whether Mark Simon were there too. Mark Simon replied that he was there but “Antonio” was not. He also informed D1 that “Paul & Jack have a lot of pull up here. Very senior folks. Will brief you in person.”[94] On 10 May 2018, Mark Simon sent D1 what he said were some notes from “Paul” and “Jack” and he would brief D1 on them[95]. On 14 May 2018, Mark Simon asked D1 if he was free in office. D1 replied that he would be in office in five minutes and he asked Mark Simon to see him when he was free[96]. 149.On 16 May 2018, D1 texted Antonio Chiang and said[97]:
150.On 20 July 2018, Mark Simon informed D1 that there was a “change of schedule for Jack & Paul. They will be in Taiwan the 1st to the 5th of August.”[98] Then on 23 July 2018, Mark Simon asked whether the trip was worth going forward and if not, he would start shutting it down[99]. To this, D1 replied[100],
151.On 30 July 2018, Mark Simon asked if D1 would want to have dinner with “Jack” and “Paul”. D1 said that he could have dinner with them on Saturday the 4th. D1 asked if they got “all the appointments needed including Tsai”. Mark Simon informed that “Jack” and “Paul” would see “Tsai” on Friday the 3rd and Foreign Ministry on Wednesday or Thursday.[101] 152.On 26 March 2019, D1 asked Mark Simon to urge “Jack” and “Paul” to make the trip soon; otherwise “Tsai” would be too absorbed by the “relectionary (sic) barnstorming” that she would not be able to do anything with their advice. Mark Simon replied that he would “push”[102]. On the following day, Mark Simon reported that “Paul was very open” but “Jack’s people are a bit to cut throat, and it’s also quite obvious that the money means quite a bit to Jack.”[103] On 2 April 2019, Mark Simon reported that “Jack” and “Paul” were working out dates for trip over[104]. On 7 April 2019, in reply to D1’s query as to the progress of the proposed trip of “Paul” and “Jack”, Mark Simon said they were “thinking late May for a few days”[105]. 153.Apart from D1’s aforesaid approval of a request for US$400,000 for Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane on 23 April 2018, there is also other evidence to show that he was willing to pay for their service:
We are fully alive to the issue that the contents of the above WhatsApp is not evidence of the truth of the contents. However, they are relevant to D1’s state of mind. Given that D1 raised no further queries after learning what he had been told by Mark Simon, we considered that the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that D1 agreed to those payments for the stated purpose. 154.Also on 5 January 2017, D1 shared with Antonio Chiang the note which he had prepared for his meeting with John Bolton on the following day. That note started with the following:
155.In cross-examination, D1 said that he did not intend Antonio Chiang to pass the note to Tsai Ing-wen and the latter “was too cautious about this kind of approach”. D1 said that he had known John Bolton for a long time and they first met at a meeting of a think tank in Washington. At the time of the aforesaid WhatsApp message, John Bolton was not yet in the Trump administration and he only became the national security advisor in 2018. D1 said that at the time the idea of US having a more prominent military presence in Taiwan had already been floating around in the media. He asked Antonio Chiang to keep it confidential to protect his (D1’s) position as a Chinese in Hong Kong. 156.D1 agreed that he met up with John Bolton on 6 January 2017. D1 was shown a WhatsApp message from Mark Simon on 17 January 2017 which contained an article which appeared to have been written by John Bolton on 16 January 2017 where it said[110]:
When D1 was asked whether the content of this article was similar to that contained in his note, he said that a similar idea that was already prevailing in some of the comments in the US media at that time. 157.It was not only that D1 was eager to see the strengthening of relationship between the US and Taiwan, he also aimed to help Taiwan reset “constant contacts on the diplomatic floor in Washington”. 158.In cross-examination, D1 agreed that in around March 2018 he was eager to have Taiwan engage James Cunningham to re-establish a diplomatic channel for Taiwan[111]. On 21 August 2017, D1 shared with Antonio Chiang a webpage in which James Cunningham was described as an “American diplomat”.[112] Then on 28 August 2017, D1 texted Antonio Chiang again and said[113],
D1’s “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai” programme (“live chat”) 159.We will come to D1’s live chat in due course. It suffices for us to say at this juncture that even after the enactment of the NSL in July 2020, D1 was making open statements about using Taiwan as a leverage against China. It is also clear that he bought into the narrative of the US about China as a threat to the West in its entirety. 160.After considering all the evidence including but not limited to the above, we find that D1’s position regarding Taiwan had not changed after the NSL. D1’s views and stance regarding Hong Kong 161.D1 had his own column, “Sink or swim, Smile” in Apple Daily which was published every Sunday in the Supplement. Cheung Kim-hung said the contents of D1’s articles were mainly to oppose the HKSAR Government and the Chinese Communist Party. In this regard, it was also Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence that D1 expressed his political views very specifically in his articles. Yeung Ching-kee said that he, as the one in charge of the Editorial and Apple Forum, definitely needed to read D1’s articles, as he would not adopt a stance opposite to that of D1. From paparazzi to social activism 162.According to Cheung Kim-hung, prior to 2014 the image of Apple Daily was more about paparazzi and entertainment. Shortly before and after the Occupy Central Movement in 2014 (which Cheung Kim-hung described as the “watershed”), however, D1 became more active in making editorial policies and he used Apple Daily to encourage people to seek for democracy and to take to the streets to put up resistance. Thus, Apple Daily “metamorphosed” into a newspaper that opposed the HKSAR Government and the Central Government. From that time onward, the management of Apple Daily also ran the newspaper according to this stance adopted by D1. 163.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung disagreed on the proposition that Apple Daily had always encouraged people to take to the streets to have their voices heard and that there had been no sea change in its policy after 2014. Cheung Kim-hung said that as the then editor-in-chief, he personally felt in 2014 that there was a drastic change in the atmosphere. In fact, there was then a campaign for universal suffrage planned and worked out by D1 that lasted as long as half a year. Initially, D1 instructed him to rent spaces on the external wall of some buildings to make publicity encouraging people to fight for universal suffrage. When the White Paper on the “One Country and Two Systems” was issued by the Central Authorities, D1 also asked him to hire large-sized trucks to move around Hong Kong doing some sort of performance art opposing the White Paper. Later, since the tasks were not something which Cheung Kim-hung could handle, D1 handed them over to Mark Simon. It was also in 2014 that D1 participated in the “Occupy Central” movement till the end when he was taken away by the police. For the aforesaid reasons, Cheung Kim-hung considered that Apple Daily underwent a drastic change in 2014 which was different from the previous years when it had only encouraged people to take part in night vigils on June 4 and the processions on July 1. 164.In the same vein, Chan Pui-man said during the “Occupy Central” movement in 2014, D1 participated in it personally and became part of the news. After that, D1 continued to step forward at the forefront of the social movement. Mike Pence’s 2018 speech and its impact 165.According to Chan Pui-man, D1 was an advocate for peaceful protests or demonstrations before 2019 but he showed more understanding toward non-peaceful protests or demonstrations. She cited the incident of the storming of the Legislative Council on 1 July 2019. As D1 did not want the movement to lose momentum, he therefore instructed that more coverage be given to the thoughts of the demonstrators so that the public would have a better understanding of them. At that time, there was among demonstrators the slogan “no separation between the peaceful and the valiant” (「和勇不分」), which meant they would not be divided but would stay united. Because of D1’s support of the movement, he also agreed to this saying. Chan Pui-man acted accordingly in her work on the Print Form. 166.Yeung Ching-kee provided another perspective. According to him, D1 is a very successful and astute businessman who had a very good grasp of market changes and customers’ demand. According to Yeung Ching-kee, D1 thought that Pence’s speech represented a whole change of the United States’ policy. Therefore, the change of the global situation should be grasped and that there should be a change in direction concerning the news and the reporting style. 167.Yeung Ching-kee observed that D1’s political stance became more radical after Mike Pence, then Vice-President of the United States, had made a speech at Hudson Institute in October 2018[114]. Yeung Ching-kee referred to his WhatsApp exchange with D1 on 5 October 2018[115], where D1 told him that the United States had “turned over the table” (「反檯」) and that would lead to Japan and Western countries changing their policy towards China. In D1’s view, the US would seize the chance when Xi Jinping was in a weaker situation and changed its policy towards China[116]. That is, “to kick a man when he is down” （「落井下石」）[117]. As a result of the aforesaid exchanges with D1, Yeung Ching-kee drafted an editorial: “The US issues a declaration of war/ Hong Kong braving the gunpoint” (「美國發宣戰檄文/香港挺身撞槍口」) responding to the speech of Pence and sent it to D1[118]. There being no objection from D1, the editorial was published on the following day. 168.According to Cheung Kim-hung, during 2019 and 2021, D1 opined that the 2019 Extradition Law Amendment Bill (“ELAB”) was a crackdown on democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. This, D1 told the management of Apple Daily that the Central Government wanted to use this legislation to bring defiant people back to China. D1 further said that the business community was also very much concerned and that if this law was enacted, the media could not survive. On the international front, D1 wanted to make use of Apple Daily to draw the attention of Western democratic countries to the ELAB, hoping that they would take actions against the HKSAR Government and the Central Government which could go as far as imposing sanctions on the officials of Hong Kong SAR Government and the Chinese Government in order to scare them off and to prevent them from doing anything wantonly. According to Cheung Kim-hung, D1 expressed the aforesaid views between March and April 2019 in “lunchbox meetings” of Apple Daily as well as privately in D1’s office when there were only the two of them. 169.Cheung Kim-hung was cross-examined on three of Apple Daily’s reports which appealed for support of anti-ELAB protests published respectively on:
170.It was put to Cheung Kim-hung that Apple Daily had always been calling for peaceful protests. As to this, Cheung Kim-hung said that at the later stage when the violence became more intense, D1’s stance was that there should not be any division between the peaceful and the valiant protestors. Apple Daily also followed D1’s stance, that is, its reports and comments of the valiant were sympathetic and relatively supportive of the protestors. Yet, Cheung Kim-hung agreed that he told Yeung Ching-kee on 14 November 2019[122] and 17 April 2021[123] that violence was not part of Apple Daily’s stance. 171.In cross-examination, Chan Pui-man agreed that she believed in human rights, press freedom and transparency in government. Those were also the values espoused by Apple Daily and shared by Cheung Kim-hung, Law Wai-kwong, Lam Man-chung and Fung Wai-kong. Chan Pui-man agreed that Apple Daily was often critical of the government, but she said it was done in the hope that the government would change its policy. She said that reports in Apple Daily highlighting police brutality were made in an effort to persuade those in power to rein in excessive force. There were also many articles in Apple Daily critical of the ELAB. Those were published in the hope of persuading those in power that the bill was not a good idea and that it should be withdrawn. 172.Chan Pui-man agreed that she wrote an article[124] for the 20th anniversary of Apple Daily in 2015 in which she said, “Apple Daily has on multiple occasions exposed scandals of the rich and powerful not only because they are juicy but more importantly because we believe in the role of the Fourth Estate.” She agreed that that was as true in 2015 as it was up until the newspaper was shut down. 173.Yeung Ching-kee’s general impression regarding the anti-ELAB movement, was that the newspaper encouraged resistance and sought the withdrawal of the bill. D1 in his own column often appealed to the public to take to the streets. At the very beginning there was a dispute concerning the separation between the peaceful and the valiant. Later, D1 in his column and Apple Daily adopted an attitude which was more tolerant of the valiant. There was then in the community the slogan of “no separation between the peaceful and the valiant”, namely “no condemnation, no splitting up, no informing against the other party”. These three “no separation” were in fact implemented in the newspaper reports as well as the commentaries of Apple Daily. Even after the promulgation of the NSL, D1 simply did not pursue balanced reporting. 174.On 20 May 2019, D1 gave a speech at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club about the ELAB. The event was covered by Apple Daily on 21 May 2019 where D1 was reported to have said[125]:
D1 meeting Mike Pence and others 175.In Cheung Kim-hung’s examination-in-chief, his attention was drawn to a Bloomberg report titled: “Trump Team Sends Defiant Signal to Beijing by Meeting Activist” which D1 forwarded to him on 11 July 2019[126]. That report which was originally sent by Christian Whiton[127] to Paul Wolfowitz, was about D1’s visit to the US and his meetings with Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Security Adviser John Bolton[128]. It was written, among other things, that:
Cheung Kim-hung recollected that the staff members of Apple Daily were excited about the news, as they saw that D1 could actually reach the White House and relate the situation of Hong Kong to senior officials there. They thought therefore that there was an actual hope in the anti-ELAB movement. 176.Chan Pui-man said that Apple Daily published a second edition on 9 July 2019[129] specifically for the purpose of covering D1’s meeting with Mike Pompeo, then US Secretary of State. This was because D1’s arriving in the US and meeting with Mr Pompeo was an important piece of news. In light of the articles written by the foreign news outlets that D1 had previously forwarded to her, she believed that D1 was very concerned about the views of the international community relating to the movement in Hong Kong. That was why they dealt with the news in this way. 177.On 11 July 2019, Chan Pui-man also received the aforesaid Bloomberg report from D1[130]. On the following day, Apple Daily covered the news of the meeting between D1 and John Bolton with the headline: “Lai Chee-ying meets John Bolton, urging the Trump administration to support Hong Kong”.[131] According to the report, during D1’s said trip to the US, apart from Pence[132], Pompeo and Bolton, he had also met with Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Cory Gardner and Rick Scott. 178.As regards the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in about late January or February 2020, Yeung Ching-kee said that the angle of Apple Daily was mainly to criticise the Chinese Government for the cover-up which caused a big mess in the world. 179.Support for this part of Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence can be found in various articles written by D1 as well as his public statements made on various occasions. For example, in the article titled “The plague of Wuhan, the death knell of the CPC” in his own column “Sink or Swim, Smile” dated 9 February 2019, he wrote[133]:
180.Cheung Kim-hung was asked about his WhatsApp exchanges with D1 on 17 May 2020 concerning D1’s draft article written for the special edition of Apple Daily celebrating its 25th anniversary[134] where D1 wrote:
Cheung Kim-hung understood that “foreign support” was a reference to subscription of Apple Daily by foreign politicians or government officials. According to Cheung Kim-hung, D1 reasoned that a large readership of the English News would be a sort of protection for Apple Daily in that it would cause foreign political figures and officials to speak up for Hong Kong, so that in case the Chinese Communist Party interfered with the newspaper, that would attract sanctions from foreign countries. 181.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung was referred to D1’s speech to the staff members on 18 June 2020 in Next Digital Building when they celebrated the 25th anniversary of Apple Daily. On that occasion, D1 told his staff members that “no one would force you how to do, I will not tell you what to do” (「冇人會迫你哋點樣去做，我唔會叫你哋點樣去做」) and that “Apple Daily nowadays are attributed by you” (「蘋果日報到今日做到咁樣，係你哋造成嘅」), Cheung Kim-hung agreed that Apple Daily became what it was because of the collaboration of the staff. However, they did this under the leadership and instructions of D1. 182.It is not in dispute that D1 made no attempt to hide his stance against the introduction of the NSL which he said would have the effect of curtailing personal and press freedom in Hong Kong. Chan Pui-man shared that view and she agreed with defence counsel that D1 tried his best to prevent the NSL from coming into effect. She said that before the enactment of the NSL, D1 suggested that pressure, including sanctions, could be brought to dissuade those in power from enacting the NSL and some of those views of D1 were published in Apple Daily. To Chan Pui-man’s knowledge, at that time there was not any law against calling for sanctions. She agreed that Apple Daily’s criticism of the NSL prior to its enactment was made with a view to persuading those in power not to enact it. However, she added that it was D1 who tried to achieve that through Apple Daily. 183.According to Yeung Ching-kee, from April 2019 and onwards D1 had given other instructions to him and that included designating certain articles and writers. After the promulgation of the NSL, D1 also designated writers who were not satisfied with the NSL, e.g. Au Ka-lun. Chapter 8 – Meetings in Apple Daily 184.According to Cheung Kim-hung, the publication of a newspaper would involve a lot of journalistic materials, such that decisions had to be made on what to report, the angle of reporting and the scale of reporting. Those decisions were informed by the editorial policy of the newspaper. Therefore, a lot of meetings would be held before those decisions could be made. Daily Meetings 185.Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man gave an outline of the overall workflow of Apple Daily at the material time. Their accounts in this regard, which are consistent with each other and uncontroversial, can be summarized as follows:
In cross-examination, Chan Pui-man agreed that D1 would not be present in any of the aforesaid meetings. Nor would minutes of those meetings be circulated to him. Moreover, D1 would not have the draft newspaper before it went to print. “Planning meeting” 186.According to Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man, in addition to the aforesaid daily meetings, there was also a weekly “planning meeting” for the Print Form held every Tuesday. Hosted by Chan Pui-man, the “planning meeting” was attended by Lam Man-chung, Law Wai-kwong and the heads of various departments. The main purpose of the meeting was for various departments to plan for the coming week regarding news reporting and the weekly specific topic for “Apple Forum”. Chan Pui-man and Lam Man-chung would see if any key point news was missing and consider the proposed angle of reporting. 187.According to Yeung Ching-kee, however, in reality there was very little discussion at the “planning meeting”. In case Yeung Ching-kee was not attending, he would communicate with Chan Pui-man or Lam Man-chung by WhatsApp. Yeung Ching-kee would report on the topic of the “Hot Topic of the Week” for the following Saturday. Occasionally, there would be instructions or opinions from the senior management and Yeung Ching-kee would definitely follow those. Once the topic of the “Hot Topic of the Week” was decided, Yeung Ching-kee would approach suitable writers. Articles by freelance writers would also be used if suitable. The senior management might suggest writers to him, but that would be rare. 188.It is not in dispute that D1 had never attended the “planning meeting”. Yeung Ching-kee said that Cheung Kim-hung did not attend the meeting at a later stage either. However, Yeung Ching-kee said that if there were any instructions from D1, Yeung Ching-kee would follow them. 189.In due course, we will consider the prosecution case, which is in the main based on Cheung Kim-hung’s evidence, that the decisions made at the preliminary meeting and the planning meeting were based on the editorial policy set by D1. 190.Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee and Royston all testified (and there is little dispute) that during the charge period of Count 1, Apple Daily had “lunchbox meetings” on a regular basis. Cheung Kim-hung agreed in cross-examination that the first “lunchbox meeting” was held on 18 October 2018. 191.There is no dispute that there were different lunchbox meetings for different departments and purposes, examples of which included Apple Daily, Next Magazine, Food and Travel and Advertising. Those meetings were held at about 12:30 noon on Thursday at the VIP Room on the 5th Floor of Apple Daily’s building. Except when D1 was away and Cheung Kim-hung was asked to step in, the former would be the host. Regular attendees of all lunchbox meetings included Cheung Kim-hung, Royston and Connie Chan (head of IT section). 192.There is also no dispute that for each of the lunchbox meetings, there would be a separate chat group or channel opened by D1 under Slack (a software for workgroup communication used by the Group)[137] for those who were going to attend so that members could raise questions and issues for D1 to address and dealt with at the upcoming lunchbox meeting. The evidence of Cheung Kim-hung 193.According to Cheung Kim-hung, at a lunchbox meeting, after people had their lunch D1 would start by expressing his views on the current situation and his political stance, during which he would tell the management staff the editorial policies according to the situation at the time. The management would then convey the message to other managerial staff. Everyone would then work on D1’s instruction in their respective duties. Usually, Cheung Kim-hung would be the one assigned to take the notes of the lunchbox meeting and to follow up on the decisions made thereat. 194.Cheung Kim-hung said that D1 was the one who made those policies because the latter was the founder of Apple Daily and also the largest shareholder of the company having 70 percent shareholding. He described D1 as the “helmsman” of Apple Daily. 195.Cheung Kim-hung said that subsequent to D1’s visit to the US officials in July 2019, he mentioned more about sanctions. For example, D1 mentioned in the lunchbox meetings of Hong Kong Apple Daily that he supported the Human Rights and Democracy Act regarding Hong Kong imposed by US President Trump and the cessation of ammunition supplies to the Hong Kong Police. D1 considered Trump as a person of action and not merely words. Whilst D1 did not ask the senior staff members to do anything in concrete, he made reference of the aforesaid when he was commenting on the current affairs. The evidence of Chan Pui-man 196.According to Chan Pui-man, she, Lam Man-chung and some other colleagues would be asked to attend lunchbox meetings concerning the Printed Form once every several weeks. If a particular meeting was about the Digital Version, then other colleagues would attend rather than Chan Pui-man. After each lunchbox meeting, Cheung Kim-hung would prepare a summary consisting of the key points mentioned in the meetings which would be distributed to all the attendees of the lunchbox meeting by Slack. 197.As to the nature of themes discussed in the lunchbox meetings which Chan Pui-man had attended, she gave an example of turning the newspaper into something more like a magazine.[138] Upon clarification sought by the Court, she said that general angles of reporting would also be discussed. Cross-examination of Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man on D1’s giving editorial directions 198.Both Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man were cross-examined on the basis that D1 did not give any editorial directions at lunchbox meetings. It was put to them that lunchbox meetings were held to deal with low staff morale and business development. 199.As regards Cheung Kim-hung, he disagreed that lunchbox meetings were set up so that D1 could have personal communication with low-level and mid-level employees. Cheung Kim-hung did not see any linkage between the staff morale and the lunchbox meeting. Cheung Kim-hung said that the majority of those who attended the lunchbox meetings were senior staff members. Although Cheung Kim-hung agreed that the majority of the lunchbox meetings was not related to the Digital Form or Print Form of Apple Daily, he disagreed that lunchbox meetings were, in the main, business development meetings. 200.As regards Chan Pui-man, it was put to her in cross-examination that the reason why D1 set up lunchbox meetings was to gather the views of staff members. As to this, she said that lunchbox meetings were more about D1 expressing his philosophy of business operation as well as his views on the social situation. She said that D1 would also express his views on the current social situation. Chan Pui-man gave the example of “police brutality” during the resistance movement. Chan Pui-man said that D1 was very concerned about that topic and he asked them to dive deep into it. 201.Chan Pui-man agreed that D1 was concerned about improving business and contents of the newspaper and that in May 2018 D1 asked her to draft a questionnaire to collect the views of colleagues. On the other hand, she did not agree that lunchbox meetings were not for the purpose of D1 to issue editorial directions. She said that D1 would talk about how to improve the newspapers as well as strategies concerning business operation. However, he would also give editorial directions. For instance, when D1 touched upon the topic of how to improve the newspaper, then inevitably he would also touch upon how to cover news. 202.As to whether those editorial directions, if any, would be put in writing after the meeting, Chan Pui-man said there would be a brief summary of the key points. By “editorial directions”, she meant very specific directions about what to report or not to report, rather than the general angle of reporting. Chan Pui-man said that D1 talked less often about what not to report. However, during that period of time if some big news had happened, that would definitely be touched upon. Chan Pui-man gave the examples of the 2019 anti-ELAB movement and the Covid-19 pandemic. Whenever they talked about how to improve the newspaper and whenever they talked about the contents of the newspaper, then inevitably they would touch upon those things. Chan Pui-man gave the further example of conducting interviews with demonstrators. D1 would not say, “Let’s have an interview with this particular demonstrator.” But he would describe the general approach. For instance, he would say, “Let’s have more coverage on the thoughts of these people.” The evidence of Yeung Ching-kee 203.Yeung Ching-kee said that he would only attend lunchbox meetings upon invitation. Before each of those meetings, upon the request of the Associate Publisher, everyone sent messages telling her what they would like to discuss with D1 at the meeting. After each lunchbox meeting, either the Publisher (Cheung Kim-hung) or the Associate Publisher (Chan Pui-man) would prepare a summary. The evidence of Royston Chow 204.According to Royston, ever since he had become the COO of Next Digital Group, he attended every lunchbox meeting of various business units of Apple Daily. Apart from D1 and Cheung Kim-hung, Royston was the most senior person in those lunchbox meetings. Generally, D1 would be the host of those meeting. There was one exception, however, on 6 December 2019 when D1 was not available and Cheung Kim-hung stepped in as the host. 205.At the lunchbox meeting, after the attendees had finished lunch, there would be discussion. D1 would talk about his views, for example, his views about the anti-government demonstrations. Then, there would be discussions of the topics raised in the chat group and D1 would decide on those questions. If the topic was related to the newspaper, very often it would be connected to anti-government issues, “police violence” and gaining sympathy for protestors. Such discussions were held on and off starting from around September/October 2019 up to the beginning of December 2020. D1 would have some instructions as to what should be done, e.g. more people should pay attention to it or how to seek the attention of foreign countries. Examples included the setting up of the English version of Apple Daily[139], the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign[140], and the special feature “Freedom Summer” [141] which had a Chinese[142] and an English[143] version. By such means, foreign countries would pay attention to the anti-government situation or “police violence” in Hong Kong at the time. It was hoped that the support of foreign countries could be obtained, perhaps even the more drastic measure of “sanction”. After each meeting, Cheung Kim-hung would prepare a summary of the conclusions reached, which would then be circulated to all the attendees. 206.It is D1’s case that the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses that D1 gave editorial directions at lunchbox meetings is not borne out by the Slack records prepared by Cheung Kim-hung (and Chan Pui-man) after those meetings. The evidence of Cheung Kim-hung 207.Cheung Kim-hung’s evidence-in-chief was that the notes he prepared after lunchbox meetings were in point form. In cross-examination, he said that after each lunchbox meeting, D1 would instruct him to put down in Slack the main points (action points) discussed at the “lunchbox meeting”. 208.Furthermore, Cheung Kim-hung said that if the editorial directions were merely about the general approach, then they would not necessarily be recorded. Moreover, only the main points but not the detail discussion would be recorded. Although Cheung Kim-hung agreed that the majority of the “lunchbox meetings” was not related to either the Digital Form or the Print Form of Apple Daily, he disagreed that “lunchbox meetings” were, in the main, business development meetings. 209.It should be noted that even though Cheung Kim-hung agreed in cross-examination that the records pertaining to lunchbox meetings were kept in Slack, he had not been cross-examined on the Slack records[144]. There was, however, an application by D1 to recall Cheung Kim-hung for cross-examination on those records which the defence say were obtained by them and only came into their possession after Cheung Kim-hung had concluded his evidence. That application was made on 10 May 2024 (Day 74 of the trial), which was 52 days after Cheung Kim-hung had finished giving his evidence on 2 February 2024 (Day 22 of the trial). Having heard counsel, on 16 May 2024 we refused D1’s application. Reasons of the rulings were handed down on the same day and we are not going to repeat those. 210.For the present purpose, it suffices for us to say that in assessing the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung regarding lunchbox meetings and Slack, however, we bear in mind the principles stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chan Hing Kai[145]. In particular, in the present case we do not draw any adverse inference against the defendants on the basis that Cheung Kim-hung had not been cross-examined on the Slack records. In deciding whether or not to accept Cheung Kim-hung’s evidence in this regard and the weight to be attached, we have to look at all the relevant evidence as a whole: HKSAR v Leung Wai-kit[146]. The evidence of Chan Pui-man 211.In cross-examination, Chan Pui-man said that as far as she could remember, apart from “港蘋報紙對話” (“Hong Kong Apple (Daily) Newspaper Conversation”)[147] and “香港蘋果紙主管” (“Hong Kong Apple (Daily) heads of newspaper”)[148], she did not participate in any other lunchbox meetings. 212.As regards the group “Hong Kong Apple (Daily) Newspaper Conversation”, Chan Pui-man was asked about the notes pertaining to the lunchbox meetings held respectively on:
The first three summaries were prepared by Cheung Kim-hung and the last three were prepared by Chan Pui-man. Chan Pui-man could not remember whether there were lunchbox meetings for the same group between 3 January and 20 June 2019. However, Chan Pui-man said that it would not be the case where lunchbox meetings were held without any records in the relevant channel of Slack. 213.As regards the lunchbox meeting held on 20 June 2019, Chan Pui-man said that the general angle of reporting would have been discussed. D1 as the boss would express his views in lunchbox meetings. Follow-up actions to be taken would be in respect of the conclusions D1 agreed upon. Conversely, if D1’s opinion was that “there’s no need to do this one, let’s not do it”, then there would not be any follow-up actions. Whilst there would be discussions, D1 was a person who had his own views and on occasions, relatively speaking, the attitude he adopted was pretty strong. Therefore, he would be the one who had the final say. 214.In re-examination, Chan Pui-man’s attention was drawn to the summary of the lunchbox meeting on 16 October 2020[155] which she prepared and sent out through Slack. She confirmed that Cheung Kim-hung was not present at that meeting. Item 10 of the summary read,
Chan Pui-man explained that at that time D1 was proposing a TV news programme on the digital platform of Apple Daily. However, he did not want to do it in the traditional way. Rather, he would like to have a live news programme styled in way similar to RTHK’s “Headliner” (「頭條新聞」) and to have hosts to comment on the news. During discussion, Chan Pui-man’s opposite opinion was overruled by D1 who insisted on his proposal. That, Chan Pui-man said, was one example of D1 having a strong will. 215.As regards the group “Hong Kong Apple (Daily) Newspaper Conversation”, Chan Pui-man was asked about the notes pertaining to the lunchbox meetings held respectively on:
Chan Pui-man was asked, having refreshed her memory from the summaries of conclusions shown in the Slack records, whether she would agree that the lunchbox meetings were mostly concerned with business or improving the newspaper. Chan Pui-man answered that those were included. However, there were also some other discussions including D1 wanting to find some writers for the forum page (“Apple Forum”) and asking that the Chinese news section to give bigger coverage during the pandemic to news about the covering up of the source of the virus. The evidence of Yeung Ching-kee 216.Yeung Ching-kee confirmed that during the period between 2019 and 2020, in Apple Daily there were lunchbox meetings which both D1 and he attended. Yeung Ching-kee remembered most vividly one such meeting in July 2020. Yeung Ching-kee was shown an email found in his mobile titled “July 17 (Friday), VIP lunchbox meeting (paper)”[158] which he had attended as a representative of Apple Forum. Before that lunchbox meeting, Yeung Ching-kee raised the matter about there being not enough writers for Apple Forum after the NSL[159]. At the subsequent lunchbox meeting, D1 gave the instruction to look for overseas writers[160]. 217.As regards the summary of the aforesaid lunchbox meeting which was prepared by Chan Pui-man[161], Yeung Ching-kee said the word 「討論」(“discuss”) used by her was not appropriate in that there was in fact no discussion at the meeting. According to Yeung Ching-kee, when various departments raised their problems and sought instruction, he would not intervene. Similarly, when he talked about the problems he faced, other colleagues would not comment. It was D1 who gave all the instructions. Yeung Ching-kee said that he definitely had to carry out those instructions. Besides, the Publisher and the Associate Publisher would also follow up on those instructions. 218.In cross-examination, Yeung Ching-kee agreed that in his cautioned interview conducted on 24 June 2021, he told the police that according to his understanding, the lunchbox meetings were for everyone to sit down and talk, if there were any problems at work that needed D1 to step in to settle. The evidence of Royston Chow 219.In cross-examination, Royston was asked to refresh his memory of the lunchbox meetings pertaining to “Hong Kong Apple (Daily) print form advertisement” (「港蘋紙廣告」) from the relevant Slack records[162]. He was asked specifically about the meeting of that group held on 6 December 2019. Royston recalled that he attended that lunchbox meeting. According to the records, D1 was not available for that meeting[163]. 220.It was put to Royston as a general proposition that lunchbox meetings attended by him were in the main business development meetings and not for D1 giving editorial directions. Royston disagreed to both. Chapter 9 – Apple Daily’s Charter and editorial independence 221.One of the issues which arose during the trial was to what extent, if any, had D1’s political views and stance borne on Apple Daily’s angle of news reporting, editorial and selection of writers. 222.It is the prosecution’s case that D1 gave editorial directions in Apple Daily which the senior management would implement. On the other hand, it is the defence case that D1 did not give such directions and that the editorial staff of Apple Daily enjoyed independence. The evidence of Cheung Kim-hung 223.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung was asked about the charter for the editorial office of Apple Daily dated 7 March 2019 which was signed by Cheung Kim-hung on behalf of Apple Daily and Law Wai-kwong on behalf of the editorial staff.[164] There were also similar documents signed with Lam Man-chung[165], Fung Wai-kong[166] and Yeung Ching-kee.[167] 224.Cheung Kim-hung agreed that it was provided in the aforesaid charter that the editors would have editorial independence. It was also so written in the Environmental, Social and Governance report contained in the annual report of the Next Digital Group[168]. However, he disagreed with leading counsel that the freedom of expression meant being able to say “no” to the boss. The evidence of Chan Pui-man 225.Chan Pui-man agreed that Apple Daily had a charter for editorial independence[169] (“the Charter”) which was drafted by her at the request of Cheung Kim-hung[170]. She said she based her draft on some existing examples and templates from the Hong Kong Journalists Association and also from some foreign media outlets such as BBC. 226.The Charter[171] provided, among other things, that:
227.Chan Pui-man agreed that the Charter stressed that there should be editorial independence and that was reflected in Article 13. More specifically, it was mentioned that there should be a separation of editorial and business. By “business”, she was referring to advertisement and so there should be a separation between news reports and advertisement. 228.In re-examination, Chan Pui-man said that she was asked by Cheung Kim-hung to draft the Charter before the anti-ELAB movement. As to her understanding at that time of the purpose of the drafting of the Charter, she said that it was because the mother company was a listed company and at that time there were some corporate auditing exercises. Cheung Kim-hung told her that it was the corporate auditing people who suggested them to do that. When Chan Pui-man was asked whether Article 5 had anything to do with editorial independence, she said Article 5 would be broader (than Article 13) in that it also included political, commercial, religious or other interests. On the other hand, Article 13 only referred to business interests. 229.Chan Pui-man said that she believed in what she had written in the Charter. However, she said that in actual operation, for instance, when D1 requested to engage a particular person to be a writer for the Editorial, the Editor-in-Chief (Law Wai-kwong) would not have the chance to object or refuse. As to whether Chan Pui-man would allow D1 to affect her journalistic judgment, she said that if D1 really insisted, then that would be affected. 230.It was put to both Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man in cross-examination that it was common for different newspapers or media agencies to have different angles of reporting and that there was nothing inherently wrong with a newspaper having a particular stance or particular angle. As to this, both Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man agreed. The evidence of Cheung Kim-hung 231.Cheung Kim-hung agreed that those who were seeking for more critical news and opinion pieces about the government would be looking towards Apple Daily. Cheung Kim-hung said further that the stance of Apple Daily had been known to many people and they realised Apple Daily belonged to D1. 232.However, Cheung Kim-hung disagreed with counsel that D1 did not give editorial directions. He said that generally speaking they would follow what D1 said unless what he said could not be carried out. As to whether Apple Daily and the Next Digital group strictly adhered to the principle of editorial independence, Cheung Kim-hung said that they had an idea of editorial independence. However, D1 had given them an editorial policy and they had to follow it without choice. Cheung Kim-hung agreed that he had never been asked to approve or review any articles or videos published in Apple Daily, whether in the Print Form or the Digital Form. However, Cheung Kim-hung monitored the news uploaded in the website and also those published in newspapers every day. He said D1 did the same. 233.Cheung Kim-hung agreed that when D1 came back to the company in 2018, the latter took up the role of chairman and was active in the running of Apple Daily. He did not agree, however, that D1 did not participate in the management of Apple Daily between 2014 and 2018. According to Cheung Kim-hung, in 2018 D1 took a more active role not only in the business of Apple Daily, but also in its operation and editorial. 234.Whilst Cheung Kim-hung agreed with leading counsel for D1 that the senior management of Apple Daily shared with D1 the same belief in freedom of expression and democracy, he disagreed that D1 had not laid down any editorial policy for Apple Daily, whether during lunchbox meetings or otherwise. Cheung Kim-hung gave the example of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. Cheung Kim-hung said that D1’s editorial policy was to boost the public’s enthusiasm in procession and demonstration and to pressurize the HKSAR Government to withdraw the proposed legislation. This, Cheung Kim-hung said, was not purely a matter of freedom, democracy or freedom of expressions but was about the approach of the newspapers. Cheung Kim-hung added that when D1 participated in a demonstration, they would ask his secretary and driver where he would alight, so that they could interview him there and took photographs. The matter would then be reported in Apple Daily. D1 would give them instructions to make an extensive coverage and to whip up enthusiasm of the people to take to the streets. He also repeatedly wrote up articles in his column “Sink or Swim, Smile”, encouraging people to come out and participate in demonstration for the sake of the next generation, and not to be stingy with those few hours. In view of all the above, but for the editorial policy set down by D1, the senior management of Apple Daily would not have done as they did. The evidence of Chan Pui-man 235.Chan Pui-man agreed that in 2019-2020 Apple Daily would have been considered more liberal, more critical of the government. On the other hand, Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao were the very pro-government newspapers. However, for news reporting referred to in Article 5, the emphasis was that it had to be based on the truth of the matters. Therefore, there would be a difference between news reports and commentaries. For articles in Apple Forum, it would be obvious that the writer was expressing his own views and opinions. As such, she agreed that whatever the angle of reporting, for news reporting the newspaper should adhere to the principles of truth, justice, objectivity and independence. As to whether there was any mechanism to ensure editorial independence in Apple Daily, Chan Pui-man said that actually that would depend on the awareness of each and every colleague. 236.It was put to Chan Pui-man that D1 did not micromanage the editorial side of Apple Daily. She answered that it depended on what matter it was about. For some matters, D1 actually did not pay attention. However, in the case of news to which he attached importance, such as the storming of the LegCo on 1 July, then he would give instructions as to what should be done. Chan Pui-man said, therefore, that so long as there was nothing from D1, then they could exercise their editorial independence. 237.It was put to Chan Pui-man that D1 would not direct her to do something and would just make suggestions. She answered that it would depend on the situation. On some occasions, her feeling was that D1 was giving her instructions. Chan Pui-man agreed, however, that D1 was always courteous in doing so, by using such words as “can we do this?”, “is this suitable?” and “see for yourself”.[172] Chan Pui-man confirmed that the editorial and operation of Apple Daily Taiwan and Apple Daily Hong Kong were independent of each other. 238.In relation to the proposed “general strike” (「大三罷」) in 2019, Chan Pui-man was asked about a related WhatsApp message which she sent to Lam Man-chung on 1 August 2019 where she said[173],
It was put to Chan Pui-man that the above was an example of her making editorial decisions on important matters in that the decision to have a blank front page was made entirely without consulting D1. As to this, Chan Pui-man said that she had told Cheung Kim-hung about it and the latter agreed to it. However, she was not clear whether Cheung Kim-hung had told D1 or not. In re-examination, Chan Pui-man further explained that at that time D1 asked Cheung Kim-hung to write something in Chinese calligraphy and therefore many people within Apple Daily were aware that D1 was supportive of the strike. Cheung Kim-hung performed the calligraphy on a yellow background in black ink. Some middle-level and frontline colleagues asked whether they could exercise the right to go on strike. The management (including herself) opined that since they were in the mass media, they should not join the strike and halt publishing. After much discussion, the decision of the management was that “We wanted to participate but we could not”. 239.Chan Pui-man was asked by leading counsel on the choice of the headline 「速龍無差別毆市民」(“STC assaulted people indiscriminately) on the front page of Apple Daily on 1 September 2019[174], which was about an incident which took place at the Prince Edward MTR Station the night before. By reference to her WhatsApp records, Chan Pui-man agreed that it was Lam Man-chung who suggested the headline.[175] She said that the headline was decided according to the contents of the news coverage and therefore the relevant reporters would be in the best position to decide on the headline. Thus, unless she had a big question mark, she would rely on her colleagues to make the decision. Yeung Ching-kee: D1’s view as “guiding principle”/ “independence in a bird’s cage” 240.In Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence-in-chief, he was referred to his WhatsApp exchange with Cheung Kim-hung on 3 August 2020[176] where the latter said:
241.As to what Cheung Kim-hung meant by “the original guiding principle” （「原定方針把關」), Yeung Ching-kee said that in fact there was no specific written guideline in Apple Daily. However, during the 2019 anti-ELAB movement, it seemed to Yeung Ching-kee that D1’s articles, which were published on Sundays where large-scale processions and protests would took place, were calling on people to take to the street. Therefore, during that period when Yeung Ching-kee wrote articles or selected articles for Apple Forum, he would write or select articles which encouraged people to take to the streets and that was the main theme. 242.Yeung Ching-kee said that after the implementation of the NSL, he noticed that D1 mentioned the NSL many times in his column “Sink or Swim, Smile”. From Yeung Ching-kee’s perspective as an editor, he considered that some of D1’s captions were very good and they left a very deep impression on him, examples of which included “Time is a weapon” (「時間就是武器」)[177] and “The great era is coming soon” （「大時代快將來臨」）[178]. D1’s articles reflected his views and stance very truthfully and genuinely and they also mentioned the issue of sanction. D1 considered that sanctions imposed by the United States and the Western countries on China and Hong Kong would not abate. This was because the change in the policy towards China by the US would not make a turnaround within a short period of time. The US sanction would have an impact on China’s economy for a long time. Yeung Ching-kee regarded D1’s views and stance as the guidelines for Yeung Ching-kee’s own writings and selection of articles. 243.In cross-examination, it was put to Yeung Ching-kee that he would not approve a particular article, if in his opinion it was calling for something unlawful. Yeung Ching-kee answered that he would not give his approval if it would obviously violate the law. However, if the articles were playing “edge ball” and were consistent with the stance of Apple Daily and would avoid breaching the law, then perhaps it would be adopted. In re-examination, Yeung Ching-kee agreed that he was operating in grey area and he hoped to avoid legal risks. 244.Yeung Ching-kee said that he considered D1 as a boss who was both generous and cruel. When Apple Daily became a listed company and also when the Digital Form was separated from the Print Form, on both occasions D1 distributed shares to the employees, as a result of which some of the senior management of the company became millionaires. On the other hand, D1 made the most use of the staff members. If anyone was not to his liking, that one would be replaced very soon. During Yeung Ching-kee’s 23 years of service in Apple Daily, several editors-in-chief and publishers had been replaced. Concerning D1’s request for news coverage, he strived for something new and something novel. The most direct and simplest way to achieve that was to get another person to do the job. Therefore, if someone in the senior management or middle level wanted to stay in Apple Daily, it was essential to listen to D1’s instructions and take the initiative to get the works at hand done. Yeung Ching-kee wanted to stay in Apple Daily and therefore he obeyed D1’s instructions. 245.Yeung Ching-kee added that, based on his 30 years’ experience as a media worker, after online news became popular and after the decline of the traditional mass media, “editorial independence” had almost become a myth. In order to attract particular target readers, the mass media had their own stances. He described the situation as “an independence in a bird’s cage”, in that D1 set the basic stance and direction of Apple Daily which was similar to a birdcage. Within that bird’s cage, the editorial staff had a certain degree of independence. However, they could not exceed the boundary. Therefore, one could not simply say whether “editorial independence” existed or not. Chapter 10 – The Editorial (「蘋論」) and Apple Forum（「蘋果論壇」） 246.Both the Editorial and “Apple Forum” of Apple Daily were in Section A of the newspaper. Based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, whilst Yeung Ching-kee was in charge of the Editorial and Apple Forum, his superiors (including D1, Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man) would recommend writers for him to consider. Moreover, articles of writers recommended by D1 and Cheung Kim-hung would get published. Ultimately, D1 was the one who had the final say on the choice of writers. 247.According to Yeung Ching-kee, the Editorial represented the stance of the newspaper. There would be one editorial per day. The Editorial in the Print Form would also be available in the Digital Form. After “English News” was introduced, the editorials would be translated and uploaded to “English News”. After the editorial of the day was typeset, sometimes Yeung Ching-kee would be given a copy before publication. However, he did not have the power to amend the articles of the others. 248.At the material times, there were four writers for the Editorial:
249.Another writer Lam Pun-lee also wrote for the Editorial in May 2020[179]. However, Yeung Ching-kee was later told by Cheung Kim-hung that Lam Pun-lee would stop writing editorials in August 2020 and that “Fong Yuen” would write one more editorial (i.e., two in total) per week.[180] “Fong Yuen” was nominated by D1 who admired his writings. Choosing editorial writers 250.Cheung Kim-hung said Apple Daily’s editorial writers would only be engaged with D1’s approval. D1 had commended the writings of “Fong Yuen” and “Ku Lap”, both of them were critical of the Chinese Communist Party. By reference to a chain of WhatsApp exchanges he had with D1 on 9 April 2020[181], Cheung Kim-hung said that D1 wanted to invite “Fong Yuen” (Ngan Shun-kau) to write for Apple Daily, as the latter was well-versed with the Communist Party and his criticisms against the Communist Party and the government were well-written. As regards the other editorial writers, “Lo Fung” (i.e., Fung Wai-kong) who wrote mainly about politics and finance, and “Li Ping” (Yeung Ching-kee) who wrote mainly about the politics and the Chinese Communist Party, the stance taken up by both of them was anti-CCP and supportive of democracy, human rights and freedom. 251.According to Yeung Ching-kee, the writings of “Fong Yuen” reflected the views of D1. Stance of editorial writers 252.According to Yeung Ching-kee, it was up to the writer to choose and decide on the subject of the editorial. Yet, all of the editorial writers understood that they had to follow the basic stance of the newspaper, i.e., they had to pay attention to D1’s views and stance. Therefore, during the anti-ELAB movement in 2019, the stances and the views expressed by the editorial writers were basically similar in that they all supported the resistance movement and the withdrawal of the ELAB. This stance was consistent with the views expressed by D1 in his own column which was then calling for the citizens to take to the streets. Besides, the editorial writers’ views on sanction were also consistent with that of D1. That said, Yeung Ching-kee opined that it was also consistent with the social environment and the public opinion at that time. (1) “Action Against the ‘Evil Law on Extradition to China’ will be Everywhere” (反「送中惡法」行動將無處不在)[182], published on 13 May 2019 253.In this editorial, “Lo Fung”, commenting on the departure of Lam Wing-kee and the ELAB, wrote:
(2) “Carrie Lam opposes the Council. The public oppose the black cops. Vowing to stand against each other” (「林鄭反議會 市民反黑警 誓不兩立」)[183], published on 12 May 2020. 254.In this editorial, Yeung Ching-kee wrote:
255.As to what Yeung Ching-kee meant by “the Chinese and the thieves”, he explained in Court that that was a term adopted from the traditional Chinese culture. Generally, it referred to two sides which were on opposite teams. One side was the government who proposed to amend the bill. The other side was the citizens who opposed this amendment of the bill. As to the phrase “in the same family with the peaceful and valiant protesters”, the “peaceful” was referring to the peaceful camp, while the “valiant” was referring to the valiant protesters. Yeung Ching-kee meant that they had to co-operate with each other. As to what he meant by “to have Hong Kong linked with the world and resist until the end”, he said that Hong Kong had to gain support from the international community to ask for the withdrawal of the fugitive bill amendment. 256.Yeung Ching-kee said that his views in the aforesaid editorial reflected the stance of Apple Daily and were similar to the views expressed by D1 in his column. When the Court asked him whether by mid-May 2020 when the editorial was published, the fugitive amendment bill was still a live issue, he said that he thought it was still relevant, as all along they were talking about the “Five Demands” which were not limited to the withdrawal of the fugitive amendment bill. After reading the whole of the editorial and upon further clarification sought by the Court, Yeung Ching-kee agreed that the focus of the editorial was not so much on the fugitive amendment bill, but more about the police arrest action and the upcoming Legislative Council Election. (3) “CPC evilly spread virus to destroy Hong Kong, and bring the whole world into dilemma” (「播毒殺港 中共邪惡 世界埋單」)[184] , published on 26 May 2020 257.Yeung Ching-kee said that by the time he wrote this, he knew about the proposed legislation and introduction of the NSL. The message he tried to convey in that editorial was that the coronavirus had caused lethal effects throughout the world and the NSL that was about to be enacted might destroy the freedom and democracy of Hong Kong, and the whole world had to pay the price for that. 258.At the end of this editorial, Yeung Ching-kee wrote:
Yeung Ching-kee said the above, which reflected his views on sanction, was also the views of Apple Daily and D1. (4) “Mandating Sanctions on the Villains responsible for Human Rights (Abuses) is the Way to Pull the Plug once and for all”(「制裁人權惡棍是釜底抽薪」)[185], published on dated 13 June 2020 259.Commenting on a recent report titled “Strengthening America & Countering Global Threats” released by the Republican Study Committee (RSC) of the US Congress, Yeung Ching-kee openly called for the sanction of certain Mainland and Hong Kong officials:
(5) “Who is Afraid of CCP Sanctions and Oppression?”（中共的打壓與制裁不足畏）[186], published on 14 July 2020 260.In this editorial, Yeung Ching-kee wrote:
261.Yeung Ching-kee said the idea of the editorial was that the anti-sanction measures the CCP adopted would have no effect. It would not scare people or countries that were trying to impose sanction. Yeung Ching-kee said these also reflected the views of Apple Daily and that similar views had also been expressed by D1 in his column. (6) “The Goal of the Government; is it Zero Wuhan Pneumonia or Zero Liberty” (政府目標是武肺清零還是自由清零？)[187], published on 15 January 2021 262.In this editorial, Yeung Ching-kee wrote:
Yeung Ching-kee said that he was mainly querying whether the monitoring measures adopted by the government were aiming at controlling the epidemic or were trying to limit the freedom of our people. 263.On Saturdays, Apple Forum would be in the form of a special issue called 「一周熱話」 (“Hot Topic of the Week”)[188] which comprised commentaries written by various writers corresponding to the topic of the week. On other days, Apple Forum comprised various commentaries by different writers without a specific theme. 264.Articles of Apple Forum in the Print Form (whether on Saturdays or other days) might not necessarily be published in the Digital Form, even though they usually did. That was up to the decision of Law Wai-kwong, the editor-in-chief of Apple Daily. On the other hand, the Digital Form may include articles other than those published in the Print Form. As to how articles in Apple Forum (which were in Chinese) would be selected for translation and inclusion in “English News”, Yeung Ching-kee said that it was the responsibility of Fung Wai-kong (who was in charge of English News), although Yeung Ching-kee would speak to the latter or his subordinates. There were occasions when an author requested his article not be translated, and in which case Yeung Ching-kee would relay the view of the author to Fung Wai-king[189]. Choosing writers for Apple Forum 265.Yeung Ching-kee said that the criteria for choosing writers of Apple Forum were relatively open. Basically, there were the following:
The aforesaid criteria were already there before around April or May 2015 when Yeung Ching-kee took over the charge of Apple Forum and he simply followed them. 266.Later, D1 said that Apple Forum needed to change and therefore the writers also had to be changed regularly. In around the beginning of 2016, Yeung Ching-kee was asked by D1 to come to his office to discuss the list of writers for Apple Forum. Chan Pui-man was also present on that occasion. To Yeung Ching-kee’s surprise the list of writers suggested by D1 included some leaders of the pro-establishment camp and members of the Executive Council. In 2016 and 2017, there were leaders of the pro-establishment camp who would contribute articles to Apple Daily. In cross-examination, Yeung Ching-kee was referred to a WhatsApp exchange which he had with Chan Pui-man on 17 April 2018 concerning the list of writers for Apple Forum.[190] Yeung Ching-kee said that that was one of the occasions where the list of writers was discussed and that the list was updated regularly. Yeung Ching-kee also agreed that around April 2018 there were suggestions that Jasper Tsang, Joseph Yam and John Tsang be invited to write for Apple Daily. However, in 2019 no pro-establishment Legco members would write any articles for Apple Daily. 267.According to Yeung Ching-kee, even though D1 did not give instructions to writers of Apple Forum directly, those writers would not take a stance which was opposite to that expressed in D1’s own column, “Sink or Swim, Smile” (「成敗樂一笑」)[191] published in the Supplement (「名采」) in Section E of Apple Daily. Yeung Ching-kee said that although D1’s column was not in Apple Forum, he as the person in charge of Apple Forum definitely needed to read D1’s column. 268.There was only one occasion where D1’s article was published in Apple Forum. That was “People in modern times are not animals existing outside the western civilization mechanisms” (「現代人不是西方文明機制外生存的動物」)[192] which was published on 1 February 2020. The reason for that was that the article was too long to fit in D1’s column in the Supplement and therefore D1 asked that it be put on the forum page[193]. Yeung Ching-kee complied as told. In order to do that, Yeung Ching-kee had to move some articles to other days. In the aforesaid article, among other things, D1 wrote:
Articles/writers recommended to Yeung Ching-kee 269.As aforesaid, it was Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence that he would publish articles which D1 or the senior management provided to him. The following serves as examples:
Yeung Ching-kee said he would regard these recommendations as instructions of his senior so that the articles had to be published, unless he found the articles problematic. In the latter case, he would explain to the senior management and the articles would not be published. On the other hand, Yeung Ching-kee said that articles provided to him by senior management would conform to the aforesaid three criteria for Apple Forum, as the senior management were very clear of D1’s viewpoint. 270.There were also the writings of Takahashi whose pen-name was “Daizo Amakssu” (「甘粕代三」). At the request of Cheung Kim-hung, Yeung Ching-kee arranged for Takahashi to write in Apple Forum on Wednesdays. By way of background, Yeung Ching-kee said that at one lunchbox meeting D1 instructed him to look for overseas writers. Yeung Ching-kee gathered that Cheung Kim-hung was of the view that he was not making good progress on this and therefore Cheung Kim-hung invited this Japanese writer directly. Cheung Kim-hung placed great emphasis on United States’ return to Asia. According to this policy, the status of Japan would be very important. Therefore, Cheung Kim-hung and Yeung Ching-kee agreed that more articles should be written on Japan and Sino-Japanese relationship.[199] 271.In cross-examination, Yeung Ching-kee was asked about his WhatsApp exchanges with Takahashi, where he told the latter that he would not interfere with the choice of topics and perspectives of writers:
Leading counsel then put to Yeung Ching-kee that the principle of not interfering with the writers applied to all writers who were under his control. To this, Yeung Ching-kee disagreed. He said that he was in fact interfering with the choice of topic by Takahashi, as he was warning the latter that if his articles did not comply with the stance and perspective of Apple Daily, then Yeung Ching-kee might change the writer. Yeung Ching-kee added that political stance mattered. If Yeung Ching-kee insisted on using writers whose articles did not comply with the Apple Daily perspectives, then he might be the one who got fired, as there had been precedents. 272.Besides, leading counsel referred Yeung Ching-kee to the following incidents where he refused to accept the recommendation of his superiors and Yeung Ching-kee’s answers were as follows:
273.Then, it was put to Yeung Ching-kee that not all the articles published in Apple Forum was in support of sanction. One example given was the article of Wang Kun-yih[206] published on 20 June 2020: “Hong Kong and Taiwan’s ‘joint efforts to fight against China’ is probably all a dream” (「港台「聯手抗中」恐是南柯一夢」)[207]. As to this, Yeung Ching-kee said that he as an editor was in a very awkward position. As he had invited Wang to write an article, it was difficult for him not to keep his words and not to publish his article. At that time there were no other articles available for the forum page. If he did not use that article, the forum page would be blank. Yeung Ching-kee also said that after the article was published, he was scolded by readers. Some readers even wrote to D1 who forwarded the complaint letters to him. Upon enquiry by the Court, Yeung Ching-kee said that D1 asked his secretary to forward the readers’ letters to Yeung Ching-kee with a Post-it note asking Yeung Ching-kee to forward the letters to Wang. However, since D1 did not directly criticize Wang, that was one of the reasons why Yeung Ching-kee continued to approach Wang for articles. 274.Finally, it was put to Yeung Ching-kee that the criticism which Apple Forum levelled at the HKSAR Government or the Mainland Government was to point out the deficiencies in policy, hoping that they would be corrected or would not occur in the future and therefore it was not criticism purely for sake of criticism. Yeung Ching-kee agreed. 275.In about 2018, the columnists (i.e., regular contributors) of Apple Forum included:
276.Yeung Ching-kee observed that the turning point of D1 taking a more radical stance was after 2018. That was reflected by the writers and articles commended by D1, among those were:
Benny Tai 277.Benny Tai had been a columnist of Apple Forum before 1998. In 2019, his angle was mainly supportive of resistance. Subsequently, Benny Tai initiated the primaries and therefore many of his articles were about the primaries. On 10 January 2021, however, Yeung Ching-kee was told by Lam Man-chung that Benny Tai had informed Lam that he would not be submitting articles to Apple Forum for the time being.[208] 278.Yeung Ching-kee was shown the following as examples of Benny Tai’s publication in Apple Forum:
Lee Yee 279.Cheung Kim-hung said Lee Yee (「李怡」) was one of D1’s favourites and he had contributed articles to Apple Daily for many years. His articles aligned with the general approach of D1. Cheung Kim-hung could not remember exactly since when Lee Yee started to write editorials for Apple Daily. He believed it was several years after 2000 and continued up to around 2014 or 2015. At that time, Lee Yee was also in charge of Apple Forum and he took up a column in that section called “Words in Life” (「世道人生」) which was published five times a week on weekdays. He wrote political articles on the CCP, anti-authoritarianism movement and mutual destruction. 280.Similarly, Yeung Ching-kee said that Lee Yee was an experienced commentator whom D1 appreciated very much. Yeung Ching-kee added that “Words in Life” (「世道人生」) was the only column in Apple Forum which bore a name. Yeung Ching-kee described Lee Yee’s political stance as relatively radical and his articles, both before and after the enactment of the NSL, was supportive of the imposition of sanctions and he wrote in a way which Yeung Ching-kee described as “playing edge ball”. 281.Examples of Lee Yee’s writings included:
282.Yeung Ching-kee was involved in the design of this format in the Digital Form. He said that this article was an example of Lee Yee supporting sanctions by “playing edge ball”. At the end of the article, it said：
Martin Lee 283.Martin Lee used to have a column in the Next Magazine. After the Print Form of the Next Magazine ceased to be published, Chan Pui-man informed Yeung Ching-kee that the column of Martin Lee and three others would be moved to Apple Forum. Martin Lee’s articles appeared in Apple Forum on Wednesdays until Apple Daily ceased to operate in June 2021. 284.Yeung Ching-kee was shown an article of Martin Lee published in Apple Forum on 20 May 2020, titled: “Everyone is responsible for the rise and fall of the rule of law” (「法治興亡 匹夫有責」).[214] Wu Chi-wai 285.Yeung Ching-kee was shown one article in Apple Forum written by Wu Chi-wai on 28 May 2020[215] titled: “China (and) Hong Kong back on the path of Cultural Revolution and Cold War” (「中港走回文革與冷戰之路」).[216] At the time, Wu Chi-wai was the chairman of the Democratic Party and he was not a regular contributor to Apple Forum. In that article, Wu wrote:
“Yi Jian Piao Chen” 286.Yeung Ching-kee came across the writings of “Yi Jian Piao Chen” on Twitter and he then invited the latter to write for Apple Daily. On 24 June 2020, D1 expressed to Yeung Ching-kee his appreciation of an article of “Yi Jian Piao Chen” titled “Don’t Mix up BLM with Anti-Extradition”.[217] Thereafter, Yeung Ching-kee would from time to time invite him to write commentaries. However, Yeung Ching-kee did not give “Yi Jian Piao Chen” a fixed column, as it was believed that he was in the United States and therefore he might not be able to follow the instant news of Hong Kong. 287.On 4 July 2020, the topic of “Hot Topic of the Week” was “Hong Kong on the international chessboard” (國際棋盤上的香港)[218]. The forum on that day comprised the following three articles:
288.The aforesaid articles were also available in the Digital Form. Yeung Ching-kee said that as a whole, the aforesaid three articles were supportive of sanctions. He explained that between 2019 and 2021, most of the readers of Apple Daily were supportive of the anti-ELAB movement. Before and after the enactment of relevant legislations by the United States for sanctioning Chinese and Hong Kong officials, the readers tend to like reading articles that were supportive of sanctions. There were identical opinions in the articles of D1’s own column. Therefore, Yeung Ching-kee would use D1’s viewpoints as guidelines when he wrote and when he selected articles for Apple Forum. 289.Yeung Ching-kee said further that he received no instruction from either D1 or the senior management that the newspaper had to change its stance after the enactment of the NSL. The original stance was supportive of sanctions, and that applied to the editorial as well as the articles that Yeung Ching-kee wrote for the forum page. Yet, after the enactment of the NSL, if anyone openly appealed for sanction that person would be in breach of the NSL. Therefore, in the attempt to maintain the original stance there must be some changes which Yeung Ching-kee described as “playing edge ball”. That is to say, in the articles that Yeung Ching-kee wrote or chose for Apple Forum, there would be no further open calling for sanction. Yet through the commentaries on the issue of sanctions, analysis of the means and effects of the subsequent sanctions, the original stance was expressed, namely supportive of sanctions. In effect, Yeung Ching-kee was trying to skirt the rules by playing in the grey area. In cross-examination, Yeung Ching-kee agreed that after the NSL, playing “edge ball” was his description of a way to avoid breaching the law while at the same time staying true to Apple Daily’s principles in commentary. Yeung Ching-kee agreed that he would not intentionally breach the law. 290.On 14 July 2020, President Trump of the US signed the “Hong Kong Autonomy Act”. On 18 July 2020, the topic for “Hot Topic of the Week” was “China-US conflict escalates”. One of the articles was written by “Yi Jian Piao Chen” with the title: “Will US Sanction Carrie Lam?” (「美國會制裁林鄭月娥嗎?」)[219] where it was written:
Yeung Ching-kee said that this was another example of “playing edge ball” in that it only provided an analysis of the legislation. Au Ka-lun 291.On 4 July 2020, D1 sent Yeung Ching-kee an image of an article “Destruction Means Thorough Implementation, Mutual Destruction Means Prosperity” (「摧毀即貫徹 攬炒即繁榮」)[220] written by Au Ka-lun in his column: “Nameless Wilderness” (「無名字荒野」) in the Supplement. D1 commented,
292.As the Supplement was not under Yeung Ching-kee’s purview, he believed that D1 was asking him to invite Au Ka-lun to write for Apple Forum as: (1) his writing was very fluent; and (2) his attitude towards NSL was a critical one. Therefore, Yeung Ching-kee contacted Au Ka-lun right away and followed it up by an offer letter dated 7 July 2020.[222] 293.On 17 August 2020, Yeung Ching-kee forwarded to Fung Wai-kong a text message from Au Ka-lun giving his consent that his articles in Apple Forum be translated into English[223]. On 26 December 2020, Au Ka-lun’s article “New Words for Hong Kong in 2020” (「2020 香港新詞」) in “Nameless Wilderness”[224] was translated into English and published in “English News” on the following day[225]. 294.Yeung Ching-kee’s identified two articles of Au Ka-lun in Apple Forum:
Other writers suggested by D1 after the NSL 295.According to Yeung Ching-kee, the publication of Apple Daily was under D1’s supervision up to December 2020 when he was remanded in custody and he took an active role in choosing writers for Apple Daily. The following serves as examples. 296.On 26 March 2020, D1 through his secretary passed to Yeung Ching-kee a letter dated 20 March 2020 from a person “Siu Wah” (「小華」).[228] Attached to the letter was an article titled: “A brief talk about Xi Jinping’s ruling style”[229]. In the post-it note stuck to the letter, D1 wrote: “Brother Li Ping, I have not read this article. Please read and see if it’s useful. Thank you.” Yeung Ching-kee said that he made some alterations to the title and the text of the article. It was then published in Apple Forum on 2 April 2020 as: “Xi Jinping's Subjective Wish for Governing Style” (「習近平主觀所願的治國風格」).[230] Yeung Ching-kee explained that as the article was forwarded by his boss, even though D1 said he had not read it himself, he definitely would publish it if there was no problem with the article. 297.On 2 September 2020, D1 passed to Yeung Ching-kee a letter dated 15 August 2020 from “New Reader” (「新讀者」).[231] In the yellow post-it note attached to the letter, D1 wrote, “LI Ping, comments from this reader are worth having a look, thank you”. D1 thought that the New Reader was talking about writers of the forum page, but in fact they were writers for the Supplement. According to Yeung Ching-kee’s recollection, D1 did not ask him anything further about this letter and neither did he. 298.On 14 September 2020, D1 told Yeung Ching-kee that he heard that the commentaries written by Ma Tit-wing on China and Japan were impressive and he asked that Yeung Ching-kee invite Ma to write commentaries for Apple Daily.[232] Yeung Ching-kee replied that Cheung Kim-hung had already invited Daizo Amakssu (「甘粕代三」) to write but he would see if any arrangement could be made for Ma Tit-wing. On the other hand, Yeung Ching-kee forwarded to D1 two voice messages[233] of D1 and Professor Cai Xia (「蔡霞」) of Central Party School. Yeung Ching-kee informed him that Professor Cai was being approached. In the recording, Professor Cai praised Apple Daily for its role in the anti-ELAB movement. D1 said that “As Hongkongers, we will continue to fight, that is our duty.”[234] As to why Professor Cai was approached, Yeung Ching-kee explained that it was pursuant to D1’s earlier request for a regular change of writers. At the time, Professor Cai Xia was in the United States and she was critical of the human right situation in China. Subsequently, however, Yeung Ching-kee informed D1 that Ma Tit-wing had declined the invitation.[235] Chapter 11 – Instances of D1 giving editorial directions 299.It was the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from Apple Daily that D1, apart from setting the editorial policies of Apple Daily, from time to time he gave them specific editorial directions. The following serves as examples. Speech of Consul General Kurt Tong 300.On 4 March 2019, D1 and Chan Pui-man had WhatsApp exchanges about a recent report from Washington Times[236] about the US Consulate in Hong Kong expressing concern about the challenges to “Hong Kong’s autonomy” and the response of the Chinese Government[237]. D1 asked Chan Pui-man to “make it big”[238]. Chan Pui-man informed D1 that the relevant speech of Consul General Kurt Tong had already been covered in A2 Section of Apple Daily[239]. However, since Chan Pui-man thought that D1 placed so much emphasis on this particular piece of news, she told D1 they would continue to follow it up.[240] She agreed that D1’s view on the importance or otherwise of a particular news item had a bearing on her editorial decision. Meeting between Anson Chan and Pence 301.On 23 March 2019, D1 forwarded a WhatsApp message first to Lee Wing-tat[241] and then also to Cheung Kim-hung[242] and Chan Pui-man[243] a photograph showing Anson Chan shaking hands with Vice-President Mike Pence. D1 also copied to Lee Wing-tat[244], Cheung Kim-hung[245] and Chan Pui-man[246] respectively a report by James Cunningham of his meeting with Anson Chan before she met with Pence. It was said that Anson Chan was “fully aware of the need to defeat” the extradition law but it seemed that there was little or no “democratic” cohesion. 302.At the same time, D1 told Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man to use the aforesaid news to its “maximum effect”[247]. Therefore, Cheung Kim-hung asked Law Wai-kwong to conduct interviews in relation to the meeting and to place the news report at the focus area on the Apple Daily mobile app. Chan Pui-man also had the news covered in A1 Section of Apple Daily on the following day.[248] In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung agreed that the news about the aforesaid meeting was a particularly newsworthy one which was also covered by other local newspapers in Hong Kong including Sing Tao, South China Morning Post and Ta Kung Pao. He also agreed that the photograph of the meeting used by Apple Daily was also used by other newspapers. 303.For the sake of completeness, it is noted that Lee Wing-tat responded to D1’s aforesaid messages by suggesting that they should gather forces to arouse the public of the danger of the law and that the pan-democrats should act together. D1 agreed to this.[249] A dinner gathering was then arranged for D1 to meet with “Martin”, “Albert”, Lee Cheuk-yan and “Tall Man” to discuss the matter on the following day[250]. D1 commenting on Apple Daily’s headline 304.On 30 March 2019, D1 talked to Chan Pui-man about a headline of a news report that day on an anti-ELAB procession which was to be published in Apple Daily[251]. D1 said that the headline was well-done, “just that the following is not mentioned: reporting news about Chinese mainland can be regarded as exposing national secret any time, and articles criticizing Chinese Government can be labelled with the crime of subverting state power.” He continued to say: “Please continue to report the dangers that the Hong Kong businessmen face in Chinese Mainland, just to scare those businessmen, so that the pro-establishment camp dare not make any rash move”. 305.Chan Pui-man said that she regarded that D1 was giving her a direction and she passed it on to her colleagues of the Print Form of Apple Daily. Lam Wing-kee’s departure for Taiwan 306.On 26 April 2019, in D1’s WhatsApp massage to Cheung Kim-hung, D1 said[252],
307.By way of background, Lam Wing-kee was the former owner of Causeway Bay Bookstore who had been detained in the Mainland for a period of time. After Lam’s return, he and Albert Ho Chun-yan held a press conference about the detention. Subsequent to that, Lam did not return to the Mainland and was therefore wanted by the Mainland authority. 308.Cheung Kim-hung explained that D1 was telling him that he would like to make use of the headline news of Apple Daily to boost the number of the procession which was to be held on 28 April 2019. In order to make it headline news, they must get hold of Lam Wing-kee and conduct a telephone interview with him. It happened that Cheung Kim-hung was in Taiwan on a business trip on that day. Having learnt the general whereabouts of Lam, Cheung Kim-hung went with a photographer of the Taiwan Apple Daily to interview Lam. Cheung Kim-hung reported that to D1 who replied, “Very gracious.” 309.After the said interview, Cheung Kim-hung sent the manuscript to Apple Daily Taiwan, Law Wai-kwong and Chan Pui-man for the purpose of publication. Cheung Kim-hung reminded Chan Pui-man that it was D1’s desire to use this piece of news as the headline news with a view to boost the number of anti-ELAB protests and asked that it be reported on A1 of Apple Daily. Accordingly, the interview was published on 27 April 2019[253] in which it was written:
310.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung said that he was not aware that the cameraman of RTHK who provided the information of the news to D1 had also provided the same to other media in Hong Kong. Cheung Kim-hung agreed, however, that it was a matter that concerned the society and so it was newsworthy. He disagreed that he had not asked Chan Pui-man to put that news in A1 section (front page) of Apple Daily. He said he told her that it was D1’s wish to have the news on A1.[254] 311.In the small hours of 26 April 2019, D1 texted Chan Pui-man about the departure of Lam Wing-kee from Hong Kong to Taiwan[255]. However, she did not read those messages until she woke up at around 11 am. She immediately contacted Law Wai-kwong and was told that colleagues of the Digital Version were dealing with the news and were going to post it on the digital platform at 3.00 pm. Eventually, this piece of news went to A1 of the newspaper. Chan Pui-man said it was her decision to publish the news on the front page of the Print Form of Apple Daily. 312.On 27 April 2019, D1 messaged Cheung Kim-hung[256] and Chan Pui-man[257], saying that although the aforesaid news about Lam Wing-kee could help the protest on the following day, the atmosphere was still too quiet. He asked Cheung Kim-hung to think about what they could do to urge people to take to the streets. Actually, about a week before the protest, there was already an appeal in Apple Daily to the public to protest against the “evil law”.[258] 313.Later on the same day, D1 forwarded to Cheung Kim-hung[259] and Chan Pui-man[260] the comments of the former Governor Chris Patten (apparently with the help of Benedict Rogers) on the proposed ELAB. Cheung Kim-hung responded to D1 by saying to D1 that the comments given by Chris Patten would be published in the Print Form of Apple Daily on the following day and that real-time news could also be published synchronously that night. To this, D1 replied, “Thanks. LAI”.[261] Chan Pui-man understood that D1 was directing her to publish the comments of Chris Patten on the ELAB in Apple Daily. Therefore, the photograph and comments of Chris Patten were respectively published on the front page and A2 Section of Apple Daily on 28 April 2019. 314.According to Chan Pui-man, after the protest, Apple Daily continued to cover news opposing the extradition law, including the statement attributed to D1 said to have been made on 21 May 2019 at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club that “Hong Kong will be over after the legislative amendment”.[262] Chan Pui-man said that Apple Daily covered it because of D1’s clear stance. Materials provided to Chan Pui-man on 4 June 2019 315.On 4 June 2019, D1 forwarded to Chan Pui-man the following materials:
316.On 31 May 2019, D1 forwarded to Chan Pui-man a message from Tung Chiao (former publisher of Apple Daily) concerning the protest which was to be held on 9 June 2019[269]. Tung Chiao said that the candidate who came out to appeal to the public to take to the streets was quite critical and he proposed Martin Lee and Bishop Zen. Tung went on to say that if Apple Daily could arrange a column to allow some influencers to say something about ELAB, there would be many more people coming out on 9 June. He concluded by saying,
D1 asked Chan Pui-man for a talk about the proposal of Tung Chiao[270]. 317.According to Chan Pui-man, they subsequently discussed Tung Chiao’s proposal. D1’s emphasis was to get influential people in the legal field to talk about the ELAB. Chan Pui-man then discussed with her colleagues and attempted to contact suitable people to talk about the subject. On 3 June 2019, D1 told Chan Pui-man that they should find and interview some “petition students” (「聯署學生」) so as to inspire other students to come out on 9 June. Chan Pui-man replied that she got it[271]. According to Chan Pui-man, she then asked her reporters to follow up on this. 318.On 9 June 2019, D1 sent Chan Pui-man a number of photographs showing anti-ELAB posters being posted in various places in Hong Kong.[272] It was estimated that over one million people participated in the protest. The two of them were excited about it and they discussed the headline to be adopted for the news. Benedict Rogers’ hunger strike 319.On 10 June 2019, D1 forwarded to Chan Pui-man messages from Benedict Rogers concerning his proposed hunger strike in support of the protest in Hong Kong[273] as well as his remarks to Benedict Rogers,
320.In fact, Chan Pui-man had also received the same message from Benedict Rogers the day before[275] and she thought that D1 knew about it. She gathered that Benedict Rogers thought that she and her colleagues might not attach enough importance to the materials he sent her. She also thought that D1 considered that the information was newsworthy, or else he would not have passed the same to them. Therefore, even though D1 added that, “Don’t know what you want to do with it. It’s from Benedict Rogers”[276], she thought that D1, as their boss, was making a recommendation which she felt unable to decline. 321.Since D1 kept sending her similar contents from Benedict Rogers and from Hong Kong Watch asking them to publish those contents or to deal with the relevant articles, she therefore came to the conclusion that D1 attached more importance to these matters and wished to help them. 322.Cheung Kim-hung was referred to a series of WhatsApp messages he had with D1 between 13 and 14 June 2019 concerning the anti-ELAB procession which was to be held on 16 June 2019[277]. 323.Cheung Kim-hung said that D1 told him that the pan-democrats would like to have 100,000 long flags to be distributed to protesters for them to hang outside their windows. At the time, the Confederation of Trade Unions was calling for “Three Strikes”, namely “Boycott Work, Boycott Class, Boycott Business” (「罷工、罷課、罷市」). Therefore, Cheung Kim-hung was asked to write the slogan in Chinese calligraphy and have them printed on the back of the long flags. It was hoped that the long flags would help to promote the anti-ELAB movement and the proposed boycotts. D1 said that Wong Wai-keung (the administration director of the Next Digital) would be approached to deal with this. Cheung Kim-hung therefore prepared the long flags in collaboration with Wong Wai-keung and a sample was shown to D1[278]. D1 was satisfied with the design of the long flags[279]. 324.Eventually, however, D1 decided not to distribute the long flags as the ELAB had been deferred and someone had taken his or her own life because of the amendment bill. 325.In cross-examination, it was put to Cheung Kim-hung that it was his idea, rather than that of D1, that the long flags be inserted into the newspaper for distribution. Cheung Kim-hung disagreed and insisted that it was not his idea that the long flags were to be inserted in the newspaper. However, he might have gotten the idea from Wong Wai-keung. Apple Daily’s financial support for anti-ELAB movement 326.Cheung Kim-hung was asked about a series of WhatsApp messages he had with D1 between 15 and 16 June 2019[280] which was about using the revenue of Apple Daily to support the anti-ELAB movement. 327.Cheung Kim-hung gave the background as follows. D1 decided that between 1 July and 1 September 2019 there would be a $3 handling charge for readers who accessed the Apple Daily website, out of which $1 would be set aside for a fund to assist protestors for their future medical expenses and litigation fees. It was hoped that by this way people who supported the resistance and the anti-ELAB movement would be encouraged to subscribe to Apple Daily. 328.On 5 July 2019, Cheung Kim-hung reported to D1 “Boss, by 2 am today (the 5th day), the total number of members paying charges to Hong Kong Apple Daily exceeded 300,000!” and that “The number of upgraded Next Media members of Next Animation Studio exceeded 300,000!”[281] Subsequently, the accounts department was asked to issue a payment cheque to the fund. Suspension of ELAB and the publication of “anti-authoritarianism June” 329.On 14 June 2019, D1 and Chan Pui-man had exchanges about the government’s suspension of the proposed ELAB. Despite the suspension, D1 said, “We can only gradually up (our) game to meet the arrival of sly scheme(s)”.[282] 330.On the following two days, there were further exchanges between them on the same topic. The headline on the front page of Apple Daily on 15 June 2019 read, “Evil law to be suspended but not withdrawn/ Carrie LAM stalling (tactic) on the eve of the procession/ Take to the streets tomorrow regardless”.[283] Chan Pui-man said that the headline took on board the view of D1 that the suspension of the bill was only a strategy and that the purpose could be achieved by nothing other than the withdrawal of the bill. 331.On 1 July 2019, the front page of Apple Daily bore the headline, “The draconian law has not been withdrawn/Carrie LAM has not resigned/Go to the street again today”.[284] The newspaper came with a free booklet titled “Anti-authoritarianism June” (「逆權六月」)[285], which was mainly a collection of photos taken by Apple Daily, pictures of protests in the movement opposing the ELAB. Chan Pui-man agreed that by the use of the word “Anti-authoritarianism” (「逆權」), the focus had changed so that it was then not so much about the bill but the government. 332.On 2 July 2019, there was a series of exchanges between D1 and Chan Pui-man on the news about the storming of the Legislative Council Building.[286] D1 also copied to her his WhatsApp exchanges with Nick Cheung.[287] In the copied messages, D1 asked Nick Cheung whether they could find more young people to speak out about their feelings and he expressed the hope that this might ease the negative impacts of the incident.[288] 333.Chan Pui-man considered that D1 was giving instructions about the perspective in which the news was to be covered in order to achieve his purpose. She said the instruction was carried out. 334.Also on 2 July 2019, D1 forwarded to Chan Pui-man an article written by Lester Shum[289], which responded to the then CE’s speech made at a media session where she condemned the recent violence. Shum wrote, among other things[290]:
335.D1 then asked Chan Pui-man, “Can we in some way publish this article? Or even do an interview with him for illustration?”[291] Chan Pui-man told D1 that the article could be published in Apple Forum. Subsequently, she forwarded Shum’s article to Yeung Ching-kee and asked him to follow up.[292] Yeung Ching-kee replied to Chan Pui-man on the same day that if Shum agreed, his article would be given a whole page and the publication of the articles of other writers would be deferred.[293] 336.On 25 July 2019, there was a report in Apple Daily (Digital Form) of an interview of D1 by Albert Ho Chun-yan in the online programme “Encountering Zhongnanhai”. It was said that D1 said the following in the interview[294]:
337.Cheung Kim-hung said that after the online programme, D1 gave him a phone call telling him that he (D1) had made reference to the earlier meeting with Mike Pompeo. D1 said that a request had been made to the US for assistance in the anti-ELAB movement and he asked Cheung Kim-hung to follow up on this matter, that is Cheung Kim-hung should make it big. Therefore, Cheung Kim-hung notified Law Wai-kwong, asking him to follow up on this. According to Cheung Kim-hung, prior to that interview, D1 had mentioned to him in a private chat about sanctions. However, the interview was the very first occasion that D1 formally and publicly referred to imposing sanctions on Hong Kong and Mainland officials. 338.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung disagreed that D1 had never told him that during the interview with Albert Ho he (D1) had referred to the meeting with Pompeo and requested US assistance for the anti-ELAB movement. 339.According to Cheung Kim-hung, D1 had given instructions to (i) increase the number of video talks of Apple Daily to be posted onto the Action News; and (ii) interview people from the opposing camp such as the protestors. That was to provide an opportunity for them to explain why they had to come out to protest, to tell what they had gone through and what difficulties they had encountered. Law Wai-kwong, who reported to Cheung Kim-hung, was responsible for deciding who would be invited to attend interviews. Cheung Kim-hung and Law Wai-kwong followed the instructions of D1. 340.Cheung Kim-hung said that during the latter half of 2019, the Hong Kong news section was wholly devoted to the reporting of this topic of news. The target audience was subscribers to the Action News. By the beginning of July 2019, there were about 300,000 of those. Young people nowadays relatively speaking did not read physical newspapers very often. It was also hoped that more young people could watch and gather the news and the footage online in relation to the anti-ELAB Movement and also participated in it. 341.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung was asked about his WhatsApp exchanges with D1 on Apple Daily’s video talk platform[295]. It was then put to Cheung Kim-hung that D1’s idea was that it was a lifestyle channel and that it was Cheung Kim-hung’s idea to turn the “video talk” into something political. As to this, Cheung Kim-hung disagreed. Sympathetic reporting of protests 342.Cheung Kim-hung said that after D1’s aforesaid visit to the US, the editorial policy of Apple Daily concerning the anti-ELAB movement became more radical. For instance, in lunchbox meetings, as well as in private meetings between D1 and Cheung Kim-hung, D1 said that there should not be any division between the peaceful protestors and the valiant protestors. D1 also said the resistance should be conducted on a long-term basis. Cheung Kim-hung would convey D1’s view to his colleagues, and senior staff members involved in editorial would also know D1’s views from lunchbox meetings. As a consequence, when Apple Daily reported matters about the movement, it would report in a sympathetic light and attributed the worsening of social situation to the conduct of the Hong Kong Government and the CCP regime. 343.Reference was made to the following reports in Apple Daily which Cheung Kim-hung said was in line with D1’s editorial policy:
344.In (a) above, it was said in the first paragraph by the reporters:
345.In (b) above, it was said in the first paragraph by the reporters:
346.In (c) above, which was an interview of two protestors, Lee and Chan, the reporter started by saying:
347.In (d) above, which was an interview of four members of a band of valiant protestors known as “Dragon Slayers”, the reporter portrayed them in a positive light. The first paragraph said:
348.Moreover, we note that in an article published on 18 October 2019 titled “Social Feature: Save our own comrades” (「社會專題：自己手足自己救」)[300], the content advocated for unity among protestors and called for the saving of companions from being arrested by the police in the discharge of their duties. It also advocated and commended violence in protests, claiming that peaceful protestors and valiant protestors would act together and perform their respective duties. The following was what the reporters wrote in the first paragraph of the article:
349.We note also that on 5 January 2020, D1 published in his column “Sink or Swim, Smile” an article of D1 titled: “Keep going together with peaceful and valiant spirit in 2020 (「2020 和勇繼續一起撐下去」)[301]. D1 confirmed that he took part in the protest on 1 January 2020 with Martin Lee and Albert Ho. He expressed approval of those who shouted slogans which included “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our times” and “Death to all the black cops and their families”. He said, “Hong Kong is a blessed place to have such outstanding and brave young people with such hatred for evil”. D1 said that he would continue to fight and insist on fighting for the “Five Demands, Not One Less”. D1 further suggested that the police were impersonating as protestors to create riots, alleging that the police were treacherous and full of lies and “the worst enemy of the public”. “Support the Student Subscription Plan” 350.Cheung Kim-hung was referred to a full page advertisement for “Support the Student Subscription Plan” published in Apple Daily on 19 November 2019.[302] In the middle of that page it read, 「撐學生 抗暴政」（“Support the Students, Fight the Tyranny”）. 351.Cheung Kim-hung said that Apple Daily called on people to donate $300 for each student between 10 and 20 years old so that students might read Apple Daily for free for one year. At that time, D1 was very supportive of young people going out and putting up resistance against ELAB and the Communist regime and he appreciated their sacrifice. He hoped that they could continue to be loyal readers of Apple Daily and read the news in relation to the resistance movement. D1 was aware that many of the students did not have any credit cards or any financial means to subscribe to Apple Daily. Therefore, he wanted to appeal to readers for donations. 352.Cheung Kim-hung remembered that during the course of a lunchbox meeting with the Advertising Division in 2019, D1 instructed colleagues of the Advertising Division to work on “Support Small Shops” in the Classified Post. This was because at that time people who participated in the resistance movement would choose to patronise shops on the basis of their political stance. The supporters of the resistance movement did not patronise shops belonging to the blue circle or pro-establishment. This was the so-called “yellow economic circle”. 353.Upon D1’s instruction, Cheung Kim-hung discussed this matter with the supervisors of the Advertising Section. Apple Daily allowed the small shops to advertise free of charge in the Classified Post for a certain period of time. The name of the campaign was called “Classified Post Campaign to Support Small Shops”. Owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, the plan came to a halt until mid-2020 when it was re-started. “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” 354.Cheung Kim-hung was shown his WhatsApp exchanges with D1 on 22 May 2020[303] which was about the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” Campaign. 355.Based on the WhatsApp records, on 22 May 2020 D1 asked Cheung Kim-hung to consider that Apple Daily initiate a “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign and publish a front-page advertisement calling for Hong Kong people to write letters to the President, the Vice-President, Secretary of State, Congressmen of the United States and so forth, asking them to intervene[304]. D1 later informed Cheung Kim-hung that “We have informed Nick of making the design and Wai-keung of the printing matter”[305]. 356.By way of background, Cheung Kim-hung explained that on the previous day there was an announcement that National People’s Congress would enact the NSL. According to Cheung Kim-hung, after the WhatsApp exchanges he had with D1 that morning, D1 gave him a phone call discussing with him the matter and said that he wanted the President and Vice-President of the United States to impose sanctions on China. It was D1’s hope that the President and the Vice-President of the US would save Hong Kong by taking action to interfere by imposing sanction or other measures against the Chinese Communist Party. 357.As a result, a full-page advertisement (containing a template letter) for the Campaign was posted in Apple Daily on 24[306] , 25[307] and 27[308] May 2020 respectively where it said:
The advertisement was also uploaded on Apple Daily Website[309]. People were invited to send the letter to President Trump through Twitter, Facebook or to sign the letter online. On 24 May 2020, there was also a tweet[310] about the campaign in D1’s Twitter account. 358.On 26 May 2020, Cheung Kim-hung texted D1[311] and said that Sang Pu said in a D100 programme that there would be an announcement on the following Thursday (US time) in respect of the NSL on measures including sanctioning Hong Kong and Chinese officials involved in the legislation; suspending Hong Kong’s status as a separate customs territory; and revoking the special customs status of Hong Kong. D1 replied by saying that he thought what Sang Pu said was true but it was not a powerful deterrence to China. He expected harsher sanction[312]. 359.On 27 May 2020, Cheung Kim-hung forward to D1 the news:[313] “The NPC PLA delegation meeting stresses to step up preparation for military struggle”. D1 replied by saying,
360.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung disagreed with counsel that there was no telephone call between him and D1 regarding “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” and D1’s instructions were only in WhatsApp. As to counsel’s suggestion that international pressure could, for instance, be a simple phone call between world leaders, Cheung Kim-hung said that it was not what D1 contemplated at that time. All along D1 said highly of the unilateral policy adopted by Trump, that is, he had the guts to start a trade war with China trying to make or making China comply with the values adopted by the Western countries. Cheung Kim-hung believed that this letter was meant to request Trump to confront China. 361.On 2 June 2020, D1 forwarded a message to Cheung Kim-hung which read[316],
“Yue-yam” was the publisher of Taiwan Apple Daily. Cheung Kim-hung replied[317],
362.By way of background, Cheung Kim-hung explained that at the time, there was the “One Hongkonger, One letter to save Hong Kong” campaign. It was hoped that President Trump would take action by interfering with the enactment of NSL. At the time, D1 was having interviews with foreign news outlets on a very frequent basis. He was very expectant that Donald Trump would take actions very soon. Therefore, he gave instructions to them not to use news articles of those media outlets that were against Trump, including CNN and New York Times. According to Cheung Kim-hung, D1 actually had already previously given the same instruction to him in the week before and he related the same to Law Wai-kwong and those in the international news section. He also related the same to Chan Pui-man. 363.Cheung Kim-hung said that at a later time, around the period of the US presidential election between Biden and Trump, D1 also gave the instruction not to publish so many comments or criticisms against Trump. His instruction was followed. D1 very much hoped that Trump could be re-elected. 364.In due course, we will assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence of the accomplice witnesses. 365.At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that it was the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung, the publisher of Apple Daily, that the contents of D1’s articles in his weekly column “Sink or swim, Smile” in the main opposed the HKSAR Government and the Chinese Communist Party. Chan Pui-man, who was in charge of the Print Form, testified to the various incidents where D1 gave her editorial directions on news reporting. Yeung Ching-kee, who was in charge of the Editorial and Apple Forum, considered D1’s views and stance as the “guiding principles” for his own writings and his selection of articles. Royston, who attended all the lunchbox meetings as the COO of the group during the material period of time, disagreed that the lunchbox meetings were not used to lay down editorial directions. All of the witnesses from Apple Daily said in one voice that D1 was a dominating and hands-on boss whose political views expressed in the lunchbox meetings and in his articles directed the editorial policy and political outlook of Apple Daily. 366.In view of the above, D1’s articles and statements require close examination. In particular, it is the prosecution case that the articles of D1 (and others) in TB1 of the Trial Bundle were samples of the products of the conspiracy in Count 1. Besides, D1’s articles (including but not limited to those contained in TB1) are also relevant to Count 2 and Count 3 as they may show his intention and purpose, if any, at the material time. 367.In order not to prolong this already lengthy Reasons for Verdict unnecessarily, we do not intend to provide a detailed analysis of all of D1’s articles and statements contained in the Trial Bundle. It suffices for us to say that we have read and carefully considered all of them. However, we would like to highlight the following. 368.It was Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence that during the anti-ELAB movement in 2019, it seemed to Yeung Ching-kee that D1’s articles, which were published on Sundays where the large-scale protests would take place, were aimed at calling people to take to the streets. Therefore, during that period when Yeung Ching-kee wrote articles or selected articles for Apple Forum, he would write or select articles which encouraged people to take to the streets and that was the main theme. 369.An example can be found in D1’s article in “Sink or Swim, Smile” titled “Step forward to preserve the last line of defense” (「請站出來保住最後防線」)[318] published on 28 April 2019 where he wrote:
Anti-authoritarianism Movement 370.On 19 January 2020, in D1’s column “Sink and Swim, Smile” there was an article titled: “Absolute dictatorship. Where did XI Jinping get his confidence from? (「絕對獨裁 習近平哪來的自信」)[319]. In that article, D1 portrayed China as the enemy of the world:
371.To put the aforesaid article of D1 in context, it is noteworthy that on the same day, Apple Daily gave prominent coverage to a news report with the title: 「天下制裁集會 今勢逼爆遮打」 (“Universal Sanction Rally, Chater Garden to be crammed”)[320]. The report said:
In the aforesaid report, Apple Daily quoted the speech of the organizers including:
372.There was a map illustrating the route of the “water-flow” rally. It also reported the following direction by Lau Wing-hong to those who were minded to participate in the “water-flow” rally:
Covid-19 pandemic and the resistance movement 373.In late January 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic began to affect Hong Kong and other places in the world and the matter was covered by Apple Daily. According to Chan Pui-man, D1 was of the view that the Chinese Government had concealed things and he expressed similar views in lunchbox meetings. D1’s view influenced the angle of reporting of Apple Daily. The social movement was then turned against the “totalitarian” Chinese Communist Party. In this regard, Chan Pui-man referred to the following:
374.According to Yeung Ching-kee, after the implementation of the NSL, D1 mentioned the NSL many times in his column. From Yeung Ching-kee’s perspective as an editor, he considered that some of D1’s captions were very good and they left a very deep impression on him, examples of which included “Time is a weapon” 「時間就是武器」) and “The great era is coming soon” （「大時代快將來臨」）. Yeung Ching-kee said that D1’s articles reflected his views and stance very truthfully and genuinely and they also mentioned the issue of sanctions. D1 considered that sanctions imposed by the United States and the Western countries on China and Hong Kong would not abate. This was because the change in the policy towards China by the US would not make a turnaround within a short period of time. The US sanctions would have an impact on China’s economy for a long time. Yeung Ching-kee considered D1’s views and stance to be the guidelines for Yeung Ching-kee’s own writings and selection of articles. 375.In “Time is a weapon” (「時間就是武器」)[328], which was published on 19 July 2020, D1 wrote:
376.In “The great era is coming soon” (「大時代快將來臨」)[329], which was published on 23 September 2020, D1 wrote:
377.In cross-examination, it was put to Yeung Ching-kee that he would not approve a particular article, if in his opinion it was calling for something unlawful. Yeung Ching-kee answered that he would not give his approval if it would obviously violate the law. However, if the articles were “playing edge ball”, were consistent with the stance of Apple Daily and would avoid breaching the law, then perhaps they would be adopted. In re-examination, Yeung Ching-kee agreed that he was operating in a grey area and he hoped to avoid legal risks. 378.On 22 May 2020[330], D1 posted his first tweet. That tweet, which set the tone of all his subsequent tweets, read as follows:
379.It is noted, however, that the prosecution case is such that the contents of D1’s tweets are not the subject matters of Count 1 and Count 2, as they were posted in D1’s personal Twitter account and not on any of Apple Daily’s platforms. That said, the tweets, if written by D1 personally or posted with his agreement, would still be relevant as a backdrop to ascertain his state of mind at the material time. 380.According to Chan Pui-man, Simon Lee (Lee Chao Fu) used to be a writer for the Finance News section of Apple Daily using the pen name “Lee Sai Man” (「利世民」) and he had ceased working for Apple Daily for a period of time. Subsequently, D1 wanted to hold some video talks under the name of Apple Daily, the main purpose of which was to boost reader loyalty, especially as there was then an intention to set up a subscription system for the Apple Daily app. In around 2020, D1 asked to get Simon Lee back to help on that. Therefore, Simon Lee was once again recruited by the company. Later on, when D1 set up a Twitter account of his own, he engaged Simon Lee to manage the account for him. 381.On 14 May 2020, D1 texted Simon Lee and asked for a chat about using Twitter. That, D1 said, was because “Mark” had asked him to open a Twitter account to attract American subscribers to the upcoming English version of Apple Daily of which the preparation was underway.[331] Dinner gathering at D1’s residence 382.According to Yeung Ching-kee, he attended a total of three dinner gatherings at D1’s home, namely:
As can be seen shortly, Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence that there were the above dinner gatherings at D1’s residence with the attendance of D1, Yeung Ching-kee, Simon Lee and others is circumstantially supported by D1’s WhatsApp records which talked about the arrangement of those dinners. What is in dispute is what was said during those gatherings and in particular, whether D1 mentioned anything about foreign sanctions. 383.Yeung Ching-kee said that during the gatherings, D1 talked about: (a) the setting up of an online English version of Apple Daily; (b) the setting up of D1’s personal Twitter account; and (c) foreign sanctions. For the present purpose, we will focus on Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence on (b) and (c):
384.In cross-examination, it was suggested to Yeung Ching-kee that D1 had not in fact used the word “sanction” during the 3rd Dinner. Yeung Ching-kee said that he was sure that D1 did mention it. He agreed, however, that this part of his evidence was based solely on his recollection. 385.D1’s WhatsApp records show that between 14 May and 21 May 2020 he and Simon Lee discussed the contents and translation of D1’s tweets. On 22 May 2020, D1 left a voice message to Simon Lee asking that the latter and three others (namely “Lo Fung”, “Sang Pu” and “On Yue (Keung Kwok-yuen)” (「安裕 (姜國元)」[338]) give him a tweet a day[339]. On 24 May 2020, Simon Lee reported that “Li Ping” (Yeung Ching-kee) had also contributed a tweet[340]. 386.Between 22 May 2020 and 18 June 2020, D1 and Simon Lee discussed contents of the tweets to be posted on D1’s Twitter account. From time to time, D1 provided his own drafts for Simon Lee’s editing and posting[341]. Simon Lee also reported to D1 that there were some suggested tweets from “Li Ping”[342] and the others[343]. 387.In Yeung Ching-kee’s examination-in-chief, he said that D1 promised him a monthly sum of $10,000 for contributing to D1’s tweets[344]. The payment was to come from D1’s personal account. Yeung Ching-kee said that the purpose of the tweets was to increase D1’s own influence as well as that of Apple Daily on the public opinion. Yeung Ching-kee said that he, as a full-time employee of Apple Daily, would still comply with D1’s order and do the job regardless of whether there would be any extra payment. Yeung Ching-kee said that he indeed contributed to D1’s tweets, examples of which included two pieces of news about the June 4 incident which Yeung Ching-kee gave to Simon Lee who then posted them on Twitter[345]. On 5 June 2020, D1 texted Yeung Ching-kee [346] and asked what the movement was which triggered the starting of democracy in South Korea. That led to Yeung Ching-kee feeding information to D1 of the Gwangju Movement. 388.Besides, according to Chan Pui-man, D1 also asked her for news items or ideas to “feed” his tweets. For example, on 22 May 2020, there was an audio message from D1 telling Chan Pui-man that his Twitter was making a stir. He asked if she could send him a tweet everyday of her idea about the daily news.[347] On the following day, Chan Pui-man sent D1 a news photo (showing Henry Tang and other Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the CPPCC) with the caption: “The Hong Kong NPC and the CPPCC issued statements supporting the establishment of the National Security Law in Hong Kong - RTHK”[348]. That was followed by Chan Pui-man’s question asking: “Will they be on the list?” D1 asked Chan Pui-man what she meant. Chan Pui-man replied, “Hong Kong traitor, sanction list?” To this, D1 responded, “I see. Good suggest.”[349] Chan Pui-man explained that as D1 would like them to help looking for some hot topics for him to write on Twitter, she therefore conducted a search for him on the Internet. Eventually, the photo and Chan Pui-man’s question were adopted by D1 in his tweet on 23 May 2020 where it was asked “Should US government put them on the sanction list? #MagnitskyAct” [350]. 389.On 8 June 2020, however, D1 told Mark Simon that probably some of his content providers would drop out in a couple of months[351]. After that, on 11 June 2020, D1 told Simon Lee that since “Lo Fung” worked full time then for “English News”, he might not have time to contribute to his Twitter[352]. On 24 June 2020, D1 and Simon Lee discussed whether they still needed contributors for Twitter, as English News was already there where Simon Lee could find enough materials. D1 decided that the contributors’ contribution would be needed for one more month[353]. Eventually, on 8 July 2020 (which was after the promulgation of the NSL), D1 messaged Mark Simon[354]:
390.As regards Yeung Ching-kee, he said in his evidence that he stopped providing content for D1’s tweets after the latter’s arrest in August 2020. This was because previously he passed the information onto D1 through Simon Lee and at that time the latter had ceased to work for the newspaper. 391.Even though D1 had engaged the assistance of other people for provision of content, by a comparison of the WhatsApp exchanges between D1 and Simon Lee and the tweets that were posted in D1’s Twitter account, it can be seen that between 21 June and 30 June, D1 was a major contributor to the tweets and Simon Lee made stylistic/editorial changes to them:
Samples of the tweets before the NSL 392.Before the promulgation of the NSL, there were tweets calling for sanctions and opposing the introduction of the NSL. The following serve as examples:
393.On 1 July 2020, which was the date immediately after the promulgation of the NSL, D1 sent to Simon Lee various pieces of news including:
There were also the following messages from D1 to Simon Lee:
D1 told Simon Lee that some of the aforesaid news items were already in the English edition section and he asked Simon Lee to find and use them[385]. 394.On the same day, the following tweets (which were linked to the news report concerned in Apple Daily) appeared in D1’s Twitter account:
395.It was also on 1 July 2020 that Simon Lee expressed his intention to cease managing D1’s tweets and cease contributing articles to Apple Daily[388]. He informed D1 also that he would be leaving on 8 July[389]. D1 replied that he had just read the details of National Security Law and found that they were very draconian. He agreed that Simon Lee should stay low profile[390]. 396.Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence provide further insight as to why Simon Lee wanted to cease working for D1. According to Yeung Ching-kee, D1 had once revealed in an online interview that Simon Lee was helping him with his Twitter account. Simon Lee told Yeung Ching-kee subsequently that perhaps the tweets might have violated some aspects of the NSL and if D1 made it public that Simon Lee was the one who was responsible for it, then there would be a risk. Simon Lee said that he was not comfortable with it and therefore he resigned. 397.On 3 July 2020, D1 texted Simon Lee and said[391]:
Simon Lee agreed to that course and D1 said he would do it that way.[392] 398.On 6 July 2020, D1 forwarded to Simon Lee the following with a link to Apple Daily[393]:
Despite the aforesaid announcement to the readers that Simon Lee was leaving, D1 suggested that he continued to manage D1’s tweets on a confidential basis[394]:
As to this, Lee Simon said “Thanks”[395]. 399.On the following day, i.e., 9 July 2020, D1 texted Mark Simon regarding Simon Lee again[396]:
Mark Simon replied[397],
400.By a comparison of the WhatsApp messages between D1 and Simon Lee and the tweets posted in D1’s personal Twitter account after the promulgation of the NSL, it could be shown that after 1 July 2020 D1 was the major content contributor of the tweets posted in his personal Twitter account. The pattern was that D1 would provide Simon Lee with drafts for the latter’s editing and uploading. On occasions where Simon Lee came up with some suggestions, D1’s agreement would first be obtained before posting[398]. There were also some retweets from Apple Daily[399] and other sources[400]. This pattern continued after Simon Lee’s departure from Hong Kong for the US on about 9 July 2020 until shortly before D1’s arrest in early August 2020:
401.It was plain that D1 was fully alive to the attendant legal risks after the NSL if he continued to advocate for sanctions as he did before:
402.The following is illustrative of D1’s strategy:
Chapter 14 – “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai” 403.On 9 July 2020, with the assistance of Simon Lee, D1 started his live chat programme on Twitter. Its name at first was “Live Q & A with Jimmy Lai” which was changed to “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai” (“live chat”) on 3 September 2020. From the second episode onwards, Mark Clifford joined in as a co-host and there would also be a guest speaker. The programme continued until D1 was arrested in early December 2020. 404.Each of the episodes was hosted by D1 (who spoke in English) and he was assisted by Lucia who received questions from the audience. According to Cheung Kim-hung, Lucia[451] worked in an animation company belonging to D1 in Taiwan and Cheung Kim-hung understood that Mark Simon also took part in the management of that company. Mark Simon had told D1 that Lucia was very well versed with social media. Therefore, D1 instructed Cheung Kim-hung to liaise with Lucia as a result of which Lucia eventually came to work in Taiwan Apple Daily. 405.Cheung Kim-hung’s attention was drawn to the message from Nick Cheung in the English News chat group on 30 June 2020[452] where he said:
To which, Cheung Kim-hung replied,
Cheung Kim-hung explained that the “draconian law” was a reference to the NSL. Cheung Kim-hung gave the background of the aforesaid message as follows. “Twitter Live”, (later renamed as live chat) was a programme initiated by D1. Around that time, D1 was very concerned about the impact of the NSL on Hong Kong, as well as on Apple Daily. There was a discussion between D1 and Cheung Kim-hung. Cheung Kim-hung was wondering whether D1 would like to start the programme there and then. D1 was of the view that the live chat was very useful for discussion to be held with influential foreigners concerning the current situation of Hong Kong. 406.Cheung Kim-hung understood that D1 hoped to influence public opinion through the live chat with influential scholars, politicians as well as former government officials of foreign countries. During the course of the live chat, he would talk about the current situation of Hong Kong, in particular the repression of Hong Kong after the enactment of the NSL, the impact on the rule of law and the status of Hong Kong as a financial centre. It was hoped that foreign countries would offer assistance to Hong Kong. The involvement of Apple Daily 407.The first episode of live chat was live-streamed on 9 July 2020[453] in which D1’s speech was live streamed, followed by a Q & A session. After a few episodes, guests were invited to attend. They were arranged by Mark Simon and D1, and Apple Daily was not involved in the arrangement. 408.According to Cheung Kim-hung, he personally did not play any part in the live chat. However, Apple Daily provided technical support of its setup and shooting. The first three episodes were only posted on Apple Daily’s Twitter account, and thereafter it was also posted on D1’s Twitter account. Apart from D1’s personal Twitter account, the programme was published by Apple Daily on its Twitter account, its Facebook and its PSCP.TV platform as well as YouTube. In particular, it was broadcast live on the platform of the English News and push notifications would be sent to readers. At the same time, there was also live streaming at the Twitter accounts of Apple Daily and D1. Nick Cheung was responsible for the production of live chat. According to Chan Pui-man, there would be promotion for live chat in the Print Form in the form of a full page advertisement[454]. 409.When an episode of live chat was being live-streamed or was uploaded online, Nick Cheung would send a link to members of the “English News” chat group about that.[455] The following are examples:
410.On 13 August 2020, Nick Cheung reported in the chat group “English News” that “the highest number of concurrent viewers on fb live was 2 thousand something, the accumulated number of views on fb live is 57,000 for the time being. The highest number of concurrent viewers on twitter live was almost 1 thousand approximately, the accumulated number of views on twitter live is 12,000 for the time being. These figures are the highest since the program started to broadcast!”[466] 411.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung disagreed with counsel that D1 had never spoken to him about the guests to be invited to attend live chat. He disagreed with counsel that the conversation between D1 and him about Jack Keane had never happened. D1’s stance and extracts from the episodes 412.A common theme which permeated all of the episodes of D1’s live chat was his anti-China and anti-NSL stance. In his view, the values of Hong Kong were the Western values which Hong Kong had inherited from the UK since its colonial days. The values of the CCP were the antithesis of those Western values which represented the “universal values”. Therefore, he saw the CCP as evil in nature and it was an enemy to Hong Kong people, Western countries and the world peace. D1 reiterated time and again that since China was so big and “belligerent”, the Western countries had to be aligned under the leadership of the US to confront China before it was too late. D1 called for foreign countries to continue to support Hong Kong, as the protest movement of Hong Kong were in fact part of the Western war of value against China. 413.The following extracts of D1’s statements made in the live chat illustrate his aforesaid stance. Episode 1 (9 July 2020)[467] 414.When D1 was asked what the NSL meant for Hong Kong, he said:
Episode 2 (17 July 2020)[470] 415.D1 described the NSL as “a sword of Damocles”. He also said that the NSL took away the protection of the rule of law from the people and “Hong Kong will become China, created with corruption in the future”[471]. Referring to the recent primary election of the pan-democrats, D1 said that Hong Kong people were not afraid, but would change their tactics in their resistance and become “flexible”[472]. Episode 3 (30 July 2020)[473] 416.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Raymond Burghardt), D1 said,
Episode 4 (6 August 2020)[477] 417.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Raymond Burghardt), D1 referred to the postponement of the September LegCo election and the disqualification of four of the candidates of pan-democrats. He said that even those in the pro-government camp sensed that Hong Kong was definitely being demised by the NSL. He agreed with Burghardt’s description that Hong Kong was being “recolonized”. 418.D1 said that those European countries which used to be quite reluctant to join Trump administration in opposing China were slowly, slowly joining just because: (1) they recognized how the different CCP value could be confrontational and damaging to the whole world order; and (2) those countries would not have leverage against China unless they united together. 419.D1 said that the NSL was in fact no law and it allowed the government to do anything they like. As such, professional and business people were quietly leaving Hong Kong. Episode 5 (13 August 2020)[478] 420.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Mike Gonzalez[479]), D1 referred to his recent arrest and the response of the people who supported him. D1 said that they could not really confront the authorities face to face because they were just like an egg and the authorities were like a high wall. So, they had to be very flexible, innovative and patient, but persistent. 421.D1 said that, because of the differences in their values, if they did not change China, the world would not have peace and that people today were talking about the new Cold War, which was just a war of opposing values. D1 said that people wanted China to realize that without it being assimilated to the international Western value, there would not be peace in the international trade or politics or diplomacy. Episode 6 (18 August 2020)[480] 422.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Perry Link[481]), D1 again referred to his recent experience of being detained in custody. He was not expecting bail. He said that at that time he reflected on whether he would still do the same thing and go the same way and the answer which almost immediately came to his mind was, “yes, I would because this is my character.”[482] 423.D1 also said,
Episode 7 (27 August 2020)[486] 424.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Victoria Tin-bor Hui[487]), D1 referred to the arrest the day before of 16 people who, he said, “did not violate any law” and which “confirmed National Security Law definitely had destroyed our rule of law. Not just destroy the rule of law but also destroy facts and the right and wrongs.”[488] 425.D1 also said,
Episode 8 (3 September 2020)[490] 426.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Raymond Burghardt[491]), D1 said the pivot had shifted to Asia and the upgrade of the status of Taiwan was the right leverage US was using against China[492]. He likened Taiwan to Berlin in that “if Taiwan falls, Asia-Pacific will fall”[493]. He opined that “the greater the military presence that US had on the Asia-Pacific, the lesser risk of a conflict with China”[494] and that “US has to position itself strongly in Asia”[495]. D1’s intention was similar to the confidential note he wrote to Antonio Chiang in January 2017 and his intention to use Taiwan as a leverage against China never abated. D1 further commented that “the free world feels the threat of China the partial decoupling from China commercially is going to happen”[496]. 427.In reply to a question put by Lucia, D1 said[497],
Episode 9 (10 September 2020)[498] 428.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Benedict Rogers), D1 said that the role of Benedict Rogers was a lot more important than before the NSL:
429.D1 knew at the time that making the request was illegal, however he was still requesting measures as suggested by Benedict Rogers to continue. 430.In reply to a question from the audience as to what the international community living in Hong Kong could do to help Hong Kong people, D1 said[501],
Episode 10 (17 September 2020)[502] 431.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Claudia Rosett[503]), D1 said
432.D1 compared the Covid-19 pandemic to the Pearl Harbour incident in World War II:
Episode 11 (24 September 2020)[508] 433.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Thomas Shattuck[509]), D1 said[510]:
434.As regards US technology embargo, D1 had the following to say[511]:
435.D1 reiterated the comparison between the Covid-19 pandemic and the Pearl Harbour incident[512]:
Episode 12 (1 October 2020)[513] 436.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Michael Austin[514]), D1 reiterated his “Pearl Harbour” motif[515]. He portrayed the CCP as an enemy to the Western countries[516] and said:
437.D1 supported the US using Taiwan as a leverage and the technology embargo against China:
Episode 13 (8 October 2020)[520] 438.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Zen Ze-kiun[521]), D1 criticized the agreement between Vatican and the Mainland made two years ago as a “kowtow of Vatican”. As regards religious freedom in Hong Kong, D1 said[522]:
Episode 14 (15 October 2020)[523] 439.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Paul Wolfowitz), D1 said,
440.Talking about the recent interception of the twelve Hong Kong people who were trying to flee to Taiwan but were intercepted by the Mainland authorities and detained, D1 said[526],
Episode 15 (22 October 2020)[527] 441.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Jillian Melchior[528]), D1 said[529]:
Episode 16 (29 October 2020)[530] 442.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Father Robert Sirico[531]), D1 said:
Episode 17 (5 November 2020)[535] 443.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Claudia Rosett), D1 said[536]:
444.Talking about the incoming Biden administration, D1 said:
445.In reply to a question from the audience as to what the likely outcome of the trade war between US and China was and whether there was likely to be a reconciliation, D1 said[540]:
Episode 18 (12 November 2020)[541] 446.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Raymond Burghardt), D1 referred to the recent disqualification of four legislators as “shocking” and described it as “the last nail on the Hong Kong coffin”.[542] He said, “So I hope the world will take notice and come to our aid and support us.”[543] He said further:
447.Talking about the arm sales of US to Taiwan, D1 said[545]:
D1 went further and said[546]:
448.As regards how the incoming US administration should deal with China, D1 said[547]:
449.In reply to a question of a viewer as to whether it would be a good strategy for the pro-democracy movement to work with factions within the regime and whether it would be better to accept a “bad deal” than to have “no deal” at all, D1 disagreed with both propositions and he said they should keep on fighting[549]. He told another viewer[550]:
Episode 19 (13 November 2020)[551] 450.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Chris Patten), D1 referred to the disqualification of four LegCo members which triggered the resignation of all the pan-democrat legislators. He said that meant that the rule of law was gone[552]. 451.Besides, D1 said,
452.In reply to a question from a viewer as to what the United Nations (“UN”) could do to “help” Hong Kong, D1 said that he was not so optimistic about the UN. On the other hand, he said[556],
Episode 20 (19 November 2020)[558] 453.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Glenn Harlan Reynolds[559]), D1 reiterated his view about China and what he wanted the Biden administration to do in dealing with China:
454.In reply to a question from a viewer as to what D1 would like Hongkongers to keep going in case he was arrested under the NSL, he said[562],
Episode 21 (20 November 2020)[563] 455.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Natan Sharansky), D1 said,
456.D1 did not agree that the situation then existing in Hong Kong was similar to the Cultural Revolution on the Mainland,
Episode 22 (26 November 2020)[568] 457.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Jack Keane), D1 said:
458.In reply to a question from a viewer as to whether it was possible to run a media company which was truly unbiased and neutral, D1 said that he did not think that any media company was neutral. He said[571],
Episode 23 (29 November 2020)[572] 459.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Nicholas Kristof), D1 said,
Episode 24 (1 December 2020)[578] 460.During the programme (with Mark Clifford and Dan Blumenthal), D1 said,
Worry of the staff of Apple Daily 461.Cheung Kim-hung remembered that during a discussion he had with D1, D1 said to him that the guests in the episode on 26 November 2020 were very prominent including Jack Keane, who was a retired general of the United States and so was very influential. Cheung Kim-hung asked, “At a moment like this, would it be very sensitive, too sensitive to invite a person like this?” D1 replied based on his intuition as a person who had been doing business as a businessman, “They mess with me in this way, I’m definitely giving it all my might. There’s no room for me to back down.” Upon hearing that, Cheung Kim-hung did not express any further opinions of his own and he turned to discuss other matters with D1. D1 denied he had this conversation with Cheung Kim-hung. 462.According to Chan Pui-man, when the contents of the NSL became known, it came as a shock to D1 as they were more detrimental than what he had thought. He said to her “(we) should think out a good strategy to deal with it, and (we) should not be reckless.” [584] Chan Pui-man understood D1 to mean that they, especially editors, needed to change their actions and not to use certain phrases in order to avoid breaching the NSL. Chan Pui-man added that that was why she and some of her colleagues were surprised by D1’s live chat programme which rolled out after the enactment of the NSL. All the guests he invited to the programme were foreigners. Chan Pui-man understood that he was still harbouring the hope that international pressure, including sanctions, could be of use. Chan Pui-man and her colleagues were worried that the contents of D1’s live chat would have problems with the NSL. In fact, at that time some media outlets were paying attention to D1 and raised concern questions about his programme. Chan Pui-man went to talk to Cheung Kim-hung as to whether they should discuss the matter with D1. Cheung Kim-hung expressed their concern and worries to D1. Nevertheless, D1 persisted. 463.Chan Pui-man said in cross-examination that after D1’s arrest in December 2020, however, Chan Pui-man and Cheung Kim-hung discussed the contents of D1’s articles and live chats. Legal advice was taken and concern was expressed about the contents of D1’s tweets and live chat. Actions were taken including taking down certain articles from D1’s Twitter account and live chat[585]. She agreed with leading counsel that after the promulgation of the NSL, Apple Daily took steps to avoid being in breach of that law. 464.According to Wayland, in the Taipei meeting he had with D1 and Finn Lau, D1 talked about the need to unite different sectors including the legislature front, the international front, the street front and businessmen. 465.It is the prosecution case that “English News” of Apple Daily, whose target readers were foreigners overseas and those in the US in particular, was used as a platform for international lobbying. 466.According to Yeung Ching-kee, D1 first raised the setting up of an online English version of Apple Daily at the 1st dinner gathering on 6 May 2020 which he and other columnists (including Simon Lee) attended. Yeung Ching-kee said that during the meal, D1 mentioned that he wanted to set up an English version online and he hoped that it could increase the influence of Apple Daily in the United States and tell the people there about the human rights situation in Hong Kong and the upcoming promulgation of NSL. D1 said that taking into account the situation then, not only the United States Government but the United States general public and citizens would be concerned about Hong Kong and he wanted those present at the meal to give some suggestions. 467.Quite apart from Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence, it also happened that on 10 May 2020, Fung Hei-kin, a writer of Apple Daily, suggested in his article titled 「不撐蘋果的一百萬人」(“The one million people who don’t support Apple”)[586] that Apple Daily could work on the news in English. That was said in the context that the only English news media in Hong Kong then was the South China Morning Post which was considered to be pro-establishment. On the same day, D1 formed a WhatsApp chat group called “English news”[587]. D1 was the administrator and he added as members of the chat group Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Law Wai-kwong, Cheung Chi-wai (Nick), Chiang Mei-hung (associate editor-in-chief of cross-strait news), and Connie Chan (in charge of the IT). At a later stage, Fung Wai-kong was also added[588]. We will come to that shortly. The chat group remained operational until D1’s remand in December 2020. In the aforesaid chat group, D1 began by saying that “the proposal to launch an electronic version of English-translated news by Fung Hei-kin today is worth considering as translation (done) by translation websites nowadays is low-cost and fast”[589]. D1 went on to explain his expectation and goal of the English News and the approach to be adopted. He wanted to have the English News launched as soon as possible, saying that then was the right moment. D1 said that if foreign readers who supported Hong Kong would subscribe to the English News that would be a huge support for Apple Daily. D1 said that he hoped that the English News could reach the US readers so that they could become a “lever” between Apple Daily and the US politics. 468.According to Cheung Kim-hung, it was D1’s hope that the US would take hostile actions to help Hong Kong and to protect Apple Daily[590]. Similarly, Chan Pui-man understood D1 to mean that if Apple Daily was being suppressed, the support from the US community would bring pressure on the government. Besides, the subscription by foreign leaders would also mean they supported both D1 and Apple Daily. 469.In response to Nick Cheung’s comment on 12 May 2020 that “the purpose of us fighting (on) the international front this time is to wield the influence and power of discourse of Hong Kong ‘Apple’ in foreign countries”[591], D1 said: [592]
When Chan Pui-man was asked about the aforesaid message of D1, she said that she understood, however, that fighting on international front was also the effect that D1 would like to achieve. In this regard, it is noted that on 31 May 2020 when Nick Cheung forwarded to D1 the link to the push message of the launch of “English News”[593], the push message bore the caption, “ “Build an international front” - Read the English edition of Apple Daily for free!”[594] . 470.In a similar vein, it was Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence that at the 2nd dinner gathering he attended at D1’s residence on 20 May 2020, D1 said that under the situation at that time both the United States Government and its people would be concerned about Hong Kong’s situation. D1 hoped that the English version could help them to know more about the situation in Hong Kong. He hoped also that the United States Government could adopt a stronger stance. If the Apple Daily English version could have more coverage about this, then the United States Government could take actions and sanction was mentioned most frequently. Yeung Ching-kee agreed with D1 and was of the view that if foreign sanctions could be imposed to make Hong Kong withdraw the bill or to delay the promulgation of the National Security Law, then the price paid by the Hong Kong society would be lower. Therefore, during the time of the anti-ELAB movement and the time before and after the NSL was promulgated, when D1 called for international sanctions, he supported D1’s views in the editorials as well as the articles in the forum page. 471.On 10 May 2020, D1 said in the chat group:[595]
472.According to Cheung Kim-hung, D1 made it clear that they “don’t have to think about giving foreigners a balanced view of what happens here of every difficult colours”.[596] The views of writers for the English News should have a relatively “yellow” stance and should be aligned with those of Apple Daily. Selection of articles for “English News” 473.Subsequently, it was decided that “English News” would be published in Digital Form and that some news and articles from the Print Form (including D1’s column “Sink or Swim, Smile”) would be selected for translation and posted in “English News”[597]. 474.According to Cheung Kim-hung, as regards articles to be translated for inclusion in the English News, D1 asked that they should be about resistance, anti-Hong Kong Government and the CCP, sanctions and so forth[598]. D1 also mentioned that the Mainland news, features, articles and tidbits were what the US people needed to read the most given the anti-China sentiment that was aroused after the Covid-19 pandemic.[599] D1 sought to portray to foreign readers that the regime of the CCP was suppressing human rights, covering up the Covid-19 pandemic, not being transparent and lack of integrity. According to Cheung Kim-hung, the aforesaid view of D1 formed the editorial policy of the English News. 475.D1 asked that Cheung Kim-hung and his colleagues put their mind on improving the quality first and then Mark Simon would go to the US to deal with promotion issues. On 10 May 2020, D1 wrote in the chat group:
Cheung Kim-hung understood that D1 had asked Mark Simon to invite some US officials, as well as prominent political figures, to subscribe to the English News[602]. D1 also said that Mark Simon would help to find columnists for the English News. 476.On 11 May 2020, Cheung Kim-hung sent to the members of the “English News” chat group a summary of the results of the discussion. Among other things, it was decided that “English News” would be published in the Digital Form and that some news and articles (including D1’s column) from the Print Form would be selected for translation and publication in “English News”.[603] 477.On 13 May 2020, Chan Pui-man was not in office. D1 forward to her an audio-recording of his discussion with others about English News[604]. Then, D1 wrote in the chat group:[605]
As to the above, Chan Pui-man responded by saying “Got it. Thanks.”[606] Chan Pui-man explained that she thought that D1 was giving instructions as to how to deal with “English News” in the future. 478.Based on D1’s editorial policy, on 13 May 2020 Law Wai-kwong set out the editorial direction concerning the contents of the English News.[607] Subsequently, it was also agreed between D1 and Cheung Kim-hung that the English News should also cover news about the tension across the Taiwan Strait.[608] Cheung Kim-hung believed it was D1’s intention that the US people should pay more attention to the “coercion of China on Taiwan” and it was another attempt to cast an unfavourable light on China. 479.On 10 May 2020, D1 informed Mark Simon that they had a “very good idea”, i.e., “We’re stating an Apple Daily English Newsletter inside our app.” D1 said that there would be tremendous financial and political support. It was something they had to do then especially as a political protection[609]. D1 even asked Mark Simon to try to get Mike Pence to subscribe[610]:
480.On 12 May 2020, D1 enlisted the help of Mark Clifford and Mark Simon for identifying suitable English writers for the newsletter. D1’s message to Mark Simon was as follows[611]:
The same message was copied to Mark Clifford on the same day[612]. Benedict Rogers, Hack Hazlewood and Luke de Pulford 481.On 31 May 2020, Nick Cheung reported in the chat group that both Benedict Rogers and Jack Hazlewood had helped to promote “English News”[613]. According to the WhatsApp records found in D1’s mobile, shortly after the aforesaid report by Nick Cheung, D1 texted Benedict Rogers and said[614]:
482.Besides, in that evening, Jack Hazlewood sent to D1 by WhatsApp some materials about an intended prosecution against certain expatriate police officers serving in Hong Kong. Hazlewood asked D1 if he had any thoughts about people who might have suffered torture whilst in custody. D1 told Hazlewood that he would forward the material[615]. He then forwarded his WhatsApp messages with Hazlewood to Law Wai-kwong. He told Law Wai-kwong:
483.It is noteworthy that in D1’s examination-in-chief, when he was first asked by his counsel about Jack Hazlewood, he said that he had never come to know that person. Yet, apart from the aforesaid message to Law Wai-kwong, there was also D1’s WhatsApp message to Simon Lee on 31 May 2020 when D1 asked the latter to send the following thank-you message to Jack Hazlewood[617]:
484.On 1 June 2020, Nick Cheung informed the chat group that Luke de Pulford, “who is involved in disqualifying Ho Kwan-yiu’s degree” also helped with promoting “English News” on Twitter and expressed an interest in writing a column[618]. 485.By 25 May 2020 when “English News” was launched[619], Fung Wai-kong had yet to return to Apple Daily. As per D1’s request, in late May 2020 Cheung Kim-hung approached Fung Wai-kong and invited the latter to come back to the newspaper to take charge of the English News. 486.On 4 June 2020, Yeung Ching-kee was told by Fung Wai-kong that the latter would come back to Apple Daily and deal with the English page[620]. There is no dispute that when Fung Wai-kong reported duty in early June 2020, he became the executive editor-in-chief of “English News”. 487.According to Cheung Kim-hung, Fung Wai-kong was responsible for the operation of “English News” and also the selection and translation of the contents pursuant to the principle set down by D1. In terms of hierarchy, Fung Wai-kong would report to Law Wai-kwong; Law Wai-kwong would report to Nick Cheung; and the latter would report to Chan Pui-man. As a matter of fact, however, Fung Wai-kong would follow D1’s editorial policy and report directly to Cheung Kim-hung who in turn would report to D1. The launching of “English News” 488.On 31 May 2020, Nick Cheung forwarded to D1 the link to the push message announcing the launch of “English News” on the following day.[621] The push message bore the heading, “ “Build an international front” Read the English edition of Apple Daily for free!”[622]. 489.On 1 June 2020, the English News was formally set up within the Apple Daily website and the Apple Daily app and was made available to the public[623]. On the following day, there was a full front page advertisement of “English News” in Apple Daily.[624] On 3 June 2020, Nick Cheung reported to the WhatsApp chat group that “the promotional video of the English Edition of Apple Daily made by the Boss” was posted on Apple Daily’s Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.[625] On 3 July 2020, Nick Cheung reported in the chat group that there were already 308,166 active readers of the English News.[626] 490.There were four sections in the English version of Apple Daily, namely News, Columns, Interviews and Features. The Column section included translation of Apple Daily’s editorials, D1’s own column “Sink or Swim, Smile” and also some articles of Lee Yi and Ngan Shun-kau. According to Cheung Kim-hung, those articles were selected in accordance with D1’s editorial policy, i.e., there should be no positive news about China and only negative news. What D1 wanted to do with “English News” 491.According to Yeung Ching-kee, D1 was interested in publishing news about internal power struggle in the Mainland. After Fung Wai-kong (“Lo Fung”) had re-joined Apple Daily to be in charge of “English News”, on 12 June 2020, D1 texted Yeung Ching-kee and asked him to identify writers who were not only able to analyse or respond to those power struggles of China, but were also conversant with the inside stories[627]. Yeung Ching-kee understood that D1 wanted to increase the influence by disseminating information of the power struggle of the PRC or the authorities. Yeung Ching-kee informed D1[628] that he had asked Gao Yu (「高瑜」, a scholar in Beijing) and Changping (「長平」, former Chief Editor of Southern Metropolis Daily) to write instant comments for English News and he would discuss with “Lo Fung” for the actual arrangement. Yeung Ching-kee explained in Court that the message was about D1’s request of finding writers to write about the inside stories of China. In the end, however, the discussion with “Lo Fung” did not take place, as D1 turned down Yeung Ching-kee’s proposal to invite those writers, as D1 wanted someone who could write the inside story and the infighting between President Xi and Prime Minister Li[629]. 492.After the enactment of the NSL, Fung Wai-kong suggested to include in the Features soft articles such as travel and food. Cheung Kim-hung sought instruction from D1 on this. D1 said the purpose of the English News was to arouse attention of foreign countries and to manipulate the public opinion. If soft articles were included, then the effect would be diluted. Cheung Kim-hung conveyed D1’s instruction to Fung Wai-kong. Therefore, the articles in the Feature section of the English News were not the same as those found in the Supplement of Apple Daily. The major topics were those about the Hong Kong anti-authoritarianism movement and the crackdown on human rights by China. 493.On 10 July 2020, a WhatsApp chat group called “Index” was created of which D1 was the administrator and the other members were Cheung Kim-hung and “Lo Fung” (Fung Wai-kong)[630]. According to Cheung Kim-hung, it was D1 who set up this chat group as he wanted to explore the feasibility of making use of big data to set up an index of wrong reports made by the official or media and then correct them with facts. In the chat group, D1 said the following as to what he wanted to do with big data:
494.On 20 July 2020, Cheung Kim-hung reported to D1[634] that an arrangement would be made for collecting the data and compiling the index. Cheung Kim-hung also said that he and “Lo Fung” would follow up. D1 replied:
495.Cheung Kim-hung said D1 kept a close eye on the English News. For example, on 8 August 2020 D1 expressed in the chat group that there were too few news items to attract readers. Fung Wai-kong then suggested adding news such as the US sanctions against Carrie Lam[636]. On 26 August 2020, D1 said in the chat group that the English News should focus on Chinese news rather than international news, as the latter would have been covered by major English media.[637] 496.Cheung Kim-hung was shown and he identified four articles published in the English News:
Cheung Kim-hung said the aforesaid articles were selected in accordance with D1’s editorial policy to seek the attention of foreign countries with a view to asking them to take actions against “Chinese oppression in Hong Kong”. It was hoped that foreign countries could go so far as to impose sanctions against the CCP and Hong Kong officials. 497.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung disagreed with the proposition put to him that the point of negative reports in Apple Daily about the government was to promote better transparency and governance. Cheung Kim-hung said that the proposal of setting up indexes eventually did not proceed further and D1 was arrested and remanded in December 2020. 498.Cheung Kim-hung agreed with leading counsel that D1 had expressed that it was important for them to achieve the best quality in content about Mainland China, to provide viewpoints on Chinese news that foreigners would not see on South China Morning Post, i.e., to provide a viewpoint which is alternative to that of the South China Morning Post; and to break South China Morning Post’s monopoly in this respect[642]. However, Cheung Kim-hung did not agree that therefore Apple Daily needed not provide a balanced view. Cheung Kim-hung said that even though D1 had said there were not enough news for the English News and asked for more news reports[643], still they had to be news reported in a negative light. At the same time, D1 disallowed an increase in the number of news articles on general news. Just like the example given earlier on, when Fung Wai-kong made a suggestion of adding more international news to the English News, D1 disagreed to that. 499.Cheung Kim-hung insisted that the selection of articles for the English News had to be done within the framework set down by D1. As regards the article titled “Round-up of all opposition politicians the HK version of Kaohisung Incident”[644] written by Glacier Kwong and published on 14 January 2021, Cheung Kim-hung confirmed that Kwong was not a staff member of Apple Daily and that the view expressed was hers. As regards the penultimate paragraph saying that “The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board”, Cheung Kim-hung said that was just a standard sentence for avoiding the risk of a lawsuit. However, for the selection of articles, for instance, for the English News, that must be done within the framework set down by D1. 500.As regards Chan Pui-man, her attention was drawn to a message from Cheung Kim-hung where he asked that the news about the scandals of Biden and his son which were reported in Taiwan Apple Daily be translated as soon as possible for publication in “English News”. She explained that at one stage D1 criticised the international news section of the newspaper in that it followed the New York Times and CNN too closely as they were critical of Donald Trump. Colleagues in the international news section felt the pressure, so that when they dealt with the news concerning Donald Trump and Biden, the weight they put in might be adjusted according to the request of D1. However, she considered that they still handled the news in accordance to the principles of news reporting. Chapter 16 – D1’s activities and conduct 501.Some of the incidents and matters mentioned below have been referred to as what the prosecution witnesses from Apple Daily said were illustrations of D1’s political stance or examples of him giving editorial directions. Nevertheless, in order to present a full picture of D1’s activities both before and after the promulgation of the NSL and for the sake of convenience, some repetitions would be necessary. It needs to be stressed that D1 is not on trial for his pre-NSL activities, as the NSL does not have retrospective effect: NSL 39. However, D1’s activities prior to the promulgation of the NSL serve as the background against which his post-NSL statements, conduct and intention are to be considered. 502.Matters concerning Andy, Wayland and SWHK would also be touched upon here but are dealt with in a separate chapter. 503.Between 2017 and 2019, D1 was eager to see a strengthening of the US – Taiwan relationship as he saw Taiwan as a leverage against China. For that purpose, D1 first came up with the idea of having two of his close associates, Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane, who were retired senior US officials, to act as political consultants of Tsai Ing-wen, then leader of the Taiwan region. He achieved that through the intermediacy of Antonio Chiang, whom D1 described as the “right-hand man” of Tsai. Not only that, D1 also spent substantial amounts of money on both Wolfowitz and Keane for that purpose. 504.Secondly, he shared with John Bolton, then an US think tank member about his note proposing the increase of US military presence in Taiwan. Shortly after that, John Bolton published an article which contained an idea similar to that of D1. 505.Thirdly, in an attempt to facilitate the re-establishment of the diplomatic channel between the US and Taiwan, D1 recommended James Cunningham, whom he described as a “top-notch diplomat” to the Taiwan region through Antonio Chiang. 506.Evidence of the above has already been summarized in the chapter under the heading of “D1’s political stance and its influence on Apple Daily” which we are not going to repeat. D1’s request for Tsai Ing-wen’s statement on ELAB 507.Between 17 and 27 April 2019, D1 requested Antonio Chiang to arrange a statement from Tsai Ing-wen condemning the ELAB. D1 said further that the demonstration was set on Sunday 28 April 2019 and he asked that Tsai’s statement come out before that. Antonio Chiang promised to help[645]. On 4 May 2019, D1 texted Antonio Chiang and said that the pan-democrats asked him to express their “heart-felt gratitude to your government yesterday’s anti-fugitive law statement”[646]. D1 seeking Chris Patten’s assistance 508.We have already referred to the evidence about the Lam Wing-kee incident which took place a couple of days before the protest planned on 28 April 2019. 509.We have also referred to the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man that D1, with a view to further boost public’s support for the anti-ELAB protest on 28 April 2019, forwarded to them the comments on the extradition bill by the former Governor Chris Patten which he obtained with the help of Benedict Rogers. 510.Furthermore, there were WhatsApp records showing that the comments of Chris Patten came as a result of D1’s solicitation. On 27 April 2019, there was a series of WhatsApp exchanges between D1 and Benedict Rogers. D1 told Benedict Rogers that there was going to be an anti-fugitive law demonstration and he wanted to push more people to join. D1 related to Benedict Rogers the request of the pan-democrats that Benedict Rogers interview the former Governor Chris Patten on their behalf on the anti-fugitive law so that the interview could be published in the media on the following day to push more people onto the street. It happened that Benedict Rogers was not in UK then but he promised to contact Chris Patten. In the event, Benedict Rogers reverted by saying that Chris Patten had agreed to send a comment rather than giving an interview.[647] Subsequently, Benedict Rogers sent the comments which he said were from Chris Patten to D1[648] and to Chan Pui-man[649] respectively. 511.On 20 May 2019, D1 gave a speech at Foreign Correspondents’ Club about the ELAB. The event was covered by Apple Daily on 21 May 2019 where D1 was reported to have made a ferocious personal attack against the then Chief Executive[650]:
D1’s article in Wall Street Journal 512.Based on D1’s WhatsApp record, on 9 June 2019, Mark Simon told him that “Paul” was suggesting that D1 do a piece for the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) or the New York Post as that would get wide play in the White House[651]. Then on 7 August 2019, D1 said that he had written “an oped as advised by Bill for publication after the Hoover talk”. He asked Mark Simon to have a look at it[652]. Mark Simon gave his comments on the same day to D1[653]. 513.The importance of this WSJ article of D1 is twofold:
514.In that article, D1 opened by asking the question what the readers wanted the world to look like 20 years from then. Then, he said,
It was D1’s view that “China must be confronted, not appeased.”[654] He said further:
Towards the end of his article, D1 solicited the following support for the anti-ELAB movement in Hong Kong from the US Government:
515.In 2019, D1 made two visits to the US, one in July and the other in October. 516.As regards the first visit, there is evidence that D1 departed Hong Kong on 25 June 2019 for the UK. He was in Canada by 3 July 2019. After some time, he went on to visit the US and returned to Hong Kong on 16 July 2019. 517.Whilst in London, on 28 June 2019 D1 texted Benedict Rogers and asked if he could meet with Lord Alton[657]. Benedict Rogers replied later that night that[658]:
In cross-examination, D1 said that he did have tea with Lord Alton, but Luke de Pulford did not turn up. 518.D1 said that whilst he was in the US, he met some congressmen, including Rick Scott by the arrangement of Christian Whiton. D1’s WhatsApp records show that on 7 July 2019, D1 sent Nick Cheung a photograph of his meeting with Mike Pence[659]. Then on 11 July 2019, D1 also sent to Nick Cheung a photograph[660] of his meeting with John Bolton (who was then the US National Security Advisor). 519.D1 said in his evidence that before his US visit, he was not aware of any arrangement made for him to meet Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence. He said the same about John Bolton, i.e., he only came to know about it subsequent to his arrival in US. D1 said that his side did not approach them for the meeting. D1 speculated that it must have been somebody in the White House who arranged Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence to see him. However, D1’s WhatsApp records suggested that the situation was not as D1 said in Court. 520.The WhatsApp records found in D1’s mobile show that prior to his setting off from Hong Kong, on 20 June 2019 Mark Simon texted him and said[661],
On 28 June 2019, whilst D1 was still in the UK, he was further informed by Mark Simon,
521.In cross-examination, D1 said that the two aforesaid meetings at the White House referred to the meetings with Pence and Pompeo. After the two meetings, Bolton’s was the second meeting. 522.Then, on 8 July 2019 (the day before D1’s meeting with Pompeo), there was the following WhatsApp message from Mark Simon to D1 and “Paul”[663]:
523.D1 said in his evidence that Mary Kissel was his personal friend whom he had known for over 10 years. After she had left Hong Kong, Mary Kissel was an editorial writer of WSJ before she became the assistant to Mike Pompeo of the US. On 16 July 2019, D1 texted Benedict Rogers (who was in DC) and asked the latter to meet Mary Kissel[664]. D1 described her as “Pompeo’s most trusted senior adviser”. Upon D1’s request, Mark Simon gave him the telephone number of Mary Kissel[665]. On 19 July 2019, D1 texted Mark Simon and said that he had a great meeting with Mary Kissel the day before.[666] 524.According to Chan Pui-man, on 9 July 2019 Apple Daily published a second edition[667] specifically for the purpose of covering D1’s meeting with Mike Pompeo, the then US Secretary of State. This was because D1’s arriving in the US and meeting with Pompeo was an important piece of news. In light of the articles written by the foreign news outlets that D1 had previously forwarded to her, she believed that D1 was very concerned about the views of the international community relating to the movement in Hong Kong. That was why they dealt with the news in this way. 525.On 11 July 2019, D1 forwarded to Chan Pui-man a Bloomberg article, titled: “Trump Team Sends Defiant Signal to Beijing by Meeting Hong Kong Activist” about the aforesaid meeting which he received from Christian Whiton[668]. 526.On 12 July 2019, there was a report in Apple Daily with the headline: “Lai Chee-ying meets John Bolton, urging the Trump administration to support Hong Kong”.[669] According to the report, during the trip, apart from Pence, Pompeo and Bolton, he also met with Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Cory Gardner and Rick Scott.[670] 527.On 15 July 2019, there was an interview of D1 reported in the website of Fox Business, the title of which was: “US-China trade negotiations: Moral authority is great leverage against China, Jimmy Lai says”.[671] There was also a push message by Next Animation of that interview with the title: “[Anti-ELAB Movement] Lai Chee-ying called on the US to voice their support to Hongkongers ‘Fight against China with power of Morality’ ”.[672] In that interview, when D1 was asked by the host what the importance of him meeting with people like Secretary Pompeo, John Bolton, and Vice President Pence was, and whether he felt that he had support from the United States, he said[673],
D1 described that it was a war of values[674]:
D1 arranging a “fact-finding” visit by US congressmen 528.Shortly after D1’s return from the US trip, on 21 July 2019, he asked Mark Simon to arrange senators and congressmen to visit Hong Kong for “fact-finding” concerning the violence between the police and the demonstrators[675]. D1 referred to the US senator Henry Jackson’s amendment that, D1 said, led to the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union. D1 said that,
D1 added that,
D1 asked to have the fact-finding trip worked out with “Pelosi and Rubio. They can operate this finding within the capacity of their China Commission.”[677] 529.On 23 July 2019, Mark Simon reported,
530.On 2 August 2019, D1 forwarded to Mark Simon a link to Bloomberg with the caption “Trump Calls Hong Kong Protests ‘Riots,’ Adopting China Rhetoric” and D1 expressed his disappointment[679]. However, he later texted Mark Simon and said that Trump said made it easier and urgent for those senators and congressmen to come[680]. 531.On 18 September 2019, Mark Simon updated D1 about senators’ visits to Hong Kong. D1 was told that Senator Scott would come in the last week of September and Senator Cruz in early October.[681] D1 replied that that was “great” and he asked, “How about Rubio”[682]. Mark Simon said that Rubio had been asked and he would follow it up[683]. On 21 September 2019, Mark Simon also said in the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” WhatsApp chat group about the coming visits of Rick Scott in September 2019 and Ted Cruz in October 2019[684]. 532.On 23 September 2019, Mark Simon told D1 that Senator Scott was coming but he wanted to see D1 in person on Sunday the 29th for “a one on one”[685]. On 28 September 2019, Mark Simon sent a reminder to D1 about D1’s meeting with Senator Rick Scott on the following day at 1:45 pm in Mid-Levels. Mark Simon told D1 that US Consul General Hanscom Smith, as well as a few staff would be present. Mark Simon would be there and he would meet D1 at a drop off point[686]. Mark Simon then briefed D1 of Scott’s background and described him as a “China hawk” and said that Scott would ask what it was that they needed here in Hong Kong from the US[687]. In the morning of 29 September 2019, D1 asked that the meeting be postponed to 2 pm. Mark said “Sure. Will do so.” D1 then asked for the name of the “hk bill that just past congress and senate”. Mark Simon said[688],
533.We note that at 3:22 pm of the same day, Mark Simon told D1[689],
According to the evidence of Andy, by the arrangement of Mark Simon, he and “Cath” met with Rick Scott at 16:45 that afternoon. We will come to that in due course. 534.On 4 October 2019, there were further WhatsApp exchanges between D1 and Mark Simon concerning the proposed visit of US Senator Ted Cruz to Hong Kong. D1 asked Mark Simon to arrange meetings between the Senator and the pan-democrats and he forwarded to Mark Simon a related message from Dennis Kwok who asked to meet Cruz. Mark Simon informed D1 that he was having Cruz meet with D1 and he was in contact with Cruz’s staff. He also said that “Consulate is arranging pan-Dems. I will see what Cruz wants to do”. [690] 535.There was evidence that before the formal withdrawal of the ELAB, there was already a scheme (which was consistent with the view expressed in D1’s WSJ article) to steer the narrative about the protests and other social events in Hong Kong so that it became a leverage to “subdue China”. On 5 October 2019, D1 texted Mark Simon as follows[691]:
To this, Mark Simon replied that that was the narrative they would push. He also said that he was working on the Cruz visit and that they had a congressional staffer group in Hong Kong in the following week and he would see if it fit D1’s schedule[692]. Subsequently, Mark Simon informed D1 that the dinner was fixed on 10 October at Grand Hyatt. D1 said he would join and he asked “How about Albert and Martin also?” Mark Simon said that D1 had to be there and he would arrange.[693] 536.On 9 October 2019, Mark Simon said “Anson” had informed him that the meeting with Cruz was at 3:30 pm on Saturday 12 October 2019 at Hong Kong Club and the reservation was made under the name of “Mrs Chan”[694]. In the morning of 12 October 2019, Mark Simon forwarded to D1 a “Leader’s Weekly Schedule” which said, among other things, the following:
537.In D1’s mobile, there was a photo sent to him by Dennis Kwok on 13 October 2019 taken at Hong Kong Club showing D1 with Dennis Kwok, Ted Cruz, Anson Chan and Charles Mok.[696] The visit of Ted Cruz to Hong Kong was reported in Apple Daily on 13 October 2019 with the headline: “U.S. lawmaker bombards Carrie LAM’s cancellation of meeting as weak (and) appeals for non-violent protests to arouse global attention”.[697] The visit took place when the US House of Representatives was going to vote on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in the following week. 538.After D1’s 1st trip in July 2019, there was a second one in October 2019. In the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” WhatsApp Chat group, on 17 September 2019 Mark Simon wrote[698]:
Mark Simon went on to say[699]:
D1 replied that he would be available for these trips[700]. Martin Lee also said that he had “already reserved the week commencing Monday, October 21 for the trip.”[701] 539.On 23 September 2019, in the same chat group, Mark Simon wrote:
Mark Simon also said:
540.In cross-examination, D1 said that “WH” stood for “White House” and “NSC” stood for “National Security Council”. He agreed that at the time when Mark Simon sent those message to him, Mark Simon was in US planning the itinerary and making arrangement for D1’s meetings there in October 2019. D1 said that, despite the withdrawal of the ELAB in September 2019, there were still demonstrations in Hong Kong. The purpose of his visit was to seek the support of the US Government for freedom and universal suffrage in Hong Kong. On the other hand, D1 said that he did not know what Mark Simon said by “We are going to work the Senate and House quite heavily”. He said that he did not want senators and congressmen to work on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act[705]. 541.In cross-examination, D1 said he had not met Sunny Cheung during his US trip. He was then shown a news report of Apple Daily dated 22 October 2019[706] where it was said:
D1 said that the report might be wrong, because he really did not remember he ever saw Sunny Cheung in the US[707]. 542.The news about D1’s said trip to the US was reported in the Digital Form of Apple Daily on 22 October 2019.[708] The editing of the video footages[709] was done by staff members under Nick Cheung. Chan Pui-man confirmed that the news was also reported in the Print Form on 23 October 2019.[710] In D1’s mobile, there was a photo sent to him by Mark Simon showing Nancy Pelosi with D1, Martin Lee and Janet Pang.[711] 543.Chan Pui-man said that D1’s trip on this occasion was consistent with his stance all along. D1 was of the belief that they should try to get foreign countries to exert pressure on the HKSAR Government. At that time, there was a movement for the “Five Demands”. Apart from the demand for the withdrawal of the draft bill on fugitive offenders, there were also voices in the society concerning alleged police brutality and the request for an independent inquiry to look into the matter. It was D1’s stance that pressure should be exerted on the HKSAR Government through foreign governments in order that these demands be met. At the time, the Congress of the US were discussing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. To her knowledge, D1 had met with some members of the House of Representatives. 544.On 23 October 2019, D1 sent to Martin Lee a photograph showing both of them, Nancy Pelosi and Janet Pang[712]. On 24 October 2019, Martin Lee sent D1 two photographs: the first one showing D1 and Rick Scott holding a T-shirt with the words “Stand with Hong Kong 光復香港 時代革命”[713] ; and the second one showing D1, Rick Scott and Martin Lee at a table[714]. D1 said in Court that the aforesaid T-shirt was not his but that Rick Scott used it as a photo prop. D1 said he held the T-shirt together with Rick Scott for the photograph out of politeness. 545.In cross-examination, D1 agreed that the whole purpose of this US trip was to meet Pelosi and her team along with more senators and staff. The 2019 District Council Election and Independent Electoral Observation Mission (“EOM”) 546.On 14 November 2019, Benedict Rogers texted D1 and informed him that Lord Alton was coming to Hong Kong from 23 November to 26 November as part of a group to monitor district council elections and that he would like to meet D1 and Cardinal Zen, Martin and others[715]. 547.On 16 November 2019, Benedict Rogers texted D1 again[716]:
D1 replied that there was no security problem[717]. 548.According to Chan Pui-man, on 16 November 2019, D1 asked her and Lam Man-chung to find some photographs showing police brutality from Apple Daily for him to choose.[718] She identified a series of WhatsApp exchanges she had with D1 on that day which was about the designs of posters with the message, “Please vote to stop police brutality”. The posters, Chan Pui-man understood, were to be printed by Apple Daily Printing Limited for the coming District Council election on 24 November 2019 asking people to come out to vote.[719] 549.On the following day, i.e., 17 November 2019, Benedict Rogers forwarded to D1 a press release of the “EOM” in which it was said that the activity was co-organised by “Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong” and “Hong Kong Story”[720]. 550.There was an arrangement by Benedict Rogers for D1 and Cardinal Zen to have a dinner gathering at W Hotel with Lord Alton and “Luke” on 24 November 2019. Martin Lee and Anson Chan had also been invited but they could not make it[721]. D1 seeking for a leadership group 551.After the results of the 2019 District Council Election were known, on 25 November 2019 there was a discussion in the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” WhatsApp chat group as to the way forward. James Cunningham advised[722]:
We will revisit this topic on D1 proposing a leadership group when we deal with Wayland’s evidence about the Taipei meeting with D1 and Mutual Destruction Bro. D1’s response to the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (“HKHRDA”) 553.On 27 November 2019, the HKHRDA was signed into law. 554.According to the expert opinion of Professor Wang[724], the HKHRDA:
Professor Wang opined that the HKHRDA was part of the efforts of the US in formulating a mechanism imposing sanctions on HKSAR and China during and subsequent to the violence that took place in the HKSAR in 2019. 555.On the morning of 28 November 2019 at 07:35 (HKT), Nick Cheung forwarded to D1 a news report of the Digital Form that President Trump of the US had signed the HKHRDA and that it had become effective[725]. D1 replied[726]:
556.Shortly afterwards, at 07:52:57 (HKT), in the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” chat group, Martin Lee informed that President Trump had “signed these bills”[727]. Mark Simon then remarked[728]:
D1 added[729]:
Then, at 09:10:57 (HKT), D1 texted Benedict Rogers[730]:
557.It is noted that, regarding the HKHRDA, D1 wrote on 22 December 2019 in his column “Sink or Swim, Smile” the following:[731]
D1’s discussions with others on the “Magnitsky Act” 558.In D1’s iPhone, the police found a series of email exchanges between 24 April 2020 and 3 May 2020 under the subject “Magnitsky Act”. Parties included in this email chain were Paul Wolfowitz, Mark Simon, Christian Whiton (who was D1’s political consultant when he visited the US), Rupert Hammond-Chambers, Jack Keane and D1[732]. 559.On 24 April 2020, Paul Wolfowitz sent an email to Mark Simon, Christian Whiton and Rupert, copied to D1 and Jack Keane, asking whether anything had been done about Magnitsky Act vis-à-vis Hong Kong. He quoted a message from the @UNHumanRights @WilsonLeungWS which said[733],
Under cross-examination, D1 said that he knew that the Magnitsky Act was about sanction, but he did not know at the time that it was a form of targeted sanction aimed at individual of human rights abuse. He said he did not go deep into it. 560.Mark Simon replied to Paul Wolfowitz’s query and said[734],
There is no dispute that “NSC” referred to the National Security Council of the US. It is not in dispute that the first time the US formally sanctioned Hong Kong and Chinese officials was on 7 August 2020 for allegedly undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy under the Hong Kong Autonomy Act. In cross-examination, D1 said in Court that when Mark Simon had communication or contacts with the NSC staff or Senate staff, he was acting on his own and the connection was his own connection. On the other hand, Mark Simon was acting for D1’s benefit and information and people talked to him because he was D1’s assistant. 561.On 25 April 2020, Christian Whiton joined in the discussion and said, “To add to what Mark said, one problem is the lack of a clear villain” that fit “the Glomax criteria”. He noted that there was “the new liaison guy” sent down from Beijing. However, even if they were calling the shots, it was hard to find hard evidence[735]. The aforesaid email of Christian Whiton was addressed to Mark Simon and copied to the other four persons. Later on the same day, D1 sent his reply to Paul Wolfowitz alone (without copying it to others):
562.On 3 May 2020, Christian Whiton sent another reply email addressed to Paul Wolfowitz and Mark Simon, which was also copied to Jack Keane, D1 and Rupert Hammond-Chambers. Christian Whiton said[737],
The “statements” which he referred to were the comments of the Liaison Office in Hong Kong against extremist radicals who were involved in illegal gatherings, harassment of shops and throwing of petrol bombs. Attached to the email of Christian Whiton was a draft Bill[738] with the long title:
563.In cross-examination, D1 said he did not read the attachment. In D1’s reply email to the aforesaid email of Christian Whiton on the same day (which was copied to the other four persons), he said[739],
D1 said the above-mentioned emails of Christian Whiton were voluntary and D1’s reply email to him was just like an appreciation. 564.After D1’s email, also on 3 May 2020, Paul Wolfowitz replied to Christian Whiton and Mark Simon (which was copied to the three others). He said, “My original question about Magnitsky was inspired by this blatantly biased Hong Kong judge WK Kwok.” He said also, “I would also go after the retired police chief - retirement shouldn’t excuse past misbehaviour.” He also referred to Chen Quanguo, then party boss in Xinjiang who he said was “previously responsible for atrocities in Tibet” and who he said, “should clearly be a candidate for sanctions.”[740] “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” 565.On the morning of 22 May 2020, there was a series of WhatsApp messages between D1 and Cheung Kim-hung, at the beginning of which D1 asked[741]:
As to the aforesaid, Cheung Kim-hung replied[742]:
D1 said[743]:
D1 then told Cheung Kim-hung that Nick was asked to deal with design and Wai-keung to deal with printing matters[744]. He also said that the paper letters would bear Apple Daily’s logo and that the reporting by the media of the campaign would help to promote subscription to Apple Daily among Americans[745]. 566.According to both Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man, what prompted D1 to initiate the campaign was the news about the imminent introduction of the NSL. 567.Cheung Kim-hung also said that within an hour after the aforesaid series of WhatsApp exchanges, D1 gave him a short phone call and said that he wanted the President and Vice-President of the United States to impose sanctions on China for this matter. Cheung Kim-hung told the Court that on that very morning after the series of WhatsApp messages were exchanged, D1 had to attend Court to make an application for the return of his passport. Cheung Kim-hung also went to court because he was prepared to be D1’s surety. As a result, Cheung Kim-hung was not free to go back to the office that morning. D1 himself therefore handled this matter. In cross-examination, it was put to Cheung Kim-hung that there was no telephone call between him and D1 regarding “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” and that D1’s instructions were only in WhatsApp. Cheung Kim-hung disagreed to both of these propositions. 568.Chan Pui-man said in her evidence that even though both Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man were not comfortable with the idea, D1 insisted. By this campaign, D1 hoped to get the attention of President Trump of the US so that something could be done to stop the legislation of the NSL. 569.D1 also copied his messages to Cheung Kim-hung about the campaign on 22 May 2020 to Royston Chow[746] and asked the latter to follow up on the matter. Royston replied affirmatively[747]. In his evidence, Royston said that he approached Cheung Kim-hung and a printing company for the printing of the letter. In cross-examination, Royston disagreed with the proposition that the issue of “One Hongkonger, One Letter” campaign was never discussed in any of the lunchbox meetings which he attended. 570.On 24 May 2020, Chan Pui-man forwarded to D1 the open criticism by Joshua Wong of the campaign[748]. D1, however, replied to Chan Pui-man by saying,
The advertisement of the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign continued to appear in Apple Daily on 25 and 27 May 2020. 571.As mentioned before, the full-page advertisement of the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign first appeared in the front page of the Print Form of Apple Daily on 24 May 2020[750]. The same advertisement also appeared in Section A of the newspaper on 25 May 2020[751] and 27 May 2020[752] respectively. As regards the Digital Form, there was an online form appealing to the readers to make a signed letter to the US President, Donald Trump, and a template of which was provided so that readers could just copy the template and sign on it. Means for sending the letter to President Trump by way of Twitter, Facebook or email were provided in the advertisement. Besides, there was a tweet about the campaign in D1’s personal Twitter account on 24 May 2020. 572.As a sequel to the campaign, we note that on 27 May 2020, Jack Keane forwarded the article: “U.S. Weighs Sanctions on Chinese Officials, Firms Over Hong Kong” to D1, Paul Wolfowitz, Rupert Hammon-Chambers and Mark Simon[753]. The article said that the US Government was considering a range of sanctions to punish China for its crackdown on Hong Kong and that the Trump administration weighed whether to declare that the former colony had lost its autonomy from Beijing. To this, D1 commented[754],
Jack Keane agreed to what D1 said.[755] D1 forwarded the article from Jack Keane to Chan Pui-man[756] who said, “Got it. thx”[757]. D1’s messages in “DC Dems” chat group 573.On 29 May 2020[758], Mark Simon created a WhatsApp chat group “DC Dems” and other members in the group included James Cunningham, D1 and Paul Wolfowitz[759]. 574.In that chat group, Mark Simon related to the other members of the group information which, he said, was from David Feith of the State Department of the US and who, he said, was “part of team making US response”[760]. As regards this David Feith, in cross-examination D1 said that he did not know the former well but he knew that he had worked for Wall Street Journal. According to Mark Simon, David Feith had informed him that the State Department no longer wanted to keep the Hong Kong special status and it was strongly agreed among the officials of that department on “visa, officials’ families, university access, etc.” [761]
575.Then D1 responded by saying,
576.James Cunningham told the group[766]:
D1 responded[767],
577.Later, Mark Simon reported[768]:
To this, D1 said “Thanks. Jimmy”[769] 578.On 4 June 2020, Mark Simon wrote[770],
D1 responded[771]:
579.James Cunningham said[772],
D1 giving publicity to “Pompeo meeting Tiananmen Survivors” 580.On 4 June 2020, D1 forwarded to Simon Lee[773], Cheung Kim-hung[774] and Chan Pui-man[775] respectively a series of messages which he received from Mark Simon[776]. Those messages were about two pieces of news, namely: (1) Pompeo “meeting Tiananmen survivors”; and (2) his giving a special “International Women of Courage” award to the Tiananmen Mothers[777]. According to Mark Simon, the messages came from a female friend in “Pompeo’s team” who hoped that “Apple can give it some publicity that we can show Pompeo”. 581.On the same day, D1 sent the following to Simon Lee[778]:
582.On that day, among the tweets posted in D1’s personal Twitter account, there were the following:
583.As regards Chan Pui-man, she informed D1 that the news about Pompeo meeting with Tiananmen survivors had been published that day.[782] D1 then forwarded the following quote and asked Chan Pui-man to see if it needed to be added to the article[783]:
Unbeknown to Chan Pui-man, that was a quote from Senator Marco Rubio which Luke de Pulford passed to D1[784]. Chan Pui-man forwarded the quote to her colleagues. Eventually, the two pieces of news were reported in the Print Form of Apple Daily on 5 June 2020 and a reference was also made of Rubio’s statement[785]. D1’s intended US trip and application to lift travel restriction 584.On 12 June 2020, there was an application by D1 to the Court of First Instance for the lifting of his travel restriction. Before dealing with the evidence of that incident, it is necessary to have regard to the following background. 585.Back in late February 2020, D1 was told that he should visit the US again to meet Vice-President Pence to discuss the coming primary election of pan-democrats of Hong Kong. This was evidenced by the WhatsApp message on 25 February 2020 where Mark Simon told D1[786]:
586.Yet, that trip was rendered not possible by the reporting condition and travel restriction of D1’s bail imposed on 5 May 2020 by the Magistrates’ Court in relation to an unrelated case. D1 informed Mark Simon about it on the same day[787]. Mark Simon then said he would “make sure all know about your travel restrictions”[788] and those included “folks in DC as Cruz and Pence staff had asked.”[789] 587.As aforesaid, there was an application on 22 May 2020 from D1 to remove his reporting condition and to lift his travel restriction. It is noteworthy that it was not D1’s one of stated purposes that he wanted to go to US for the purpose of meeting US officials there. On that occasion, D1’s reporting condition was removed by consent. As regards the lifting of D1’s travel restriction, since he had not provided any concrete travel plan at the time, that respect of his application was adjourned sine die, with liberty to restore[790]. 588.Later on the same day, D1 texted Mark Simon and talked about his intention to renew his application to lift the travel restriction:
Later in the afternoon, D1 informed Mark Simon[792]:
In reply, Mark Simon said that once they got travel dates, he would start talking to people. 589.In cross-examination, D1 said that by “big boss” he meant Pence, as he was not expecting to meet Trump. He said that Pence was “their big boss”, not his. He said he hoped that his lunch appointment (which had been rendered impossible by his travel restriction) could be reinstated. He insisted that the main purpose for his application for bail variation was to see his granddaughter rather than to meet with the US administration. He said that he did not deliberately conceal his plan to meet with US officials, because at that time to visit US officials or congressmen was not a big deal. He disagreed that by “this time of crisis” he was referring to the coming of the NSL. 590.On 30 May 2020, the two of them discussed D1’s plan to visit US: (1) to meet with some “congressmen” or their senior staff, “the NSC people”, “the statement department” and “Pence”; and (2) to see his newborn granddaughter[793]. As regards the dates of the trip, Mark Simon said[794]:
D1 replied:
591.Then, on 8 June 2020, D1 forwarded to Mark Simon the itinerary of his trip to the US between 24 June and 19 July 2020[796]. In cross-examination, D1 agreed that his plan at the time was that he would meet Mike Pence in Washington after 4 July 2020. He agreed further that at the time, he was aware of the NPC decision made on 28 May 2020 that the NSL was coming. He said that both he and Mark Simon had overlooked that the NSL was coming. 592.On 12 June 2020, D1 renewed his application to lift the travel restriction before the High Court. When D1’s application for variation of bail conditions was heard in the High Court, senior counsel put forward on D1’s behalf four specific purposes for the US trip[797]:
593.It is of note that nothing was said about D1’s intended trip to the US to meet with Mike Pence, other officials of the US administration and congressmen. In cross-examination, D1 said that at that time, he was “carefree” and did not think meeting the US officials was a big deal. He said that the main purpose of the trip was to see his granddaughter. He disagreed that he used the birth of his granddaughter as an excuse, because he wanted to go to see her anyway. He said he arranged other meetings during the trip for convenience. 594.Shortly after D1’s failed application to lift his travel restriction, he informed Mark Simon about it[798]. Mark Simon had already heard about it. He told D1[799]:
D1 said further[800]:
Mark Simon then said[801]:
595.In the following morning (i.e., 13 June 2020) at 09:28 (HKT), Mark Simon texted D1 and said[802]:
596.In cross-examination, D1 agreed that the people of the NSC and the State Department were disappointed as they had expected him to come. He said that the purpose of the trip was to lobby for Hong Kong and not for punishment of the Hong Kong officials and the Chinese officials. 597.However, we note that early in the morning on 27 May 2020, Mark Simon informed[803]:
A few hours later, D1 put the thoughts from Bill McGurn into a short article which, among other things, contained the following statements[804]:
Afterwards, D1 supplemented:
D1’s speech at the 25th anniversary of Apple Daily 598.On 18 June 2020, at the celebration of Apple Daily’s 25th anniversary held in the Next Digital Building, D1 made a speech to its staff, during which he said[807],
In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung disagreed that this statement of D1 was true. Cheung Kim-hung agreed that Apple Daily became what it was because of the effort of all the staff. However, they did this under the leadership and instructions of D1. Cheung Kim-hung agreed that he applauded D1’s speech. 599.As regards the same occasion, Chan Pui-man said in her evidence that at the time there were worries as to whether Apple Daily could continue to operate. Therefore, it seemed to her that D1 was saying some encouraging words to boost the morale of the staff. It was put to her in cross-examination that even after D1’s remand, he did not say anything about asking other people to hang on, he said that he would hang on but he didn’t say anything about other people. Chan Pui-man answered that according to her recollection, D1 did tell colleagues to hang on. D1’s enquiry about sanction list 600.On 23 June 2020, D1 texted Mark Simon and asked whether the news about Wong Yang (「汪洋」) and Hang Zheng (「韓正」) being on the sanction list and the claim about their corrupt money were fake news or corroborated one[808]. Mark Simon said he would check. Later, Mark Simon reverted and said[809],
601.In cross-examination, D1 said that he did not know who the “friend” was that Mark Simon was talking about, nor did he know which Hong Kong officials Mark Simon had put forward for consideration by the NSC. He said he did not ask Mark Simon and it was not his habit to seek all the details. 602.On 1 July 2020, the front page of Apple Daily carried the headline: 「惡法生效 兩制蓋棺」(“Evil Law Enacted, One Country Two System Died”). There was a 2-page report spreading over pages A12 and A13 of the Newspaper with a top bar containing the words 「歷史記錄」(“Historical Record”). The report contained caricatures of government officials, photographs of former Chief Executives, members of the Executive Council and Legislative Council, heads of disciplinary forces and so forth. According to Chan Pui-man, the purpose of putting all these pictures, portraits and names there was to keep a record of the members of various institutions about their roles and the impact they exerted during the brewing, promulgation and coming into effect of the NSL. 603.According to Chan Pui-man, the aforesaid headline was set according to the views of D1. This was because all along D1 had instructed them to reflect his views in their news coverage. When asked to what extent D1’s view would bear on the editorial policy of the newspaper, Chan Pui-man said that if he attached importance to a particular piece of news, sometimes he would give very clear and explicit instructions, saying “Let’s use it” -- “Let’s make it” -- “Let’s give it the largest news coverage.” Sometimes, he would pass to them the press releases of someone else. Sometimes, just like the occasion on 1 July 2019, he reminded them to give more news coverage to the thoughts of the protestors. 604.In cross-examination, Chan Pui-man agreed that the contents of the NSL, when known, came as a shock to D1 as they were more detrimental than he had thought. He said to her that “(we) should think out a good strategy to deal with it, and (we) should not be reckless.”[810] Chan Pui-man understood D1 to mean that they, especially editors, needed to change their actions and not to use certain phrases in order to avoid breaching the NSL. Chan Pui-man added that that was why she and some of her colleagues were surprised by D1’s live chat programme which continued after the enactment of the NSL. All the guests he invited to the programme were foreigners. D1 was of the view that the contents of the NSL was even more detrimental than he had expected and therefore he was very concerned. Chan Pui-man understood that he was still harbouring the hope that international pressure, including sanctions, could be of use. Chan Pui-man and her colleagues were worried that the contents of D1’s live chat would have problems with the NSL. In fact, at that time some media outlets were paying attention to D1 and raised concern about his programme. Chan Pui-man went to talk to Cheung Kim-hung as to whether they should discuss the matter with D1. Cheung Kim-hung expressed their concern and worries to D1. Nevertheless, D1 continued with his programme afterwards. 605.In cross-examination, Chan Pui-man agreed that before D1 was charged with NSL offences on 11 December 2020, she did not consider that what Apple Daily had been doing was unlawful. That was because when the police raided Apple Daily in August 2020, they said they were not targeting at journalistic materials. Moreover, some of the people arrested then, for instance, Andy, were not involved in the operation of Apple Daily. Chan Pui-man also agreed that after the promulgation of the NSL, Apple Daily took steps to avoid being in breach of the National Security Law. On the other hand, as regards D1’s live chat and articles, Chan Pui-man said that even though she and her colleagues did not play any part in their contents, her colleagues had those articles published. At the time, they could not say for certain whether or not those articles were in breach of the law and yet under those circumstances they got published anyway. After D1’s arrest in December 2020, however, Chan Pui-man and Cheung Kim-hung discussed the contents of D1’s live chat. Legal advice was taken and concern was expressed about contents of D1’s Twitter and live chat. The decision was then made to remove those particular posts. D1’s knowledge of and response to the NSL 606.There is evidence that D1 was fully aware of the danger of being accused of collusion, if he continued to openly ask for sanction against Chinese or Hong Kong officials. 607.On 3 July 2020, in the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” WhatsApp chat group James Cunningham wrote[811]:
D1 responded[812]:
On 9 July 2020, James Cunningham suggested[813]:
608.D1 agreed with Cunningham and asked for his views[814]. Cunningham said[815],
However, D1 warned[816]：
609.To the above, Martin Lee agreed[817]. He advised that the NSL was effective until set aside, and all the people of Hong Kong were subject to it. So, they must not do anything that was caught by it. Moreover, that applied to any WhatsApp or other groups that they belonged to. In response, Cunningham said he did not see that the law would be set aside. Therefore, it was prudent to assume that any “infraction” might be pursued for political reasons. So they needed to try to narrow that field, and he urged not offer easy targets.[818] Martin Lee further advised that therefore the group must not, under any circumstances, do anything which would constitute an offence under this Law.[819] Mark Simon said “Group remains active”[820] and D1 said, “Ok” and thanks[821]. 610.As it turned out, however, there were in fact no further messages in this chat group after that last message from D1. D1’s change of stance on Hong Kong’s special status after the NSL 611.Prior to the enactment of the NSL, D1’s stance was that the US should not revoke the special status of Hong Kong. Yet, his stance changed after the enactment of the NSL. This is evident by the following. 612.On 14 July 2020, President Trump of the US issued the Executive Order EO 13936[822]. Section 1 of EO 13936 provides:
613.On 15 July 2020 at 8:14 pm (HKT), Mark Simon referred to D1 a query from “Mary” asking whether D1 had said that he preferred the US not to break all ties with Hong Kong[823]. In his evidence, D1 said this “Mary” was Mary Kissel. D1 replied to Mark Simon[824],
614.In his evidence, D1 said that he agreed to the proposal to revoke the Hong Kong special status because it did not matter anymore. He wanted Mark Simon to convey his idea back to Mary Kissel. 615.On 14 July 2020, President Trump of the US issued Executive Order 13936 (“EO”). 616.According to the expert opinion of Professor Wang, the EO can be regarded as sanction provisions to fulfil the sanction requirements under the Hong Kong Autonomy Act (“HKAA”). A feature of EO 13936 is that it suspended the application of several statutes that provided Hong Kong with special treatments[825]:
617.It is pertinent to note at this juncture that, pursuant to EO 13936, on 7 August 2020, the US treasury imposed sanction on 11 individuals (officials of the PRC and the HKSAR) for “undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and restricting the freedom of expression or assembly of the citizens of Hong Kong”. It is the expert opinion of Professor Wang that after the enactment of the Hong Kong Autonomy Act and issuance of the EO 13936, between 7 August 2020 and 16 July 2021 the US Government took numerous actions including: required changes in markings of the goods produced in Hong Kong, suspension and termination of bilateral agreements, and sanctions imposed on a number of individuals of the PRC and the HKSAR Government[826]. Apple Daily reporting of the revocation of Hong Kong’s special status and the “US Sanction List” 618.On 15 July 2020, D1 forwarded to Chan Pui-man a message about Trump’s EO relating to actions taken by the US against the PRC and Hong Kong.[827] In that message, a “shit list” was mentioned. 619.On 16 July 2020, there was a report on the front page of Apple Daily carrying the headline: “Freedom deprived” “Same as mainland China” “Trump revoked Hong Kong’s special status”. At the bottom of the page, there was also a headline saying, “Secretary of State to submit sanction list within 90 days”[828]. 620.On 17 July 2020, on the front page of Apple Daily were reports carrying the headlines, “US Sanctions List” “Han Zhang” “Lam Cheng” “PK Tang are on the list” and “Trump has something up his sleeve. Scale of strike will be escalated anytime”. At the centre of the page, there was a subtitle which said, “Scholar: Influence European countries’ and Japan’s punitive measures”.[829] At the time, as the report said, sanctions had yet to be imposed. According to Chan Pui-man, D1 was very concerned about the sanction list. In cross-examination, Chan Pui-man agreed that the names of the persons to be sanctioned, as the report itself said, actually came from Bloomberg. 621.Also on 17 July 2020, there was a lunchbox meeting chaired by D1 and attended by staff members from the Print Form. As Cheung Kim-hung was away, Chan Pui-man was responsible for making a record of the key points. Item 2 of the record said[830],
Item 3 was a suggestion from D1 about inviting foreign writers to submit articles for publication. On the same day, there was the following statement in D1’s personal Twitter account: “#HongKong #SafeHarborAct and #PeoplesFreedomandChoiceAct are good wherewithals to our resistance movement. Salute all former CGs and State Dept staff for caring about this place we call home.”[831] 622.On 23 July 2020, there was a news report in Apple Daily of the meeting between Pompeo and Nathan Law in London with the title: “Saying that the CPC’s falling knife is equivalent to serious fraud/ Law Kwun-chung met with Pompeo calling for counter-measures against DQ”. The head bar of that page contained the words, “Coffin shut for the Two System”. [832] D1 received beforehand Pompeo’s speech at Nixon Library 623.There is evidence that, before Secretary Pompeo delivered his anti-China speech at Nixon Library on 24 July 2020, D1 had been given a draft of that speech. 624.Earlier that day, Christian Whiton forwarded to D1, Mark Simon, Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane a document titled “EMBARGOED until 4:35 ET: Secretary Pompeo remarks at Nixon Library”[833]. In that document, an appeal was made to other countries to act together with the US in confronting China. It said, among other things, the following[834]:
625.Later that day, Pompeo delivered the speech in almost identical terms to his speech at Nixon Library[835]. As can be seen in due course, Pompeo’s said speech was covered extensively in D1’s tweets in his personal Twitter account on 24 July 2020[836]. 626.The speech was also made the front-page news of the Print Form of Apple Daily on 25 July 2020[837] with the headlines: “Pompeo announces failure of 50 years of China policy at Nixon Library”; “US calls on free world to defeat new tyranny”; and “Beijing blasts Cold War mentality (and) political lies”.[838] D1’s tweet on 8 August 2020 about Returning Officers 627.On 8 August 2020, Apple Daily reported that 11 mainland and Hong Kong officials were sanctioned by the United States for alleged suppression of democracy. [839] 628.On the same day, there was a tweet in D1’s Twitter account referring to the news and asked, “How about those election officers (「選舉主任」) who disqualified #DQ the candidate nominations? Should they be personally responsible for making the decision?”[840] That was referring to the disqualification of certain candidates from the pan-democrats for the 2020 Legislative Council election. Intended private prosecution of expatriate police officers 629.On 10 August 2020, D1 forwarded to Chan Pui-man a message together with a press release which, he said, was from “Luke”.[841] The message said,
630.The press release[842] was marked “EMBARGOED UNTIL 10 AUGUST 2020 17:00 HKT” and its subject read,
Its first paragraph read,
At the end of the press release, there was a link to a crowdfunding website. There were also photographs of Luke de Pulford (described as “Case commissioner”), Nathan Law and Michael Polak (described as Legal Counsel). 631.Although D1 asked Chan Pui-man to decide for herself, she regarded it as an instruction. Therefore, she told her colleague to write a report on it. The contents of the press release was reported on 11 August 2020 in Apple Daily with the headline: “International Team (seeks) to Prosecute Hong Kong Police Officers with British Nationality through Crowd-funding” (「國際團隊眾籌控英籍港警」). That report also provided the website link to the crowdfunding platform used for fundraising for the private prosecution [843]. D1 helping Yuen Gong-yi regarding his video letter to Trump 632.On 28 May 2020, Yuen Gong-yi (“Elmer Yuen”) texted D1 by WhatsApp and said that he wanted to make a public video letter to Trump and Pompeo, urging them to station an UN humanitarian force in Hong Kong to protect the youth. He asked to make the video in D1’s studio on the following Friday. He told D1 that “It’s war”. D1 replied that he could arrange his colleagues to do that for Yuen and that his chief Nick would contact Yuen for the arrangement. Yuen thanked D1 and said that he would propose to Trump to kick PRC out of UN, and station UN troop in Hong Kong to protect the Hong Kong people and their freedom until the next dual universal suffrage.[844] 633.On 1 June 2020, Elmer Yuen’s video letter to President Trump was uploaded in Apple Daily online platform: “US urged to take in Hong Kong’s defiant students to preserve ‘seeds of new China’ ”[845]. In that letter, he said, among other things[846]:
634.On 3 June 2020, Elmer Yuen texted D1 and thanked the latter for providing him the platform to start his mission to destroy the CCP. He informed that he would go to Washington to plead for help for Hong Kong from the White House. He enquired whether D1 had any suggestions or whether there was anything D1 would want him to do[847]. D1 replied he did not have any suggestions better than what Yuen had thought of[848]. 635.Besides the occasion in July 2019 when D1 was in the US, he was also interviewed by Fox News on the following occasions:
(1) 18 August 2019 636.On 18 August 2019, D1 messaged Chan Pui-man and informed her that he was going to attend an interview with Fox. He asked her to “briefly explain the ins and out of Cathay Pacific’s kneeling down”.[849] The title of that interview was: “Jimmy Lai on Hong Kong: It is everybody’s responsibility to fight the dictatorship”.[850] As it turned out, however, the Cathay Pacific matter was not referred to during the interview.[851] In that interview, as regards the Extradition Amendment Bill, D1 said that President Trump had already linked the movement in Hong Kong with the trade negotiation, which was “very good”[852]. He also reiterated the view that[853]:
637.The interview was also reported in the Digital Version of Apple Daily on 18 August 2019 with the heading: “Anti-ELAB Movement”[854]. The report said, “When interviewed by Fox TV, Lai Chee-ying praised US for linking the anti-ELAB to the trade war: US should help Hong Kong people fight”. (2) 26 May 2020 638.On 26 May 2020, D1 was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo of Fox News[855]. He was asked by the interviewer how he was going to get the CCP to change. D1 answered, “Sanction them. Freeze the account of the officials’ corrupt money in US, in the world. Sanction their technology products or stop sending technology product to China. …”[856] 639.On 27 May 2020, Jack Keane emailed D1, Mark Simon, Paul Wolfowitz and Rupert Hammond-Chambers[857] and said, “Your explanation of why you do it, displaying your dogged determination and courage to “fight” the CCP is riveting.” To this, D1 replied on the same day:[858]
(3) 1 July 2020 640.Although the provisions of the NSL were more draconian than D1 had thought, that did not stop him from accepting interviews from foreign media with a view to seeking support for his course from foreign government. 641.On 1 July 2020, D1 gave a live video interview to Fox News hosted by Maria Bartimoro[859]. After that, D1 sent a Signal message to her saying, “Thanks for having me just now. It’s great for me to talk to American people. We need all the help from America. Cheers. Jimmy.”[860] 642.On the following day, D1 texted Mark Simon and said that he thought he should continue to accept interviews. Mark Simon replied, “Will do” and told D1 that they had a request from BBC and Guardian.[861] Mark Simon also told D1 that “Mary” and her boss watched the Maria interview, as did Bill Barr[862]. He related Mary’s message that there was an important request “from top” in that they wanted to see the Cardinal who was considered to be the figure that would resonate across all party lines. D1, however, did not think that the Cardinal wanted to travel. Mark Simon said that he was told the same by the Cardinal and that they had to find a way to get someone with gravitas to “DC”[863]. (4) 1 December 2020 643.On 1 December 2020, D1 was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo for a third time[864], during which he said[865],
Chapter 17 – Senior Management’s Response to the NSL 644.There is evidence that after the promulgation of the NSL, the senior management of Apple Daily had taken some steps to avoid breaching the new law. 645.The efficacy of those attempts in exonerating any of them would hinge on whether, after the enactment of the NSL, there was in existence the agreement charged and whether knowledge of the legality or otherwise of the agreement was an element of the offence or whether it would afford them a defence. The aforesaid questions will be dealt with in other parts of this verdict. At this juncture, we are just dealing with the evidence. 646.On 21 May 2020, Chan Pui-man forwarded to D1 a report of HK01 with the headline: “[01 Exclusive] NPC to announce the Hong Kong National Security Law tonight to close loopholes in national security Different from Article 23”[866]. She also told D1 that there would be a press conference at 9:45pm that night[867]. D1 responded vulgarly, “Damn it, it’s coming!” (「仆街打到嚟喇！」)[868]. It was Chan Pui-man’s evidence that in fact from about May 2020 to 1 July 2020, there were news in Hong Kong about the NSL and the steps taken by the NPC and NPCSC to enact the new law. The news were also covered by Apple Daily. 647.On 22 June 2020, Cheung Kim-hung opened the WhatsApp chat group “NSL Response Committee” (「國安法應變委員會」)[869], members of which included himself, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee, Lam Man-chung, Chiang Mei-hung and Law Wai-kwong. At a later stage, “Lo Fung” (i.e., Fung Wai-kong), Wong Wai-chun (deputy editor-in-chief of the Hong Kong news section) and Chow Ping-wah (deputy editor-in-chief of the breaking news section) were also added to the group. However, it was a deliberate decision of Cheung Kim-hung not to include D1 as a member and Cheung Kim-hung believed that D1 did not know that he had opened the chat group. In re-examination, Cheung Kim-hung said that if D1 had been added to the chat group, then they would not have been able to discuss anything, as only D1’s words would count. 648.Cheung Kim-hung explained the reasons for the creation of the group as follows. At the time, the NSL was about to be enacted and therefore colleagues had a lot of queries or questions concerning this legislation, as well as its impact on their work. There were feedbacks from some sections saying that some colleagues were concerned and were wondering whether they should resign or not, in particular those in the Hong Kong news section and the breaking news section. Therefore, Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man decided to set up this “NSL Response Committee” chat group in the hope that they could discuss the impact of the NSL, concerns of colleagues and where the red line should be drawn. 649.Similarly, it was also Chan Pui-man’s evidence that D1 was not included so that the discussion could be conducted more freely. Otherwise, D1’s opinion would be dominating and the chat group would not be a forum of discussion. Her understanding was that Cheung Kim-hung would like members to come up with some kind of consensus, so that he could relate the same to D1. 650.Later, because of the sensitivity of the topics and discussions, at the suggestion of Lam Man-chung, on 2 July 2020 the chat group was moved from WhatsApp to Signal, which had the messages on auto-delete function.[870] Apart from some messages which had been screen-captured by Yeung Ching-kee, the Signal messages before 17 June 2021 (the date of arrest of Cheung Kim-hung and others) had been deleted. 651.Cheung Kim-hung’s attention was drawn to the discussion in the chat group on 30 June 2020 which was about whether they should add the logo of Apple Daily on the posters for distribution in the street booth of Democratic Party[871]. These posters were supposed to be distributed on the first day of July during the course of the procession at the Democratic Party street booth. D1 asked that the logo of Apple Daily be added to the posters. Because of the sensitivity of the matter and that the NSL was looming, Cheung Kim-hung had a discussion in the chat group. At that time, the concern was that if those posters were distributed in the street booth of the Democratic Party, then one might wonder whether the connection between the news outlet and the political party would be too close, as the poster was about resistance. Eventually, despite the disagreement of several members in the senior management, the logo of Apple Daily was added to that poster. 652.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung said further that all along they had been working according to the editorial policies set down by D1, that means prior to the promulgation of the NSL. After the promulgation of the NSL, D1 kept mentioning that he would not be scared and he would continue to put up resistance. Therefore, D1 started his live chat programme and continued to say what he would like to say. As for the senior management of Apple Daily, they were very worried as to the effect or the impact of the NSL on the news outlet and that was why they set up those WhatsApp chat groups such as the “NSL Response Committee” and the “Newspaper Sensitive Advertisements” (「報紙敏感廣告」) group and so forth. It was also the reason why they organised some legal seminars for the staff members of both the assignment desk and others in the hope that colleagues could operate as much as possible within the red line[872]. After D1 was remanded in custody in December 2020 and was charged under the NSL, they removed some sensitive articles written by him as well as his video footages from the platform. From that point of time up to the time Cheung Kim-hung made the affirmation for bail application, they were hoping that Apple Daily could operate while at the same time complying with the relevant laws and legislations. 653.Cheung Kim-hung was asked about his WhatsApp exchanges with D1 in the morning on 1 July 2020. Cheung Kim-hung agreed that D1 was shocked by what he read about the NSL. D1 said that “First, we need to figure out a good strategy to deal with it, and we should not be reckless.”[873] Cheung Kim-hung agreed that D1 meant not to be reckless in order to avoid violating the law. Cheung Kim-hung also agreed that the editors also became more cautious about the National Security Law, because they had no idea where the red lines lay. 654.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung was referred to the following discussions among the senior management[874].
655.On the other hand, even after the promulgation of the NSL, D1’s articles in “Sink or Swim, Smile” and his live chat remained available on Apple Daily’s platform until after D1 was charged under NSL in December 2021 when thereafter they were taken down. Contingent Group (「應變小組」) 656.On 16 April 2021, Apple Daily had on its front page a report: “TANG Ping-keung intimidates the media: (Violators) of the NSL will pay the price” “Editor-in-Chief of Apple Daily suspects that (he) is paving the way for severe suppression”.[878] The “Editor-in-chief” referred to was Law Wai-kwong. 657.On 17 April 2021, there was another WhatsApp chat group created by Cheung Kim-hung named “Contingent Group”[879], members of which included Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Nick Cheung and Law Wai-kwong. In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung said that D1 was not included in this chat group because he had already been detained since December 2020. Cheung Kim-hung disagreed with leading counsel that D1 was not added to it because editorial decisions were left to the editors and D1 did not take part in those. 658.According to Chan Pui-man, the group was created in response to the remarks made by the police force concerning seditious words or phrases. They would like to have some discussions on the wordings of the newspaper and whether any change needed to be made to the approach of news reporting, as some colleagues also queried whether they should continue to use such terms like “Wuhan pneumonia”. They would not want the Print Form and the Digital Form to have different judgments and conclusions. Cheung Kim-hung said that he would have a discussion with Law Wai-kwong and came to an agreement.[880] 659.On 17 April 2021, Cheung Kim-hung told Yeung Ching-kee that he had spoken with Ngan Shun-kau that given the situation then, phrases like “black cop” had better be avoided and Ngan asked them to assist by doing the checking. Cheung Kim-hung said he would ask Yeung Ching-kee for help[881]. 660.On 18 April 2021, Chan Pui-man texted Yeung Ching-kee and informed that Law Wai-kwong had decided to “defeat my yesterday’s self” and directed that the term “Wuhan pneumonia” was to cease to be used and replaced by “pandemic” or “covid-19” in all reports and editorials. As regards Apple Forum, she told Yeung Ching-kee that it was up to the individual writers to decide.[882] Yeung Ching-kee recorded the above instruction in a document which the Police found in his computer[883]. 661.Between 17 and 18 April 2021, there was a chain of exchanges in the “Contingent Group” (「應變小組」) chat group as to whether terms such as “castration of election” and “Wuhan pneumonia” should cease to be used in Apple Daily and be removed from its website[884]. Eventually, Cheung Kim-hung gave the instruction:
In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung explained that in April 2021 the situation was getting difficult, as there were remarks of government officials targeting Apple Daily. There were also rumours that Apple Daily would not survive after July. Given the situation, Cheung Kim-hung visited D1 (in custody) around late April and sought instructions from him. In particular, D1 was told if Apple Daily should be closed down on its own given the worries of other colleagues. Also, it happened that a columnist, Chip Tsao (「陶傑」), had written in the supplement suggesting that it would be better for Apple Daily to close itself down. D1 said to Cheung Kim-hung, “Why should we close it down ourselves? Why don’t we continue until it is closed down by others?” Against this background, they cautiously carried on running the newspaper. This led to the subsequent meeting of Apple Daily hosted by Cheung Kim-hung on 11 May 2021. Cheung Kim-hung agreed with counsel that the editorial direction of Apple Daily had to change according to the change in law and the situation. On the other hand, in re-examination Cheung Kim-hung said that as far as he could see, there was not any substantial change in the editorial policy of Apple Daily before and after the NSL. 662.On 21 April 2021, Cheung Kim-hung asked Yeung Ching-kee by WhatsApp whether there had been requests in the Editorials for foreign countries to impose sanctions or even to overthrow the ruling party. Yeung Ching-kee replied that after the promulgation of the NSL, even “the boss” made no such remarks. Cheung Kim-hung replied by saying “Right”[886]. Cheung Kim-hung explained in Court that after the NSL had come into effect, the writing or expression of D1 was less explicit compared to what he wrote and said in the interviews before. On the other hand, D1’s writings and views expressed after the NSL in fact affirmed the effect of foreign sanctions in preventing China from clamping down human rights, democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. Therefore, when Yeung Ching-kee said that D1 no longer said anything explicit about sanctions, Cheung Kim-hung agreed with Yeung Ching-kee. 663.On 25 May 2021, Yeung Ching-kee was told by Law Wai-kwong that there was a letter from D1 which Law wanted to show to Yeung Ching-kee[887]. Yeung Ching-kee said that he was shown that letter by Law. That letter was addressed by D1 to Law in which D1 said that they needed to be careful. However, Yeung Ching-kee could not remember the exact wordings of that letter. 664.On 21 April 2021, Chan Pui-man messaged Yeung Ching-kee and said that the boss, i.e., D1, suggested to invite Sang Pu to write for Apple Forum.[888] Chan Pui-man said that she was told by Cheung Kim-hung about D1’s suggestion. Yeung Ching-kee’s response was that “His article is a bit weird and he openly advocates Hong Kong independence therefore I dare not set up a column for him.” At the end of the day, Cheung Kim-hung did not invite Sang Pu to contribute articles because of legal considerations. Cheung Kim-hung’s speech on 11 May 2021 665.On 11 May 2021, Cheung Kim-hung gave a speech to the staff members of Apple Daily[889]. In that speech, in response to the news that Apple Daily would cease operation, he told the staff members:
666.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung said that he was quoting from D1’s letter written in prison: “Jobs concerning press freedom are risky. Every colleague must take care and be as cautious as possible”. Cheung Kim-hung said that this was what he believed at the time. 667.Chan Pui-man was also cross-examined on the aforesaid speech of Cheung Kim-hung. She said that she agreed with what Cheung Kim-hung said on that occasion which was also her belief at the time. Chan Pui-man agreed that when Cheung Kim-hung said that Apple Daily “would never concede”, what he meant was that whilst Apple Daily would not change its angle of reporting, it would do so within the confines of the law. Chan Pui-man’s appointment as director 668.On 20 August, 2020, Chan Pui-man was appointed to the position of director of two companies, namely Apple Daily Limited (D2) and Apple Daily Printing Limited (D3). 669.Chan Pui-man said that at the time, some members of the senior management who were responsible for managing the financial matters of the company either got arrested or invited for the purpose of investigation and the accounts department was at a loss. They were wondering what if there would be no one to sign cheques, and then there would be no means to pay writers for their articles. Therefore, the company appointed several of them (including her and Law Wai-kwong) to the board of directors, so that should anything happen there still would be someone to sign cheques. Yet, after the aforesaid appointment, no regular meetings were ever held for the Board of Directors of Apple Daily. 670.On 17 June 2021, Chan Pui-man was arrested for the present case and the news was reported on the following day in Apple Daily.[890] After her release on bail, on 21 June 2020 she formally tendered her resignation to Apple Daily but she stayed in the job until 24 June 2021, which was also the date of Apple Daily’s last issue.[891] Her resignation from the directorship of D2 and D3 took effect on 25 June 2021. Chapter 18 – Advertisement/ Crowdfunding campaigns & SWHK Advertisement/Crowdfunding campaigns 671.During the period between June 2019 and May 2020, there were the following newspaper advertisement campaigns:
The above were funded by crowdfunding through online platforms. Andy was involved in the first three newspaper advertisement campaigns to which, the prosecution says, D1 advanced “bridging loans” with Mark Simon and Wayland as go-betweens. 672.It needs to be stressed that the newspaper advertisement/crowdfunding campaigns are not the subject matter of any of the charges in this trial and D1 is not charged with his role, if any, in any of those. They were only the background which, the prosecution says, led to the formation of SWHK, the activities of which were alleged to be part of the overt acts of the conspiracy in Charge 3. Introduction 673.Andy said that he came to know Wayland through a Telegram (“TG”) chat group in June 2019. At the time, Andy was known by his TG display name “RIP”, whereas Wayland was known by the display names “Honey T Milk” or simply “T”. 674.By way of background, in 2019, the HKSAR Government introduced proposed amendments to the extradition law. The proposal aroused a wide spread opposition from various sectors of the society. It happened that there was a G20 Summit to be held in Japan by the end of June that year. There were then discussions in various TG groups about arousing awareness of and obtaining support from the international community of the movement and protests against the Extradition Law Amendment Bill (“ELAB”). Andy was among those who came up with and subsequently also implemented the plan of placing advertisements in foreign newspapers to solicit international support against the ELAB. Advertisements placed 675.Eventually, those advertisements were placed between 27th June and 29th June 2019 in the following:
Andy seeking a “bridge loan” 676.Andy played an active role in the campaign. Apart from placing the orders and keeping the accounts[911] and other records of the advertisement campaign, he also set up a webpage on “GoGetFunding” (a crowdfunding platform) to raise funds for the campaign and even provided an advancement of about HK$3 million to the campaign out of his own pocket. 677.Eventually, the crowdfunding campaign succeeded in raising about HK$7 million. After deducting the fees for GoGetFunding and Stripe (the payment platform), the balance was around HK$6.1 million. However, the fund raised was not yet available at the time the costs of the advertisement needed to be settled. By which time Andy had already exhausted his ability to bridge. Therefore, he appealed to the people in the TG groups for help. At this juncture, “T” approached him through private chat and offered assistance. 678.According to Andy, “T” asked how much would be required and said he would think about some options. “T” also mentioned that he had asked some “uncles” or other people, a sum of around HK$5 million could be utilised. Andy understood that that was a loan which needed to be repaid. At the request of “T”, on 26 June 2019 Andy emailed a letter to “[email protected]” copied to “[email protected]”[912]. On the following day, he emailed another letter to “[email protected]”[913]. The contents of the two letters were essentially the same and both of which set out the background of the crowdfunding and the request for an advancement for payment of advertisement. Now, there is little dispute that “[email protected]” was in fact an email address used by Wayland. Wayland contacting Mark Simon 679.According to Wayland, he saw in TG the “G20 High Seas Group” a “pinned post” by “RIP” who was seeking funds for an international advertisement campaign. Believing that “RIP” was the administrator of the chat group, Wayland contacted him and was told that the purpose of the campaign was to take the opportunity of the G20 summit to draw international attention to the anti-ELAB movement and the situation in Hong Kong then. “RIP” said that although the crowdfunding had already reached its target, the fund raised was not yet available. It happened that there were suggestions made in the TG chat group that one might seek financial assistance from D1 and through the intermediary of Martin Lee. Wayland managed to obtain the phone number of Martin Lee from the chat group and got hold of him. He told Martin Lee that a “bridge loan” of HK$3 million from D1 would be required. Subsequently, Martin Lee reverted and informed that D1 already knew about the matter. As D1 was not in Hong Kong, Wayland was given the phone number of D1’s assistant Mark Simon and was asked to contact the latter directly. 680.Wayland said that he contacted Mark Simon right away. He told Mark Simon the problems encountered and said that a bridge loan was needed so that the advertisements could be placed before the G20 summit. Mark Simon said that he roughly knew about the matter and that Wayland was not the first one who contacted them. Mark Simon also said that he was willing to co-operate as Wayland was able to articulate his request clearly. Mark Simon added that the campaign was fully in line with their political propositions and they hoped that through this activity, the government would respond to the people’s demands. Mark Simon also said that he would contact his boss, but he did not say who his boss was. At the time, Wayland was yet to tell Mark Simon how much he needed for the “bridge loan”. $5 million “bridge loan” 681.Wayland said that about 10 to 15 minutes after his first call to Mark Simon, the latter reverted and said that there was no problem and that a sum of up to $5 million could be made available but that had to be repaid. Mark Simon said that “Jimmy” was willing to provide all sorts of help to support this kind of publicity literature activities. Mark Simon said that he would pay the newspapers concerned directly upon invoices. He said also that if advertisements were to be placed on newspapers under the Apple Daily Group, then payment could be made after the advertisements. Later on the same day, Wayland informed “RIP” of the news and the method of advancement. Wayland further told “RIP”,
682.That D1 was informed of the “bridge loan” and its purpose and that he in fact approved it was shown by a WhatsApp message that Mark Simon sent to him on 26 June 2019, which read[914],
To this, D1 replied, “Ok. Thanks. Jimmy”[915]. 683.Royston was shown a copy of an email from Mark Simon to “Zadomen Linda” dated 27 June 2019 about a request for a bridge loan to be paid to “LI YU HIN”. Attached to the email were what appeared to be WhatsApp exchanges between Mark Simon and D1 about “The fundraising for the newspaper ads”[916]. Royston said that the email had been “blind-copied” to him so that he could include the sum (of HK$5 million) in the monthly summary of D1’s expenses. However, Royston did not know from which account this HK$5 million would come. Passing of invoices and receipts 684.Wayland said that he would email the invoices[917] he obtained from “RIP” to Mark Simon for the latter to arrange settlement. Then, Wayland would also email the corresponding payment slips/wire transfer requests and receipts to “RIP”[918] for record. 685.Wayland identified the invoices, payment slips and receipts of the following newspapers:
The total amount advanced was about HK$1.5 million. It is noted that some of the payments were made by Lais Hotel Properties Limited and Dico Consultants Limited. Dico Consultants Limited (“Dico”) 686.Between 2019 and 2020, Royston was a shareholder and director of Dico. D1 was the other shareholder and director of that company. Royston said that he held his shares of that company on trust for D1 and he needed to report to D1 and Mark Simon. The financial matters of Dico required the decision of either D1 or Mark Simon. The cheques of Dico would require the signatures of either D1 alone or by any two of Mark Simon, Royston and Dennis Hung[924]. Lais Hotel Properties Limited (“Lais”) 687.Royston said that Lais was incorporated in Canada sometime before 2010 and its main business was the management of hotels in Canada including Prince of Wales Hotel, Queen’s Landing and Pillar and Post. These hotels had nothing to do with Next Digital Group. Between 2019 and 2020, the board of directors of Lais Hotel consisted of Royston, Robert Jackson and Mark Simon who was also its Chairman. As a matter of company structure, Lais was held by a holding company which in turn was owned by D1. Credit period given by Apple Daily Taiwan 688.Concerning the advertisement in Apple Daily Taiwan[925], there was a term in the placement order requiring cash (NT$1.2 million) before publication. Upon receiving the payment instruction from Apple Daily Taiwan dated 26 June 2019, Andy talked to “T” and was told that the latter and “his side” would handle the matter. 689.According to Wayland, on that day, he approached Mark Simon for assistance so that payment could be made later and Mark Simon said that he would handle it.[926] On the following day, there was an email from Mark Simon to Royston asking that a week’s credit be given for the payment of the advertisement, saying that “Mr Lai has approved Assisting as they are having trouble moving their money.”[927] The “Advertising Order Form”[928] attached said that the client was “Li Yu Hin”. Royston said even though Mark Simon held no official title in the Next Digital Group, he as D1’s personal assistant assisted D1 in the business relating to Next Digital and also D1’s private companies. This incident was one example. 690.Later, Andy received by post the invoice from Apple Daily Taiwan requesting the payment by 5 July 2019.[929] At first, Andy mistook the invoice as the receipt because of what “T” had told him before. Subsequently, however, Andy was asked by “T” to settle the payment. This, Andy did on 15 July 2019 by a bank transfer.[930] First meeting between Andy and Wayland 691.Both Andy and Wayland said that they met each other physically for the first time sometime in late June 2019. Wayland said specifically that they met at the bus stop outside Pacific Place in Admiralty. Wayland said that by which time, he was yet to know the true name of Andy. On that occasion, Andy received from Wayland some of the remittance advices[931]. It is noteworthy that Andy’s name “Li Yu Hin” or “Li” appeared on some of these remittance advices as the person on whose behalf the payments were made. 692.On 9 July 2019, upon Andy’s request, “T” forwarded to him an email[932] together with a remittance advance regarding the payment to Washington Post.[933] The email referred to a person called “Mark” who, Andy subsequently came to know, was Mark Simon. Andy giving Wayland a promissory note 693.Later in July that year, by which time the advertising campaign for G20 had already concluded, Andy asked “T” how he should repay the loan. “T” said that arrangement needed to be made by his side. Andy was told that people from “T’s” side were not comfortable with the money being in arrears. However, “T’s” side was not able to provide Andy with an account for repayment immediately. 694.On the other hand, it was Wayland’s evidence that after the G20 campaign was concluded, Wayland began asking Andy whether money raised in the crowdfunding had been collected but there was no reply. Wayland sought advice from several friends in the chat group as to what should be done. An idea came up that Andy be asked to sign a promissory note to assume the responsibility for the HK$1.5 million. Therefore, Wayland drafted the promissory note and made a phone call to Andy. 695.Eventually, arrangement was made for Andy and Wayland to meet at a coffee shop in Lippo Centre. Wayland brought with him two witnesses. The four of them signed on the promissory note in which Andy acknowledged his liability for in the amount of HK$1.56 million to Mark Simon. It was then that Andy came to know that the name of “RIP” was Li Yu-hin. After that, the promissory note was taken to a solicitor’s firm arranged by “T” who told Andy that the promissory note would be reserved for pacifying “those on the upper level” that the money advanced could be returned. 696.That night, Wayland made a WhatsApp call to Mark Simon, saying that Andy was willing to be responsible for the debt. However, the problem was that Andy did not know to which account the repayment should be made. Later, Mark Simon reverted and said that, if possible, it was hoped that the repayment could be made to the Canada account. However, it was alright for them to choose any of the three accounts, as they all belonged to his boss. Wayland related to Andy what Mark Simon had said. Several days later, Andy informed Wayland that he had already repaid the money. However, Wayland was told that the money had gone not to Canada, but to the bank account of a company called “Chartwell”. Repayment of the “bridge loan” 697.In mid-July 2019, “T” provided Andy with the account details of “Chartwell” and asked Andy to make repayment to this company. Thus, on 1 August and 2 August 2019 Andy repaid a total of HK$1.56 million[934] and passed the relevant remittance advices to “T”. As regards the surplus of the crowdfunding (about HK$150,000[935]), Andy donated it to “612 Humanitarian Relief Fund” to assist the legal fees of protestors who were arrested in the anti-ELAB movement. 698.As regards “Chartwell”, Royston said that he was aware that in 2019 and 2020, that company was already in existence in Taiwan. However, he was not the one who dealt with this company. According to Royston’s understanding, the company belonged to D1. 699.Royston was shown a document titled “Jimmy Lai personal, private companies and Taiwan branches combined cash flow from 1 April to 31 October 2019”[936] which bore the names “Lai Chee-ying”, “Royston Chow”, and “Mark Simon” at its top right-hand corner. Royston said that the document was prepared by Linda Mendoza for the three of them for the purpose of letting D1 know about his income and expenses and the states of his bank accounts for all those private companies at the subsequent pages. In that document, “Chartwell” was described in various places as one of D1’s Taiwan Branches. 700.In July 2019, there was another crowdfunding campaign which was referred to during the trial as the “JD campaign” which, Andy said, was initiated by “Mutual Destruction Bro” (「攬炒巴」) and his team. “Mutual Destruction Bro” 701.Andy explained that at the time he was told that a person known as “Mutual Destruction Bro” (whom he subsequently came to know was Finn Lau) would like to organise a crowdfunding for an advertisement campaign in the UK relating to the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Andy was aware that “Mutual Destruction Bro” was active in TG groups; his posts in LIHKG were very influential; and he had a lot of supporters. 702.There is no dispute at the trial that “Mutual Destruction Bro” was in fact Finn Lau, whose English name was “Finn”. 703.As the previous G20 crowdfunding was regarded as successful, Andy was therefore invited by the team of “Mutual Destruction Bro” to help in the JD Campaign. Andy could not remember who introduced him to the team of “Mutual Destruction Bro”. However, he could say that “Always” and “Jack Hazlewood” were involved in the crowdfunding. Andy acting as a treasurer 704.Andy said that apart from making advancements to the campaign, he also acted as a treasurer and he prepared the schedule of income and expenditure.[937] 705.Andy said that as the handling charge of “GoGetFunding.com” was high and that this time the crowdfunding was for events to be held in the UK, it was decided to raise fund in pound sterling and to use “GoFundMe.com” as platform for the crowdfunding. Although the information put on “GoFundMe.com” was drafted by “Mutual Destruction Bro” and his team, no one from that side was willing to lend his/her bank account for the purpose of crowdfunding. On the other hand, it was considered that as Andy’s bank account had already been exposed in the previous crowdfunding, even if his bank account was to be used again, that would not further increase his legal risk. Therefore, originally it had been decided that Andy’s Standard Chartered Bank account in Hong Kong be used to receive the fund raised. However, it was later found out that “GoFundMe.com” had a rule which required that funds raised in pound sterling could only be withdrawn into a UK bank account in that denomination. As a result, the money in “GoFundMe.com” could not be withdrawn in the interim. Therefore, during the period between 19 and 25 July 2019, Andy had to advance money to the JD Campaign.[938] Jack Hazlewood’s bank account used to receive funds 706.Subsequently, Andy was introduced to “Jack Hazlewood” who agreed to lend his bank account for the purpose of receiving funds from GoFundMe.com. Andy came to know later that Jack Hazlewood wrote for Apple Daily and that “T” (Chan Tsz-wah) was acquainted with Mark Simon, D1 and others. On 9 August 2019, Andy received a total of £308,299.42 from Jack Hazlewood, which he believed was the fund received from “GoFundMe.com”.[939] In cross-examination, having been shown his message with “T”[940], Andy corrected by saying that it was “Wilson” who introduced Jack Hazlewood to him. Photograph of Margaret Thatcher from Apple Daily 707.In July or August 2019, “Mutual Destruction Bro” and his side would like to use the photo of the signing of the Joint Declaration showing Margaret Thatcher shaking hands with other people. Someone in the team raised the issue of copyright and others noticed the photo in the website of Hong Kong Apple Daily. Andy then enquired with “T” whether Apple Daily would give permission for using the photo. “T” said to Andy that he was going to have a meal gathering with D1 in the coming Thursday and he would ask him then. Afterwards, “T” reverted and gave a positive reply and Andy got the photo through an email from Apple Daily. 708.On the other hand, Wayland said that when Andy mentioned to him that “Mutual Destruction Team” required people to help them to do the crowdfunding campaign, he told Andy to do it himself. When Wayland next talked to Andy, the latter was already engaged in that crowdfunding. Later in July 2019, Andy asked for Wayland’s assistance in obtaining Apple Daily’s permission to use a photo of Deng Xiaoping signing the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Wayland told Andy that if it was not urgent, then he could ask D1 later when he met him. However, Andy said that it was very urgent. Therefore, Wayland called Mark Simon directly. Mark Simon told him, however, that this matter had already been dealt with. Wayland then informed Andy so. The advertisement 709.In Andy’s mobile, there were photographs[941] of the advertisement placed for the JD campaign which contained the following statements:
The advertisement bore the logo of “standwithhk.org” with the words “Fight for Freedom/Stand with Hong Kong” (“SWHK”). The usage of the fund raised 710.As regards the fund raised by crowdfunding, Andy said that about £100,000 was spent on placing advertisements in the UK. The remaining sum were spent on rallies and political consultancy service. The political consultancy service was at first provided by “89UP Limited”[942] which was later replaced by “Whitehouse Consultancy Limited”[943]. As regards the latter, Andy said that it made arrangements for the side of “Mutual Destruction Bro” in UK to meet with members of Parliament. In November 2019, during the District Council election in Hong Kong “Whitehouse Consultancy Limited” assisted in finding people to come to Hong Kong to monitor the election. In 2020, the political consultant worked with people like Benedict Rogers of the Hong Kong Watch and they were also involved in an activity leading to a joint statement signed by the former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten. The origin 711.In August 2019, there was a third advertisement campaign and its crowdfunding exercise which was referred to as the “G Fry Campaign” during the trial. 712.Andy said that owing to the success of the G20 Campaign and the JD Campaign, some members of the two campaigns wanted to join hands together and hold a third campaign, the purpose of which was to raise the international awareness about the democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. 713.In a similar vein, Wayland said that the aim of this third advertisement was to draw international attention to alleged police brutality in Hong Kong and to appeal to the international community to stop selling weapons to Hong Kong Police. Wayland did not know who initiated that campaign but described it as a “crossover” of the G20 Team and the JD Team (“the Mutual Destruction Team”) which later became the “Stand with Hong Kong” (“SWHK”) as people knew it. Therefore, the core members of SWHK were the core members of the JD Team and the G20 Team including “RIP” (Andy), “Ah Fak”, Finn Lau and “Knorr Macaroni”. 714.This time, Andy was again responsible for the crowdfunding. “Mutual Destruction Bro” posted messages in LIHKG briefly introducing what the crowdfunding was about in general. Other members of the campaign handled the advertisements. The newspaper advertisement campaign 715.In August 2019, the advertisement was placed in various newspapers of the following places:
716.The advertisement in The Globe and Mail contained the following statement:
Similarly, the advertisement in New York Times said:
The requirement of a US bank account for crowdfunding 717.This time, the platform used for the crowdfunding was again “GoFundMe.com”. As the money to be raised (around US$1.8 million) was in US dollars, GoFundMe.com required that the bank account used for receiving the funds had to be a US dollar account in the United States. As such, the “G Fry” team had to look for an American who could provide such an account. For that purpose, “G Fry” tried and used the bank account of a wealthy American[958] introduced by “Wilson Li”. However, for some reasons that “Wealthy American No. 1” was unable to withdraw the money out of his bank account. Andy then sought help from Wayland[959]. 718.According to Wayland, whilst he was outside Hong Kong, he received a call from Andy who told him that they were not able to use the money raised by the crowdfunding and they needed a bank account. Wayland asked why Andy’s bank account could not be used. Andy explained that their team did not want the money to flow back into Hong Kong and it would be best to have a bank account in the United States. Wayland thought that Andy was asking him to seek help from Mark Simon and this was what he did. In mid-September 2019, after having some exchanges with Mark Simon and Andy separately, Wayland corresponded with “GoFundMe” (the emails of which were copied to Andy) and provided the platform with the relevant bank account details and personal particulars which he obtained from Mark Simon[960]. As far as Wayland knew, Mark Simon’s bank account was eventually used to receive the funds raised from the third crowdfunding campaign. 719.On 17 September 2019, “T” sent an email to Kelsey Mathis of “GoFundMe.com” (copied to Andy) which contained the personal particulars of a person referred to as “Wealthy American No. 2”. In fact, the personal particulars were those of Mark Simon[961]. Andy messaged Kelsey Mathis and said, among other thing:[962]
720.Andy was told by “T” that “Wealthy American No. 2” hoped that the fund be transferred to a trust in US and stayed there rather than Andy’s personal bank account. That was to avoid the risk of the money being frozen in the bank system in Hong Kong. 721.Andy said that with the help of “Wealthy American No. 2”, a bank account was set up with the Amalgarated Bank under the name of “Project Hong Kong Trust” with three “de jure” owners, one of whom was Katherine Cheng. The arrangement was that Mark Simon would transfer the proceeds of the crowdfunding he received into the bank account of “Project Hong Kong Trust”.[963] Loan advancement from Mark Simon 722.During the course of the third advertising campaign, Andy indicated that he would need a loan advancement. Wayland told Mark Simon about it. Mark Simon, having learnt from Wayland that Andy had already repaid the previous advancement of HK$1.56 million to Chartwell, agreed to assist. 723.Similar to the previous occasion, Mark Simon asked that the invoices be sent to him for settlement. Wayland did as told and was later provided by Mark Simon with the relevant receipts. Wayland was shown and he identified the correspondence and documents pertaining to the following media, all of which related to the third advertising campaign in mid-August 2019:
724.Andy was shown an income and expenditure schedule prepared by him covering the period between August 2019 and February 2020.[971] Up to March 2020 the “G Fry Campaign” incurred advertisement expenses of about HK$6.33 million[972]. Andy said that around HK$3.5 million of that sum was advanced by Mark Simon[973] and the rest of around HK$2.7 million was advanced by Andy[974]. After repayment, on 27 May 2020 there was a running balance of US$698,000 odd[975] which, Andy understood, was to be used in other activities of SWHK. 725.During a Signal exchange on 23 July 2020 between Andy and Wayland, Wayland asked what the amount of “Mark Gor” was[976]. That, according to Andy, was a reference to the outstanding amount in relation to the “G Fry” campaign which Mark Simon should transfer to the bank account of “Project Hong Kong Trust”. Andy informed Wayland that the amount due from “T’s side” was US$26,061.16[977]. On 27 July 2020, Wayland messaged Andy and said that he had “pinged Mark about the issue”[978]. On 3 August 2020, Wayland messaged Andy again and said that he was “calling Mark to follow up the figures”[979]. Andy then forwarded to Wayland a “Settlement report”[980]. However, because of Andy’s arrest, he did not know if Mark Simon had eventually repaid the sum to “Project Hong Kong Trust”. 726.In cross-examination, Andy confirmed that, by September 2019, the bridge loan made to SWHK had been fully repaid and after that SWHK did not receive any money associated with either Mark Simon or D1. Andy agreed that the activities of SWHK other than the advertisement campaign were financed solely by the surplus of the crowdfunding. D1’s knowledge of “G Fry” and his approval of the loan 727.That D1 had knowledge of the “G Fry” newspaper advertisement/crowdfunding campaign and that the loan from Mark Simon in fact came from D1 and with his approval is shown by his WhatsApp exchanges with Mark Simon. The details are as follows. 728.On 12 August 2019, Mark Simon texted D1 and said,
Mark Simon attached a photograph of what appeared to be a screen page of the crowdfunding site and said[982],
To this, D1 replied,
729.On 17 August 2019, D1 asked when was the day that they raised crowdfunding and what was their purpose for advertising[984]. Mark Simon replied[985],
730.On 6 November 2019, Mark Simon informed D1[986],
To this, D1 replied,
The “Rise from Ashes” Campaign (「重光香港計劃」) 731.There was a fourth crowdfunding campaign in May 2020 which was known as “Rise from Ashes”. 732.By way of background, Andy explained that there had been an enquiry by “Mutual Destruction Bro” and other members of SWHK about the proceeds of the previous crowdfunding and how long those proceeds might last in support of SWHK’s future activities. Therefore, Andy worked out his projection on a worksheet for their information. It was then decided that another crowdfunding exercise would be necessary. 733.By which time, “Project Hong Kong Trust” had been set up and the NSL was approaching. Andy discussed with Wayland and “Mutual Destruction Bro” respectively. It was decided that for Andy’s protection he should not be involved in this crowdfunding campaign. “Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong. 重光團隊” (“SWHK”) 734.We have already referred to the evidence of both Andy and Wayland that the “G Fry” campaign started off as a “cross-over” of the “G20 team” and the “Mutual Destruction Team”. 735.Andy said that “SWHK” was first adopted as a name in July 2019 (after a vote in TG) for the purpose of taking credit and responsibility for the advertisement campaigns. The founders included Andy himself, “Mutual Destruction Bro”, “Always”, “Madison” and Shirley Ho[988]. 736.According to Andy, there was a period of time when both the names “G Fry” and “SWHK” were used. There were some people in the group who labelled themselves as “G Fry”, whereas others would label themselves as “SWHK”. By late August 2019, however, there was a split of opinions within the TG groups as to whether international advertisement campaigns should continue to be held. According to Wayland, “Knorr Macaroni” advocated for the continuation of international advertisement campaigns. On the other hand, both Andy and Wayland were of the view that it was not a good idea. For that reason, Andy left the group for a spell of time. 737.Both Andy and Wayland said that by the end of 2019, however, many of those who wanted to continue with advertisement campaigns had left the group and the influence of the G20 team dwindled. Gradually, the name “G Fry” became more like a historic label for the initial stage of the newspaper advertisement campaigns, whereas other activities were continued to be held in the name of “SWHK”. As regards the “JD” side, that is the side of “Mutual Destruction Bro”, there were ongoing activities held in the UK, including public events and meetings with members of Parliament. Wayland added that at that stage who had a say in SWHK included “RIP” (Andy), “Mutual Destruction Bro” (Finn Lau), “Madison”, “Surely” (Shirley Ho) and “Always”. “Project Hong Kong Trust”, which held the remaining HK$7-8 million from the three crowdfunding campaigns, was controlled by the same group of people. Shirley Ho was from the US front. SWHK gradually shifted its focus from UK to US. 738.Upon enquiry by the Court, Andy agreed that nobody had the monopoly in the use of the name “SWHK”. In cross-examination, he agreed that SWHK was not an organisation with a formal membership structure, so that one did not put himself or herself forward in any official way to be recognised as its member. Andy described SWHK as a “grassroots crowdfunded advocacy group”. Moreover, there was no formal leadership structure, although some members may tend to be more vocal and active. If somebody did not support a particular activity or event, then they could simply choose not to take part in that, or they could raise their own objection and try to persuade others in the various TG groups. No one could dictate to other members what they should do. That, Andy agreed, was one aspect of a decentralised organisation. Judging from the display names of the members, the way they spoke and their point of views, it seemed to Andy that they resembled or resonated with the younger generation. 739.In his evidence, Andy identified the website of SWHK[989]. He said that originally the website was managed by a person with the display name “Kirin Bumper” with the assistance of some other members. Later on, Andy[990] succeeded “Kirin Bumper” as the person-in-charge of the website.[991] 740.The website provided links for people to join campaigns in various countries including Australia, Canada, Germany, Denmark, France, Ireland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States. It is noted that in the box providing the link to join the campaign in the US, there was the following description[992]:
In the box for the UK, it said[993],
This is to contrast with the boxes for the other countries, where they said[994],
The previous campaigns of SWHK were listed out as follows[995]:
741.The website also enumerated SWHK’s “achievement and activities since July 2019” as follows[996]:
742.The website contained “Fundraiser Reports” which included the income and expenditure accounts of the “JD” campaign[997] and the “G Fry” campaign[998]. It is of note that as regards the accounts of the “G Fry” campaign between 11 August 2019 and 27 May 2020[999]:
743.Andy agreed that the two captions did not tally and he said that the former was couched in flowery languages with a view to encouraging people to donate. Andy explained further that the Chinese caption implied that the Hong Kong regime was connected with the Communist Party. He disagreed, however, that one objective of the “G Fry Campaign” was to seek the imposition of sanctions by foreign countries on the Hong Kong Government and Beijing. Nevertheless, a general consensus among the members of the “G Fry” campaign” was to fight for what they thought would be conducive to the democratic development in Hong Kong and some of them would agree that sanction would facilitate their objective. 744.In this regard, we note that:
745.We also note the evidence of Andy that in 2020 SWHK as an organization joined the Central Secretariat of IPAC[1003]. We shall come back to this topic about the change of SWHK’s direction and strategy from one of newspaper advertisement campaign to international lobbying work in due course. Chapter 19 – Andy’s association with Wayland 746.It is the prosecution case that the activities of Andy and Wayland after the promulgation of the NSL were part of the overt acts of the conspiracy which is the subject matter of Charge 3. 747.In this chapter, by way of background we will first deal with the evidence of Andy and Wayland as to how they became involved in international lobbying and the evidence about the Taipei meeting. Then, we will deal with the evidence of Andy and Wayland in relation to SWHK and IPAC. Mark Simon suggested Andy & Wayland engaging in lobbying 748.According to Wayland, he first mentioned Andy to Mark Simon during the first crowdfunding campaign. Moreover, Andy’s name also appeared on some of the payment receipts. Then, there was the incident about the promissory note. When Wayland met with Mark Simon, he also mentioned Andy to him as the latter wanted to know more about Andy. According to Wayland, Mark Simon grumbled about the tardiness of Andy’s requests which often came at the very last minute. However, Mark Simon also regarded Andy as a man of high ability. 749.Around August and September 2019, Mark Simon suggested that Wayland and Andy rent an office in Capitol Hill in Washington for exhibition and lobbying. Mark Simon told Wayland that the reason why D1 was able to meet so many officials was mainly because of the payment made to consultancy companies. Mark Simon suggested that some lobbying work be done in the community and that Wayland invite some foreign officials to come to Hong Kong to make observation. 750.Around the end of August or September 2019, Wayland and Andy had a discussion as to whether advertisement campaigns should be continued to be conducted. They had this discussion because Mark Simon had said that placing advertisement in newspapers was not the best way to conduct publicity literature. Andy expressed the view that advertisement campaign was just like a firework in that the first time was really beautiful and glamorous. It would be alright for the second time. However, it would not have much meaning if continued. Andy asked whether more effort should be devoted to international lobbying work. However, the discussion did not lead to any conclusion. 751.In the meantime in mid-August 2019, Andy paid a visit to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (“OHCHR”) in Geneva and met Sebastien Gillioz who was in charge of the China desk within OHCHR. Andy said that the purpose of the visit was twofold: (1) to canvass the possibility of doing human rights lobbying within the OHCHR; and (2) to prepare for the summit that was to be held in September 2019. 752.Andy said that he was asked by a person in the TG group with the display name “Sheep” to pay the visit. “Sheep” was a staff member of an office in the UN. “Sheep” said that OHCHR had released a statement concerning Hong Kong, the gist of which was that they paid attention to the freedom and democracy of Hong Kong. That, according to “Sheep”, was very unusual because throughout the history only two statements had been released concerning Hong Kong. That means that at that time OHCHR was placing much emphasis on the situation of Hong Kong. “Sheep” said that there would be a meeting in Geneva by the Human Rights Council. It was suggested that Andy approach Sebastien Gillioz in advance. 753.Subsequently, Andy went with Shirley Ho and Adder to Geneva and met with Sebastien Gillioz. On that occasion, Andy used the name card of “Hong Kong Story Limited”[1004] which was a company set up by him. 754.According to Andy, on the invitation of SWHK, on 31 August 2019 Bob Seely MP of the UK visited Hong Kong to “observe demonstrations”.[1005] A person called Li Chung-chak, Wilson (“Wilson Li”) was responsible for most of the logistics. Before the arrival of the MP, Andy had been informed by the side of “Mutual Destruction Bro” through TG that the MP would like to come to Hong Kong to view demonstrations and it was hoped that someone from the Hong Kong side would receive him. 755.Eventually, when Bob Seely came, Andy attended a meal gathering with the MP at a Chinese restaurant in Causeway Bay. Also present were Wilson Li and others. Andy related to the MP what happened in Hong Kong. Andy understood that someone had brought Bob Seely to the scene of a demonstration where teargas was used. As regards the expenses of this visit by Bob Seely, a claim for reimbursement was made from the JD campaign, as it was connected with the UK. Andy’s meeting with Senator Rick Scott 756.We have already referred to the WhatsApp messages between D1 and Mark Simon about D1’s desire to have a “fact-finding” visit by US congressmen to Hong Kong and their messages about the arrangement for Senator Scott to have a “one-to-one” meeting with D1 on 29 September 2019. With this background in mind, we now turn to the evidence of the meeting of Andy with Rick Scott on the same day which was also arranged by Mark Simon. It is noted that by which time, D1 and Wayland had already met. 757.According to Wayland, he received a WhatsApp call from Mark Simon who asked if he was available to meet with “Rick Scott”. Wayland was told that Rick Scott was a US Senator who really would like to know about the situation in Hong Kong. At the time, because of the 721 incident and also the 831 incident, the entire atmosphere, as far as the anti-ELAB movement was concerned, was very tense. It happened that Wayland was not available as he was having a trip in Taiwan. Therefore, he asked if Mark Simon could think of someone else. Mark Simon then asked about Andy, whom he knew had experience in crowdfunding and had been to the UN. Mark Simon said that the meeting would also be a very good chance for Andy’s future international lobbying work. Since Andy did not take part in demonstrations in the frontline, Mark Simon suggested that it would be best if someone from the frontline could also attend. As a result, Wayland posted that request in the TG group and someone of the name “Cath” responded to it. 758.On 29 September 2019, Wayland set up a WhatsApp chat group called “Coffee on Sunday”[1006] and he, Mark Simon, Andy and “Cath” were members. By the arrangement of Mark Simon, Andy and Cath met with Senator Rick Scott later on the same day. At 14:51 hours, Mark Simon asked if they could be free for the meeting at 4:45 pm in the Mid-Levels. Andy said he could drive “Cath” over and he asked for the address. Wayland said that “Cath” was also available[1007]. At 15:08 hours, Mark Simon told the group that he was “adding Consul Alan Brinker & Mr Scott Sciretta to this conversation as they will get you to Senator.”[1008] Mark Simon went on to brief them on the background of Rick Scott, saying that the latter was the former governor of Florida and was just elected as senator and that he “has a future presidential candidate in 2024 and so is very interested in China and foreign policy”, that Scott “has pre-disposed towards human rights and is very open to suggestions”. Mark Simon also said, “What they want to talk to you about is the front line and what motivates the front line” and “What is it that upsets front line and how do you see the movement going forward”. Wayland replied that he thought “Cath” could talk more about this and said that “Cath is frontline people, Li is international propaganda people.”[1009] Mark Simon then added, “What would really impress him is if you talk about the go fund me ... shows support”[1010]. At 15:43 hours, Wayland replied[1011],
759.As we have previously noted, there is evidence that a meeting between D1 and Rick Scott was arranged at 2 pm on the same day which was before Scott’s meeting with Andy and “Cath”. Moreover, D1 was told by Mark Simon (at 15:22 hours) [1012]:
It is obvious that the “4:45” meeting that Mark Simon was talking about was the meeting that Rick Scott was going to have with Andy and “Cath”. 760.Andy said that although he had read the personal particulars of “Mark Simon” in “T” ’s emails to “GoFundMe.com”[1013], he did not attach importance to that name and he did not remember it. It was only when the “Coffee on Sunday” chat group was set up that he and Mark Simon got to know each other. As to why “T” wanted him to meet Rick Scott, Andy said that “T” was impressed by his international lobbying. This was because Andy had told “T” about his visit to OHCHR, that he was going to submit the information on Hong Kong through the special procedure and that a staff member within the OHCHR would prioritize this particular matter. Moreover, Andy had just returned from lobbying in France. “T” and Andy decided that Andy would gradually transition to do international lobbying. 761.Almost immediately after the aforesaid exchanges in “Coffee on Sunday”, in a private message between Wayland and Andy at 15:45 hours, Wayland informed Andy of the instruction from Mark Simon: “Brother, Mark said do not mention about backer and JD team.”[1014] Wayland said “backer” referred to persons who had made advancements to the global advertisement campaign, i.e., Mark Simon and D1. As regards the JD team, Wayland said that at that time their stance was the most radical in terms of ideology. On the international level, some people might equate Hong Kong independence with mutual destruction and no politicians would be willing to endorse that concept. Wayland’s understanding was that in order not to turn the conversation into an unpleasant one, the JD team or the idea of Hong Kong independence should not be mentioned[1015]. 762.In another WhatsApp chat group “HK Sunday meeting” created by Mark Simon (at 15:14 hours), members of which included Andy, Alan Brinker and Scott Sciretta, he introduced the latter two to the others and said that Alan Brinker was with the consulate and Scott Sciretta was on the Senator’s staff. He provided Andy with the address of the meeting which was on Magazine Gap Road[1016]. Andy and “Cath” subsequently arrived at the place of meeting as arranged. 763.At the meeting, Consul Alan Brinker and Scott Sciretta were also present. That was the first time that Andy met Mark Simon in person but he did not speak with the latter on this occasion. During the meeting “Cath” gave a description of the situation of the protest. Andy briefly described the crowdfunding campaigns. It was Andy’s hope that the US Government would do something. However, nothing specific was mentioned. In cross-examination, Andy agreed that, given the dynamic of the meeting, Senator Scott was there to learn. 764.After the meeting, Mark Simon reported in the chat group that, “Scott was impressed. Thanks AL. and thanks to Cathy.” To this, Wayland replied, “Great.”[1017] Later, in a private conversation Mark Simon told Wayland that Rick Scott was very impressed, but the crowdfunding part did not have much use. On the contrary, it seemed that networking like this would be even better. Wayland understood that Mark Simon was of the view that Wayland and Andy should get to know more people. Election Observation Mission (“EOM”) 765.There was a District Council Election held on 24 November 2019. We have already referred to the “Election Observation Mission Report” posted on SWHK’s webpage where it was said[1018]:
766.The “EOM” was about inviting international observers[1019] to come and observe the District Council Election. Its idea came from a discussion in TG group where it was said that Lord Alton (of UK) intended to come to Hong Kong to observe the District Council Election but he would like to have an invitation from a Hong Kong activist organisation. Andy was asked whether he had access to any such activist organisation in Hong Kong. Andy then agreed to send the invitation in the name of his company “Hong Kong Story”. The side of “Mutual Destruction Bro” and Whitehouse Consultancy then suggested extending the invitation to other people. Andy agreed to this and he enlisted the help of Wilson Li who had previously assisted in the visit of Bob Seely. 767.Concerning the use of “Hong Kong Story” as an inviting party of the EOM, we have already referred to the evidence that D1 was informed by Benedict Rogers that Lord Alton was coming to Hong Kong and on 17 December 2019 Benedict Rogers also informed D1 that the EOM was co-organised by “Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong” and “Hong Kong Story”[1020]. 768.In the meantime, Andy also discussed the matter with Wayland who also supported the idea. Wayland hoped that through this incident Andy could extend his network. Subsequently, Andy sent out the invitations and also received the “delegates” when they came to Hong Kong. As Andy did not have sufficient funds for the event, he asked Wayland to see if he could figure something out, for instance, advance payments from “his side” or some other ways. 769.Turning to Wayland’s evidence. He said that prior to the District Council Election there was a phone call from Andy who said that he was conducting an activity to monitor the election. Wayland’s help was sought as Andy was short of about HK$250,000 for the activity. Wayland then got in touch with Mark Simon. Mark Simon was interested and he asked for more details. Wayland asked Andy and suggested that Andy should contact Mark Simon directly, as the two of them had already met. However, Andy preferred that Wayland did the explaining to Mark Simon. Wayland gave Mark Simon the name list which he obtained from Andy of the parliamentarians who would be coming. About a week later, Mark Simon reverted. He observed that Lord Alton was coming, he said, “Okay, we were going to give a lot of support” and he asked for Andy’s bank account number. 770.Andy said that he advanced around HK$552,000 as part of the expenditure of EOM[1021] which he was later reimbursed from the funds raised in the “G Fry Campaign”. There was also a loan of HK$500,000 from Mark Simon through Wayland on 21 November 2019[1022]. Later, when Mark Simon returned the funds held on behalf of “G Fry” to “Project Hong Kong Trust”, he deducted the HK$500,000 which he had advanced to Andy. 771.One of the “delegates” was Luke de Pulford who apparently came with Lord Alton[1023]. Andy was shown his WhatsApp exchanges with Luke de Pulford both before and immediately after his arrival in Hong Kong.[1024] Andy said that either on the last day of the EOM or on the morning of the following day, there was a meeting among Lord Alton, Luke de Pulford, Martin Lee and Anson Chan at W Hotel[1025]. Andy also joined that meeting as the representative of the EOM and he talked with Lord Alton and Luke de Pulford. Martin Lee, Anson Chan and Andy talked about the situation of democracy in Hong Kong. Lord Alton and Luke de Pulford said that they would try to raise the concern in relation to this on the UK side. 772.Andy also said in his evidence that during the course of the EOM, Samuel Chu had come to Hong Kong. Andy had met with him and got his WhatsApp contacts. The role of Mark Simon 773.In December 2019, at the request of the people of SWHK and SWHK US (including Shirley Ho), Andy and others went on a trip to Washington in the US and met with the Republican Senator Rick Scott in Capitol Hill. During the trip, Andy also met with Todd Young, Ted Cruz and Marsha Blackburn. Samuel Chu[1026], whom Andy had met during the course of the EOM and whom Andy knew was a member of the HKDC, was involved in making the arrangement of the meetings with the congressmen and senators. 774.It transpired that Mark Simon was behind this US visit. According to Wayland, he received a call from Andy in December 2019 and was told that the latter was going to the US to meet with some prominent political figures. Andy told Wayland that SWHK and the side of Mutual Destruction Team were making referrals for him but he was concerned that he might end up meeting with no one. Therefore, Andy would like Wayland to ask the side of Mark Simon to see if any assistance could be given, as Andy realised that the relationship between Chu Muk-man (Samuel Chu), D1 and Mark Simon was particularly good. Wayland then contacted Mark Simon who asked for further information about the trip. After conferring with Andy, Wayland informed Mark Simon that Andy would like to meet with US officials and explain to them the situation of Hong Kong; to do international lobbying work; and to hand over a sanction list. Having heard what Wayland said, Mark Simon asked Wayland to tell Andy to rest assured that he would not end up meeting with no one. At least Andy would get to meet Rick Scott and Samuel Chu who would make arrangement. Mark Simon also asked Wayland to encourage Andy and to ask Andy to do some networking, as that would facilitate his future international lobbying work. Samuel Chu as staffer 775.On 11 December 2019, there was in SWHK’s webpage showing a photo of Katherine Cheng (a trustee of “Project Hong Kong Trust”), Sonia, Andy, Todd Young and Samuel Chu[1027]. The first paragraph of that webpage said, “Today is the first time everyday HongKongers told their stories at the Capitol Hill.” 776.Coming back to the evidence of Andy, he said that the purpose of this US visit was twofold: (1) to push forward things in the US that would support Hong Kong; and (2) to hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable by way of sanction. At the time, Samuel Chu briefed them before the meetings and acted as their staffer. During the meetings, Andy and others talked about the stories of protestors who were “victims” and they thanked the senators and congressmen for showing concern to the situation in Hong Kong. Andy and his company did not make any concrete requests of the other side, those were left to the staffers on both sides. Sanction Reports 777.Andy said that during the US trip, he and Shirley Ho once went to a stationery shop called Staples where Shirley printed out hard copies of a sanction report stored in a USB. Samuel Chu said that the sanction report should not be given to the congressmen and the senators yet and that it should not be mentioned in the meetings. Andy was shown a document seized from his home marked “Version 2 December 2019” and “Confidential” titled “Profiles of Hong Kong Repression Perpetrators of Human Rights and Democracy Abuse”, “For the United States of America”.[1028] The document bore the logos of IAD and SWHK. He identified it as one of the hard copies printed out at Staples in Washington. 778.On 16 December 2019, after Andy had returned from the US, he forwarded to Samuel Chu by TG[1029] a soft copy of what appeared to be an earlier version of the sanction report: “Version 1 November 2019” which was marked “Confidential”.[1030] In that report, the suggested targets were divided into four tiers:
The report said, among other things, that:
Andy told Samuel that the document should not go public. If there was a need to circulate the document to the congressmen and senators, then Samuel Chu would have to check with Andy’s side first. 779.He added that at the time before the US trip when the document was being compiled, the US Government was contemplating passing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (“HKHRDA”). The idea of sanction was discussed in the TG groups of SWHK and Andy was a party to that discussion. The aforesaid softcopy document was not prepared by him but by someone else of SWHK and he received it from a SWHK member called “Momomo”. In Andy’s mobile, there was a soft copy of yet another version of the sanction report marked “Version 2 December 2019” and “Confidential” but without the words “For the United States of America”.[1036] However, Andy was unable to remember when and in what circumstances he obtained that document. 780.On 21 December 2019, Andy sent to Samuel Chu a Facebook link of SWHK and informed that, “Document declassified. The sanction list is now public, at least the version here”[1037]. There was a picture of the cover of a sanction report marked “Version 3 December 2019”.[1038] It was said[1039]:
781.Andy was shown the sanction report (Version 3) which the Police had downloaded from the SWHK website. He said that he took no part in its compilation and he did not know if this sanction report (which contained a list of persons under the four aforesaid tiers) had in fact been sent to countries other than US and UK. As far as he knew, no one had attempted to remove the sanction report from the webpage of SWHK after it was uploaded. Mark Simon’s report to D1 782.It is pertinent to note that, on 5 January 2020, Mark Simon texted D1 and informed him that he had just returned from Washington the night before. It is pertinent to note that, when he was updating D1 as to what happened “from Hill meetings”, he also told D1[1040]:
Andy sharing sanction list with Wayland 783.Wayland said that after Andy had returned from the said US trip, in January or February 2020 (which would be after the Taipei meeting with D1 and Finn Lau), Andy shared with him what he had done over there. Andy sent Wayland a direct link to a sanction list for him to have a look. By which time, it had already been decided that Andy together with “Mutual Destruction Bro” would fight on the international front. As regards the sanction list, Wayland said that it looked similar to the one he was shown in Court, namely the document titled “Profiles of Hong Kong Repression, Perpetrators of Human Rights and Democracy Abuse”.[1041] Andy sharing sanction list with Luke de Pulford 784.As aforesaid, Andy first met Luke de Pulford in Hong Kong in November 2019 during the EOM. Subsequently, Andy had communication via TG with the latter between January 2020 and August 2020.[1042] 785.On 12 January 2020, Luke de Pulford added Andy to a Signal chat group named “Joey + Nat + Luke + Dimon + Andy”. [1043] 786.Luke de Pulford introduced everyone in the group identifying who they represented saying and identifying himself as the interfering foreigner.
787.On 19 January 2020, Luke de Pulford asked in that chat group[1045],
There is no reply from “Joey” and “Nat”. On the other hand, on 21 January 2020 Andy forwarded a Google Drive link to the sanction report that was posted on SWHK’s website and told Luke de Pulford that “the sanction list can be found here” and “it has already been published in public shortly before Christmas”[1046]. Video conference with “Mutual Destruction Bro” and “T” 788.According to Andy, in January 2020 he had a video conference with Wayland and “Mutual Destruction Bro” through a communication application called “Jitsi”. That was also the first time that Andy saw “Mutual Destruction Bro” and learnt that his name was Finn Lau. At the time, Wayland was physically with “Mutual Destruction Bro”. 789.According to Wayland, the video conference took place on 12 January 2020. That was after his meeting with D1 and “Mutual Destruction Bro” at D1’s residence in Taipei. When he and “Mutual Destruction Bro” were having the video conference with Andy, he and “Mutual Destruction Bro” were in his hotel room. The purpose was to relate to Andy the key points of their meeting with D1. As Andy was one of the leaders of SWHK, if “Mutual Destruction Bro” wanted the entire SWHK to follow D1’s thinking, he had to obtain the consent of Andy who knew about the Taiwan trip. 790.Andy said that in the meeting a consensus was reached among the three of them that “Mutual Destruction Bro” would continue to play the role as a spiritual leader or influencer; he would continue with his lobbying work in the international front; and Wayland would engage in groundwork locally in Hong Kong. 791.Similarly, Wayland said that the three of them agreed on uniting various sectors, international lobbying and pushing forward sanctions. They then discussed the division of work and the way to achieve “China implosion”. They talked about whether “Mutual Destruction Bro” would be working at the legislature front. It was decided that in any event he would act as a spiritual leader to strengthen SWHK and to promote “mutual destruction” the slogan of which was “If we burn, you burn with us”. That is to say that there would be prices to be paid if the Hong Kong Government refused to respond to citizens’ demands. As to what actually needed to be done, they hoped to push forward sanctions. Since Andy already had experiences visiting and meeting foreign officials, it was decided that he would engage in international lobbying work in order to push forward sanction legislation or economic blockade against the HKSAR Government and to expand his international network. As for Wayland, he would continue to liaise with the valiant camp, hoping that in case of street demonstrations, there would be a channel of dialogue. He would also contact political neophytes to see if they would take part in the legislature front. Wayland also said that he told D1 what had been discussed in the video conference. We shall come back to the Taipei meeting when we deal with Wayland’s evidence on his association and meetings with D1. 792.In December 2019, Andy went to Japan and met with two members of the National Diet of Japan, Inoue Satoshi and Yamazoe Taku, who were members of the Communist Party in Japan. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the Diet members of the situation in Hong Kong. Andy also brought along some used teargas casings for them to take a look. 793.In January 2020, Andy met with Takai Takashi (a member of National Diet of Japan) and his wife Hasegawa in Hong Kong. Afterwards, on 7 January 2020, Andy forwarded to Takai Takashi the links to two proposed bills on Human Rights and Democracy concerning the situation then in Hong Kong. Those proposed bills were prepared by a SWHK member “Katatsuki Hayashi” whose Chinese name was 「張亦澄」(pronounced as Cho Eki Cho).[1047] According to Cho Eki Cho, the drafts had also been copied to Shiori Yamao (another Diet member). Andy had neither read the two proposed bills, nor did he know whether the drafts had in fact been copied to Shiori Yamao as Cho Eki Cho asserted. Andy’s purpose of providing Takai Takashi with the documents was to link up the latter with Cho Eki Cho so that the two might have discussions. Andy hoped, however, that if the bills were found acceptable, they would be put forward before the Diet. Takai Takashi said that he would talk to Shiori Yamao and other like-minded members of the Diet straightaway.[1048] 794.In around late February 2020[1049], Andy and Cho Eki Cho met with Shiori Yamao in her office in Kokkai Gijido, Tokyo. Also present at the meeting was Kuramochi Rintaro (who assisted Shiori Yamao in legal matters) and “Village Head” (a Hongkonger). That was the first time that Andy met with Shiori Yamao. Originally, it was the intention of Andy’s side to present the draft bills of Cho Eki Cho to Shiori Yamao. However, Shiori Yamao had prepared her own version of a human rights and democracy bill. Although Shiori Yamao’s draft bill was not specifically targeted at Hong Kong, Andy understood that her bill could achieve a deterrent effect. At the conclusion of the meeting, Andy and his company considered that Shiori Yamao’s bill was even better than that of Cho Eki Cho. It was therefore agreed that the Japanese side and the Hong Kong side would all try and seek other Japanese MPs to approve the former. 795.However, during the Covid 19 pandemic, things came to a halt and Shiori Yamao was not able to present her bill to the National Diet of Japan yet. Then in mid-April 2020, Andy sent emails to Takai Takashi and his wife Hasegawa[1050]as well as Inoue Satoshi and Yamazoe Taku[1051], seeking their support of Shiori Yamao’s draft bill. At that time, there was a proposed visit by Chairman Xi Jinping to Japan as a state guest and a discussion within Japan about it. Therefore, Andy said in his emails that there was no freedom of speech and the press in China. 796.In the summer, “SWHK@JPN”, “Act with Hong Kong” and “Honkon No Yoake” together with a group of Japanese MPs held an event announcing that they were prepared to present Shiori Yamao’s bill. Agnes Chow also gave a video message in support. Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (“IPAC”) Luke de Pulford and the setting up of IPAC 797.Andy said that Luke de Pulford was involved in the setting up of IPAC which comprised a collection of different parliamentarians from various countries who were concerned about the issues of China. There were meetings on the trade dependence of various sectors on China, meetings about the NSL that had already been enacted and discussions within a sub-group among the parliamentarians concerning extradition treaties with Hong Kong and the Mainland. Before IPAC became public, Andy was approached by Luke de Pulford for assistance in the setting up of its website.[1052] Andy agreed to assist in his personal capacity.[1053] 798.Andy said that Luke de Pulford had also asked him to get in touch with the parliamentarians in Japan to see if any of them were to join IPAC. On 29 May 2020, Andy informed that Shiori Yamao was “on board” and that she would “revert with the best names to take the co-chair positons”[1054]. On 31 May 2020, Andy further informed that Gen Nakatani also agreed to join IPAC[1055] and asked, “for media, do you need support at HK side”. By this, Andy meant if media support was necessary for the launching of IPAC. Luke de Pulford replied[1056] ,
Andy understood that “Jimmy L” was D1. 799.On 5 June 2020, IPAC was officially launched. Mark Simon’s advice and SWHK joining Central Secretariat of IPAC 800.Sometime later, Andy informed “T” (Wayland) about it. During Andy’s discussion with Wayland, it was said that since Andy could have direct access to Luke de Pulford and IPAC, if he could further develop this connection, then the international lobbying would be much more efficient. Andy and Wayland agreed that the former should continue to provide assistance to IPAC. 801.Andy identified the TG records of his discussions with Luke de Pulford on his role and the interest of SWHK taking part in IPAC. On 6 June 2020, Andy wrote, among other things, the following[1057]:
Luke de Pulford agreed. He added[1058]:
802.According to Wayland, at the time, his advice was sought by Andy as to whether Andy should join IPAC in his personal capacity or in the capacity of SWHK. Wayland in turn asked Mark Simon. The latter strongly supported Andy joining IPAC. However, Mark Simon opined that if Andy joined in his personal capacity after the NSL, he would very likely be a target and that would be very dangerous for him. Therefore, he suggested that the entire SWHK join IPAC. Wayland relayed Mark Simon’s advice to Andy. 803.As it turned out, on 14 June 2020 SWHK announced that it had joined the Central Secretariat of IPAC.[1059] That move, Andy said, added one more direction to the international lobbying of SWHK, namely, reaching out to international parliamentarians. The “SWHK IPAC” chat group and the discussion about “Magnitsky” 804.On 21 June 2020, a TG group “SWHK IPAC” was set up by Andy (display name “RIP@?”), members of which consisted of Luke de Pulford and SWHK members including Shirley Ho (display name “surely deep dive Pls tag”), Finn Lau (display name “HK再離開一下”) and others[1060]. That was for the purpose of facilitating the discussion between SWHK members and Luke de Pulford on matters concerning IPAC. 805.In the first message of the “SWHK IPAC” chat group, Andy wrote[1061]:
Luke de Pulford asked, “what is the single most powerful thing which IPAC could do on HK?”[1062] and he thought that it would need to be sanctions related. As to this, Andy floated the following for discussion:
806.On 26 June 2020, there was a lengthy exchange in TG between Luke de Pulford and Andy. The former said, “The question now is how to punish, divide and conquer. And how to use the terrible things that will happen in HK over the next six months to kill the CCP.” And in that event, “HK will be collateral.”[1069] As to this, Andy replied, “this we know and we are very happy to play this role”[1070]. Andy explained in Court that by this, he meant “mutual destruction”. Luke de Pulford continued to say,
807.At the time, it was expected that NSL would come into effect and Luke de Pulford asked Andy to predict what would happen in Hong Kong. Andy answered that a large scale demonstration was unlikely to happen. Andy lamented,
“Dover” was a senior police officer involved in suppressing protests in Hong Kong. Luke de Pulford said, “The NSL is forcing the recalibration of the China relationship” and “We actually need more of this if we are going to take down the CCP.” As to this, Andy replied,
Luke de Pulford intending to take down CCP 808.What followed was a debate between Luke de Pulford and Andy as to what to do next. Luke was of the opinion that the change should first happen over there in China and it was only then that Hong Kong’s problem could be resolved. On the other hand, Andy was of the view that no matter if there were changes in China or otherwise, his focus was on Hong Kong itself. He said that if they advertise “how to take down CCP” and asked HKers to sacrifice themselves, this would fall on deaf ears.[1074] Luke de Pulford then said that[1075]:
809.Andy replied by saying that this was exactly what they had been trying to do and why sanctions have been on top of their wish lists, especially “targeted sanctions”.[1076] Andy explained in Court that by “targeted sanctions”, he meant some specific sanctions against individuals or entities, in contrast to some general sanctions against some territories, because the effect of “targeted sanctions” on civilians would be less. SWHK’s statement against the NSL 810.On 29 June 2020, Andy forwarded to Luke de Pulford a statement prepared by SWHK condemning the imposition of the NSL in Hong Kong. Among other things, the statement called on foreign countries to:
811.Andy asked Luke de Pulford to help gather signatories supporting that statement.[1077] The English and Cantonese version of the statement had already been posted on the website “Anti-NSL” which was created by Andy before the enactment of the NSL.[1078] The statement was endorsed by a number of Hong Kong district councillors and some members of the House of Representatives (including Shiori Yamao) of Japan. After the promulgation of the NSL, Andy continued to update the list of signatories. The final list included people like Leung Chung Hang Sixtus, Benedict Rogers and a number of members of the House of Commons of Canada. 812.Close to midnight between 30 June and 1 July 2020, having read the NSL, Andy told Luke de Pulford by Signal that the NSL was “as bad as feared, only that there’s no capital punishment” [1079]. Luke de Pulford asked for a short analysis of the law. Andy said, “it’s worse than we thought” and “you have committed a crime according to the text :)”.[1080] In cross-examination, Andy was asked why the word “you” in that message was in italics, Andy explained that it was to emphasize that even though Luke de Pulford was not a Hong Kong citizen, nor was he within the geographical jurisdiction of Hong Kong, according to his understanding, he would still be caught by the NSL and its provisions were wide enough to cover what Luke de Pulford was then doing. Suspension of Extradition Agreements 813.On 2 July 2020, Andy texted Luke de Pulford by TG and asked,
Andy went on to provide a list of countries that had mutual legal assistance treaties with Hong Kong[1081] and he noted that for those countries which had their parliamentarians in IPAC, all of them had mutual legal assistance treaties with Hong Kong, except Lithuania and Norway.[1082] Luke de Pulford replied that he had been working on this.[1083] In cross-examination, Andy was asked if he had formed any view as to whether it would be illegal to lobby. He answered that he was reckless as to whether or not it would be illegal. He was asking Luke de Pulford, because of the “global jurisdiction” provided for in Article 38 of the NSL, whether there should be a review of the mutual legal assistance or fugitive surrender arrangements in order to avoid political prosecutions of the citizens of those countries. 814.On the following day, an IPAC subgroup was formed to discuss the extradition agreements with Hong Kong or China. Andy also sat in that meeting which was chaired by Iain Duncan Smith.[1084] It was decided that the parliamentarians would respectively go back and follow up on the matter. 815.On 4 July 2020, Luke de Pulford informed Andy that Canada had revoked its extradition treaty with the HKSAR[1085]. He also sent Andy a Twitter link about the news of the meeting of 16 IPAC co-chairs (including Garnett Genuis and Irwin Cotler)[1086] and asked Andy to tell SWHK to retweet it.[1087] In fact, SWHK had already covered in its website the news about Canada suspending its extradition treaty with Hong Kong and treating export of sensitive goods to Hong Kong in the same way as those destined for China.[1088] 816.From the time Andy became the website builder of IPAC until the time he was arrested, he was the only person who could update the website. He would receive information for such updating from the emails of Luke de Pulford, Sam Armstrong or Andrew Lawrence. The latter two were members of the Central Secretariat of IPAC. Andy identified the following statements made after the enactment of the NSL which he, at the request of Andrew Lawrence, posted in the website of IPAC:
817.On 19 July 2020, Luke de Pulford posted a Twitter link in the “SWHK IPAC” chat group[1091]. The Twitter post[1092] read,
818.The Twitter post was attached with a report by Gabriel Pogrund in Sunday Times saying that “Ministers are preparing to suspend an extradition treaty with Hong Kong after Beijing imposed a new security law to quiet pro-democracy campaigners” and “Tomorrow Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, will signal the government has concerns about the Hong Kong extradition treaty, which Beijing could use to try to silence dissent around the world.”[1094] Statement condemning disqualification of LegCo candidates and adjournment of LegCo election 819.On 30 July 2020, after discussing with Luke de Pulford in the TG chat group “SWHK IPAC”[1095], Andy posted a statement on IPAC website condemning: (1) the decision of the HKSAR Government to disqualify certain candidates from the camp of the democrats; and (2) the anticipated delay of the LegCo election in September.[1096] Andy also helped in translating the statement into Japanese for Shiori Yamao so that she could do what she wanted with it in JPAC[1097]. Meanwhile, Luke de Pulford also asked members of the chat group to share the Twitter link of an open letter by Iain Duncan Smith MP written on behalf of IPAC UK membership to the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab seeking sanctions against the alleged obstruction of democratic process in Hong Kong[1098]. 820.On 31 July 2020, Andy shared the link to the “Foreign Secretary’s statement on Hong Kong election disqualifications”[1099]. This was noted by Luke de Pulford who lamented that it was “Too little. Too late.” Another member in the chat group “Richard Deckard” responded, “Fate was sealed quite a while ago. The difference I guess is whether we can get sth out of it like destroying ccp once and for all.” Another member “surely deep dive Pls tag” (Shirley Ho) expressed total agreement. “T C” also agreed, “so it’s all abt external sanctions now.” Seeking to weaken ties with China 821.On 4 August 2020[1100], Luke de Pulford shared in the “SWHK IPAC” chat group the link to another statement of IPAC. That was about an IPAC co-chair meeting held on 3 August 2020 with Senator Kimberley Kitching and Andrew Hastie MP from Australia as the convenors.[1101] The statement said,
Interfering with affairs of Hong Kong 822.Andy had attended that meeting as an observer and he confirmed that “Nathan Law” was Law Kwun-chung and “Ray Wong” was Wong Toi-yeung. At that meeting, Ray Wong and Nathan Law briefed the attendees on the situation in Hong Kong after the enactment of the NSL. Following that, there was a discussion on potential avenues for future action which included,
In the minutes of that meeting, it was recorded that[1103]:
In the “AOB”, it was recorded, among other things, that:
Japanese Parliamentary Alliance on China (“JPAC”) Launching of JPAC 823.On 19 July 2020, Andy informed in the “SWHK IPAC” chat group[1105] that on 19 June 2020 Gen Nakatani and Shiori Yamao had officially announced Japan’s “satellite IPAC”. The group was called “JPAC”, which was a non-partisan union of Japanese MPs. Andy explained in Court that the purpose of setting up “JPAC” was for Japanese MPs to come together to discuss China policies. 824.In a separate message on 22 July 2020, Andy told Luke de Pulford that JPAC would hold an official press meeting to announce its establishment on 29 July 2020[1106]. Andy also informed the chat group that at the launch of JPAC, some activists in Japan (who were not themselves MPs) would make speeches calling for: (1) lifeboat policy; (2) Magnitsky; (3) suspension of Japan-HK mutual legal assistance treaty; (4) prevention of Japanese businesses/organisations from providing assistance to HK Government. 825.On 29 July 2020, Andy announced the official launch of JPAC in the “SWHK IPAC” chat group and provided a list of nine members, all of them (including Shiori Yamao and Gen Nakatani) were Japanese parliamentarians[1107]. Andy said that “Shiori’s office doesn’t have enough English-speaking staff capacity to handle English materials; we [HKer volunteers] are her de facto English staffers for now”.[1108] Andy attached JPAC’s Articles which explicitly said that JPAC was established in order to work closely with IPAC[1109]. Linking “Bill Browder” and Shiori Yamao 826.According to Andy, in fact back in early July 2020 Luke de Pulford had tried to connect Shiori Yamao with a person named “Bill Browder” to discuss Magnitsky legislation. However, there had been no answer from Shiori Yamao until 27 July 2020 when she agreed to get in touch[1110]. 827.On 3 August 2020, Luke de Pulford informed in the “SWHK IPAC” chat group[1111] that he wanted to link up “Bill Browder” with Shiori Yamao, saying that the former wanted to help the latter on “the Magnitsky stuff”. Luke de Pulford described “Bill Browder” as a “dynamo” who also had “a huge amount of money”. On the following day, Luke de Pulford set up a Signal chat group called “Magnitsky Japan” consisting of himself, Andy and “Bill” or “BB”.[1112] After Andy had a video meeting with “Bill Browder” using “Jitsi”, he informed in the chat group that an in-person meeting with Shiori Yamao would be arranged to update her on the support that Luke de Pulford and “Bill” could offer and he expected that they would have to work out a strategy with her and other legislators regarding the strategy, tone, and timing to push the Magnitsky-like act.[1113] Subsequently, Andy helped in arranging a “Jitsi” meeting between Shiori Yamao and “Bill Browder” scheduled for 12 August 2020.[1114] Andy’s decision to continue in spite of the NSL 828.After the promulgation of the NSL, Andy and Wayland still maintained their contact with each other. 829.On 23 July 2020, there was a series of exchanges by Signal between Andy and “T”. Wayland wrote[1115],
When Wayland was asked about the aforesaid message, he clarified that the word “mean” should be added to the last sentence after “does not”. Wayland said that he brought up the matter with Andy as there were still many members of SWHK overseas calling for sanction and he believed that what they were doing then had the risk of violating the NSL. He disagreed that he thought at the time that there was a difference between what local Hong Kong people and people overseas might be able to do respectively. When asked whether it was his intention to deliberately take action he knew to be in breach of the NSL, Wayland answered that it depended on who were beside him. If some people he knew, for example, Andy and D1, were still working hard for the sake of Hong Kong, he thought that eventually he would also engage in it. He said that when he texted Andy, he was of the view that they should continue to push forward sanction. This was because people of the standing like D1 was fearless and even set himself as an example. Therefore, Wayland thought that something should be done. However, Wayland was still contemplating at the time to what extent things should be done. 830.Returning to the Signal exchanges, according to the evidence of both Andy and Wayland, Andy informed “T” that SWHK was considering sending him to work under Sharon Hom (in US) in an NGO (through the introduction of Shirley Ho) for two years. The other option was to assist Luke de Pulford in IPAC and to push forward sanction. Andy was not sure about that and he sought “T” ’s advice[1116]. Wayland thought for a while and then told Andy that he should help Luke de Pulford, as previously both D1 and Mark Simon had said that IPAC was very important and that international lobbying work should be continued. Wayland believed that Andy eventually took his advice, as he did not go to the United States. Wayland also said that he had spoken to Mark Simon about Andy who “was being very stubborn, would like to stay in Hong Kong.” In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland that he had not mentioned in any of his video-recorded interviews that he had the aforesaid talk with Mark Simon about the situation of Andy[1117]. Wayland said that he had not been specifically asked by the police about this conversation with Mark Simon which was before Andy’s arrest. 831.Andy told Wayland that there was a need to weaken Hong Kong and China. On the other hand, there was a need to gain support from outside. However, after that, there would be a power vacuum and someone would have to go up there as well[1118]. They went on to discuss who would be the suitable candidates to come out to provide impetus to the social movement at the time. A number of activists were mentioned but none of them seemed to be available or willing[1119]. Andy suggested, “At least one front person is needed to leave Hong Kong (and) set up a government elsewhere”[1120]. In cross-examination, Andy was asked whether his understanding of the impact of the NSL developed by the time of his aforesaid Signal conversation with “T”. Andy answered that by that time he suspected that he had already been targeted by Beijing as a political enemy. Andy reckoned that even if he did not continue with the advocacy, he would still be arrested. Therefore, he decided that he should continue what he had been doing. Andy agreed that the idea of forming a “government-in-exile” was never something that SWHK published on its website. 832.On 3 August 2020, Wayland messaged Andy by Signal and asked whether Andy could help with liaising with Alan Brinker, so that he (Wayland) could have a chat with him[1121]. Alan Brinker was a staff member of the US Consulate General in Hong Kong whom Andy had met at the meeting with Rick Scott. Wayland told Andy that the purpose was not to provide information but to pump information from Alan Brinker[1122]. Wayland explained that at that time within SWHK there were voices that Andy should leave Hong Kong. Wayland hoped that he could succeed in the connections that Andy had in Hong Kong. This was because D1 had told them about the need to know the thoughts of foreign governments and to establish connections with people “beneath the table”. Wayland believed that Alan Brinker was such a person and therefore first-hand information from him would be very important to them. Secondly, at that time everyone would like to know, as far as the US side was concerned, whether they had any opinions about the recent disqualifications of certain candidates from the 2020 LegCo election. 833.On 10 August 2020, there was a series of Signal exchanges between Andy and Wayland. They talked about the news of D1’s arrest on that day. Andy told him that someone (whom Wayland gathered was “Madison”) had asked whether the holder of the account “il_k” (used by Wayland in the TG group) should be kicked out of the group, as that account holder appeared to be closely connected with D1[1123]. (It was Wayland’s evidence that he managed to be added to the TG group of the SWHK US front with the agreement and support of Mark Simon and D1) Andy noted that, “… every time someone gets into trouble(,) someone will ask me and you to consider leaving.” In reply, Wayland told Andy that as a leader, he had to be the last one standing and he asked rhetorically, if he left, who would lead the team[1124]. On the other hand, Wayland urged Andy to leave, as “we can’t afford one more loss in international line.”[1125] Wayland explained that by “we” here, he included the international front that was being fought by SWHK all along, D1 and Mark Simon. In this regard, Wayland mentioned in Court that he had discussed the situation of Andy with the following persons:
Wayland said that he intended to take up Andy’s position in Hong Kong after Andy’s departure. 834.Returning to the aforesaid Signal exchange, Wayland told Andy that, “Some businessmen and politician are cutting ties with Jim”[1126]. This, Wayland said, he was told by Mark Simon, with whom Wayland communicated at least once a week after the promulgation of the NSL through Signal calls. At that time D1 had been arrested. A lot of people who previously said would support him cut ties with him. Mark Simon said that it was very tough at the time. Wayland considered D1’s arrest dealt a heavy blow to the international front of SWHK. Without D1’s political connections, it would be difficult to obtain any further internal information of the US Government and to maintain the unity of the international front in the future. 835.Shortly after the aforesaid Signal exchanges on 10 August 2020, Andy was arrested by the Police. Two days later, he was released on bail on 12 August 2020. 836.On 10 August 2020 which was the date of D1’s arrest, Andy messaged “T” (Wayland) and said that a member (Madison) asked whether there is a need to kick “T” out of TG, “since Fat Guy Lai into trouble.” That, Andy said was because someone discovered that the account name “il_k” (i.e. Wayland) was too well connected and it was guessed that it belonged to one of “Fat Guy Lai’s sons”. Andy understood that “Fat Guy Lai” was a reference to D1. Wayland told Andy that he was not D1’s son and he went on to say, “As a leader, I have to be the last one standing.” “T” asked, rhetorically, that if he left, who would lead the team(s)[1127]. 837.Andy agreed that he was arrested on 10 August 2020 and released on bail on 12 August 2020. 838.Andy said that after his release on police bail on 12 August 2020, “T” said that he would make arrangement for Andy to leave Hong Kong. On 18 August 2020, Andy got a message asking him to go to Lohas Park in Tseung Kwan O. Later, Andy was provided with the contact details of a man named “Kyle” who was the landlord of a safe house where Andy was subsequently taken to from Lohas Park. 839.On 23 August 2020, Andy was asked by someone to go down to a pier in Po Toi O and he was given the details of a ship owner. Andy was told that upon his arrival in Taiwan, he should surrender to local authorities and that his personal information had been sent to Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council. He was also told that if he could make it in time, then there would be a Czechia delegation visiting Taiwan at the time, and he could get on the plane together with them and leave and find a way to go to London. As it turned out, Andy’s attempt to flee failed and he was arrested by public security officers in the Mainland’s waters for crossing the Mainland border illegally. Other documents found in Andy’s computer 840.Andy was also asked about the following documents which the Police found in his computer. The first two of them, Andy said, were provided to him by someone from SWHK. “APPG inquiry report” 841.The first one was the Chinese[1128] and the English versions[1129] of a press release of “All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong” (“APPG”) dated 4 August 2020 with the caption: “APPG inquiry report reveals Hong Kong tolerated the abuse of humanitarian and medical workers”. The first paragraph of that documents said,
It was recommended, among other things, that:
At the last paragraph, it said,
In the Editor’s Notes, there was a reference to “Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong” and it said that “The work of the Whitehouse Consultancy for the APPG on Hong Kong is funded by Fight for Freedom Stand with Hong Kong.”[1130] In the Chinese version, the Chinese name for “Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong” was 「攬炒團隊」. However, Andy said that he was not involved in the said inquiry by APPG and he did not know if there was in fact such an inquiry. SWHK’s press release 842.The second document was the Chinese[1131] and the English[1132] versions of a press release of SWHK also dated 4 August 2020. It referred to the aforesaid APPG press release. In the last paragraph, it said, “We further support the APPG’s call for Magnitsky-style sanctions against those responsible for the excessive police violence and a more discerning BNO immigration process for those responsible for and complicit in human rights violations in Hong Kong.”[1133] Andy said that this SWHK press release had been put on the internet. “Investigation Report of Potential Sanction Targets for Hong Kong Human Right Democracy Act, Phase 1 – The Gang of Thirty” [1134] 843.This third document was said to have been prepared by the “HK Sanction Initiative and an online author ‘The Writer’”. Andy said he could not remember when, how and from whom he got this document. He said also that after he had got the document, he did not do anything with it. Cross-examination about Mark Simon 844.In cross-examination, Andy agreed that he had never met or spoken with D1 either before or after the enactment of the NSL. He also agreed that he might have been copied in on emails with Mark Simon, but he did not have any direct email communication with the latter. He was also in two WhatsApp chat groups of which Mark Simon was also a member, namely “Coffee on Sunday”[1135] (concerning the meeting with Rick Scott) and “HK Sunday meeting” [1136] (which was also about that meeting). He had no contact with Mark Simon at all after 1 July 2020. In neither of those communications had he talked with Mark Simon about imposition of sanctions, blockade, ceasing mutual assistance or anything of that kind in the messages. At the meeting with Rick Scott, no one (including Andy) made any specific request for any particular action from the United States. During the meeting, Mark Simon did not talk much. 845.Andy also agreed with counsel that during the period from 1 June 2019 to 30 June 2020, there was never any consensus within SWHK that he should go and do anything illegal on behalf of that organization. During that period, he did not agree with anyone that he would go and do anything illegal. Chapter 20 – D1’s association with Wayland 846.We have already referred to Wayland’s evidence as to how he first got in touch with D1’s assistant Mark Simon and subsequently also with D1 himself. According to Wayland, he met Mark Simon personally on the following occasions:
847.Moreover, based on the WhatsApp messages between Wayland and D1 and other objective evidence (which we will come to shortly), there can be little dispute that Wayland personally met with D1 on the following six occasions:
The dispute is about the contents of their conversation in those meetings. 848.Apart from the aforesaid meetings, Wayland also communicated with D1 and Mark Simon through WhatsApp which he was asked about in his evidence. In order to present a whole picture of Wayland’s association with D1 and Mark Simon, we will deal with this part of Wayland’s evidence in a chronological order insofar it is convenient to do so. However, some repetitions of what we have already covered in other chapters may be unavoidable. 849.We have already covered Wayland’s evidence as to how he first got in touch with Mark Simon through the introduction of Martin Lee during the G20 newspapers advertisement/crowdfunding campaign in late June 2019. 850.Afterwards, in July 2019 at a café in Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Central, Wayland met with Mark Simon who took his son along with him. Mark Simon introduced himself as D1’s assistant, saying that he basically would carry out his boss’ orders. Mark Simon commended highly the G20 international advertising campaign, saying that he and D1 were very satisfied with its result and effect. He went on to talk about the future direction of the publicity literature campaign, saying that it should be a continuation of the effect of the G20 advertising campaign. He gave the example of holding exhibitions and said that not everyone would read newspapers. He said that if Wayland could work more in this area, this would be in line with their political ideology and they were willing to provide financial assistance as well as human connection and media assistance. Mark Simon did not explain in detail what he meant by political ideology but he emphasised the term “democracy” several times. 851.Mark Simon asked Wayland whether he would continue to take part in publicity literature work and Mark Simon talked about local publicity literature work as well as international lobbying. At that time, Wayland did not know much about lobbying and therefore he told Mark Simon that he would try and take part in newspaper exhibitions. Wayland was then given a brown envelope containing some invoices and receipts relating to one Canadian account, one Hong Kong account, and one Taiwanese account respectively. 852.Wayland was also asked by Mark Simon what he would like to do in future. He answered that he and one of his friends would like to do business. Mark Simon then asked if he had encountered any difficulties. Wayland said that it was very difficult to set up a bank account of an offshore company in Hong Kong. Mark Simon then replied, “It would not be very difficult. In fact, I can help you out. You can consider it to be a reward to yourself.” 853.In cross-examination, Wayland was shown Mark Simon’s immigration movement records which showed that the latter was out of Hong Kong until 24 July 2019. Wayland agreed that his aforesaid meeting with Mark Simon would be sometime after that date. Martin Lee mentioning Wayland to D1 854.There is some objective evidence that prior to D1’s first meeting with Wayland, he had already been told something about the latter and his source of information was Mark Simon. This evidence comes from the WhatsApp records of the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” chat group. The details are as follows. 855.On 23 September 2019, whilst discussing D1’s and Martin Lee’s upcoming US trip, Mark Simon asked[1137],
To this, Martin Lee suggested “What about Anson and “Wayland”[1138]. D1 asked who “Wayland” was. Martin Lee replied that “Mark” knew well”[1139]. Mark Simon then added:
D1 sponsoring Wayland’s exhibition of newspaper cuttings 856.In around the end of July 2019, Mark Simon texted Wayland and said that both he and D1 wanted to hold exhibitions of newspaper cuttings. Mark Simon asked Wayland to find the 20 newspapers for him relating to the G20 campaign and he mentioned Germany, New York and Taipei. Mark Simon said that they were willing to provide sponsorship. After that, Wayland went on to hold such an exhibition and he was assisted by some online friends and Andy. On 2 August 2019, Wayland got a reimbursement of HK$30,000 from Mark Simon.[1142] 857.In August, September and October 2019, Wayland held a number of street booths in Tai Po, Central, Tai Wai and Sham Tseng. In the beginning, the booths displayed the G20 newspapers. Gradually, more publicity literature relating to the anti-ELAB movement was displayed and reimbursement of the expenses was obtained from Mark Simon. Wayland was shown a personal cheque in his favour signed by D1 in the amount of HK$144,100 dated 9 October 2019[1143]. Wayland said that the cheque was received around 11 October 2019 and that was to reimburse him for the aforesaid exhibitions and street booths. 858.Sometime after Wayland’s first meeting with Mark Simon, Wayland was asked by Martin Lee to have lunch with D1 at a Japanese restaurant in Sheung Wan. That Japanese restaurant, Wayland was told, was run by the younger brother of Albert Ho Chun-yan. 859.Whilst Wayland in his evidence-in-chief put the date of his first meeting with D1 in July 2019 and disagreed in cross-examination that the meeting in fact took place on 18 October 2019, his evidence on this point is apparently incorrect. In this regard, we have already noted D1’s WhatsApp message on 23 September 2019 in the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” chat group which showed that D1 was not aware of who “Wayland” was at the time. Besides, Wayland only started to have WhatsApp communication with D1 on 18 October 2019[1144] and his very first messages to D1 were:
On the other hand, D1’s reply message to Wayland was[1145]:
Judging from the above exchanges, it does not look like that the two of them had met long before. 860.On the other hand, there is objective and cogent evidence which supports D1’s evidence that the first meeting took place on 18 October 2019:
In view of the totality of the evidence above, we are satisfied and we find that the first meeting in fact took place on 18 October 2019. Thus we are of the view that Wayland had mistakenly recalled the date. 861.According to Wayland, upon his arrival at the restaurant, his mobile was taken away from him, as D1 said that for security reason all mobiles had to be taken out. In cross-examination, he disagreed that it was Martin Lee who requested that phones be taken away. 862.Wayland said that whilst he was about to introduce himself, he was stopped by D1 who said there was no need for the introduction, as Mark Simon had already told him about Wayland and had roughly checked his background. Pausing here, we have already noted above the evidence that D1 had some knowledge of Wayland prior to this meeting. 863.According to Wayland, D1 told him that if Wayland needed to contact him, he could do so via Mark Simon and the latter would try his best to assist and satisfy his request. D1 also said that Mark Simon had daily contact with him and would report to him. In cross-examination, Wayland disagreed with the defence proposition that D1 had not said those things about Mark Simon. 864.Wayland said that D1 went on to ask if Wayland could contact any leader of the valiant camp (「勇武派」). That was because the valiant camp had made a scene which was “not pretty” and that, D1 said, would cost the anti-ELAB movement international support, especially support from the United States. D1 suggested a “purification scheme”, i.e., to obtain the contacts of the leaders of the valiant camp; to have a dialogue with them; and to ask them to restrain themselves. D1 said that things that could not be done by young people could be achieved by making use of his media power. D1 believed that valiant demonstrators would listen to and obey a small group of leaders (「大台」) and that was why D1 wanted to see if Wayland could get in touch with them. Wayland replied that he would try. Later on when Wayland met D1 for the third time, however, he told D1 that he was unable to do that. 865.In cross-examination, Wayland disagreed that he had been told by Martin Lee at the first meeting that Wayland was invited because he felt that Wayland was not seeking mutual destruction or Hong Kong independence. He agreed that at the luncheon meeting D1 wanted to understand if Wayland was somebody who was rational or violent. However, he disagreed that if he were a violent person D1 would not want to deal with him, whereas if Wayland were rational, he might. Wayland could not remember whether Martin Lee told D1 on that occasion that he (Wayland) was “peaceful, rational and non-violent” (「和理非」). He agreed, however, that when he assured D1 that he was not one of the violent protestors and that he was rational. D1 responded, “Mm, that’s good.” 866.Wayland agreed that D1 went on to say that protests needed to be peaceful and non-violent to ensure the support of the international community. D1 also said that he wanted to calm the valiant down because their actions were jeopardising the support of the international community. Wayland agreed that D1 did say that he wanted to use his press media power to implement a clearance plan, letting the protestors calm down and be controlled. That was what D1 called “to purify”. He also said to Wayland that he thought that attacking the police and destroying public property were counterproductive and that those who advocated for independence were undermining the pro-democracy movement. D1 asked Wayland to pass these two points on to the leaders of the valiant camp as Wayland was in touch with those leaders. 867.Wayland disagreed that he was a leader or a member of the valiant camp. 868.In November 2019, an incident took place on a footbridge in Ma On Shan where a supporter of the government was set on fire by a black-clad person. On 12 November 2019, D1 texted Wayland and said[1150],
Wayland understood D1 to mean that he (D1) wanted to be the leader of or to play a domineering role in the valiant camp. Similar to their first meeting in Sheung Wan, D1 wanted to share his opinion that peaceful, rational and non-violent protesting means should be adopted as the major way of protest. 869.In the following afternoon, i.e., 13 November 2019, D1 texted Mark Simon and said that he was seeing a few people that night to urge them to form a young protestor leadership. This leadership, D1 said, would have the support of the pan-democrats, who will be part of the leadership group to open negotiation with the government[1151]. That night, Wayland met D1 at the latter’s residence for a meal gathering as arranged. Also present were Lam Cheuk-ting, Lee Wing-tat and Lee Cheuk-yan. It was originally intended that Martin Lee might also join but he was unable to make it.[1152] 870.During the gathering, D1 expressed his views on the anti-ELAB movement at the time and he seriously criticised the aforesaid Ma On Shan incident. He asked Wayland if he was acquainted with that person. Wayland said that he was not. D1 said that he was of the view that the valiant camp lacked organisation and propriety and that they were getting more and more violent. D1 said that if any casualty was caused as a result, then the entire movement would lose its moral high ground to fight against the Hong Kong Government. As a result, it would also lose the support of the international community. D1 remarked, “Yellow and blue are political views. Black and white are conscience” and that “there are some baselines that have to be defended”. D1 requested Wayland once again to get in touch with leaders of the valiant camp, and try to persuade them to engage in a dialogue and to exercise more restraint. D1 repeated that the approach adopted by peaceful, rational and non-violent people should be the major means. On this occasion, D1 made it even clearer that he hoped that Wayland would pass this message to other young people. D1 went on to say that things that could not be done by young people, he could have done through the power of the media. He was of the view that the pan-democrats had sufficient local resources and the international status to fight for a response from the Hong Kong Government. 871.In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland that at that meeting:
Wayland disagreed with all these propositions. On the other hand, when Wayland was asked whether it was his recollection that D1 wanted to be the leader of the valiant, the people out there smashing things, setting things on fire, he answered “no”. In re-examination, Wayland corrected himself by saying that what he meant was that D1 wanted to set up a “big stage” (i.e., a leadership group) that spanned across the “peaceful, rational and non-violent” camp and the valiant camp. That leadership group would in effect dominate the entire anti-ELAB movement and D1 would like to dominate that leadership group. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (“HKHRDA”) 872.On 15 November 2019, D1 shared with Wayland a link to the tweets of “HKDC” in which reference was made to “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”[1153]. As far as Wayland knew, “HKDC” was an organisation of Chinese people in the United States and Chu Muk-man was the only registered lobbyist. D1 informed Wayland that[1154]:
873.Wayland believed that D1 sent him this message in order to prove that the power of the international community was very important and that US had not ignored what was going on in Hong Kong. In this regard, we have already noted the discussion in the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” chat group on 28 November 2019[1155] which shows D1’s understanding that US was using Hong Kong as a leverage on China in the trade deal and his view that the legislation would add to the “wherewithal” for the resistance movement then in Hong Kong[1156]. We have also noted D1’s message to Benedict Rogers saying that the passing of HKHRDA was “good news”[1157]. The riots at CUHK and Poly University 874.On 16 November 2019, D1 messaged Wayland and asked who the black-clad people were and who were occupying the campus of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.[1158] Wayland told D1 that they belonged to different groups led by teams such as “Dragon Slaying (Brigade)” and “Black Bloc” which formed an undisciplined gang of people.[1159] 875.On 17 November 2019, Wayland messaged D1 and asked him to pay extra attention to various valiant teams. He added that[1160]:
Wayland said that he sent this message to D1 because it had been D1’s hope to get in touch with the valiant teams. Wayland was unable to get in touch with those people but he thought that the persons interviewed by Apple Daily may be able to help D1. 876.On 19 November 2019 and 20 November 2019, there was a series of WhatsApp exchanges between D1 and Wayland about the riot which occurred at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the police encircling the scene and arresting some of the rioters. D1 said[1161],
In relation to the above, Wayland said that at a later stage[1162] D1 told him about the views of the US Government[1163], it was only then that he came to realise that all along D1 did not simply wish to fight for international support. The fact was he was already aware of certain requirements of the US Government and he was trying his best to meet these requirements. 877.Concerning D1’s mentioning of a “main stage”, as we have already noted, he reiterated the idea of having a “leadership group” on 25 November 2019 in the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” chat group[1164] after the results of the District Council Election were known. 878.We note that when D1 was asked about the aforesaid “Dragon Slayers” interview in Apple Daily, at first he denied having read it. After he was shown his WhatsApp exchanges with Wayland on this subject on 19 November 2019[1165], he then said “don’t remember”. The 2019 District Council Election 879.On 20 November 2019, D1 messaged Wayland and said that “Senate Unanimously Approves Measure Backing Hong Kong Protesters”. Wayland thought that D1 wanted to tell him that the US was working, Wayland informed D1 that he had (at D1’s request) already called on everyone in the TG group not to cause any trouble before the 24 November 2019 (the day of the District Council Election)[1166]. D1 said,
This, Wayland said, was a reference to a leadership group spanning across the valiant camp and the “peaceful, rational and non-violent” camp. 880.We have already mentioned the evidence about Mark Simon’s involvement in the EOM and also the evidence on the meeting of D1 and Lord Alton during that time which we are not going to repeat here. 881.As the matter turned out, the District Council Election resulted in a landslide victory of the “pro-democrats”. On 25 November 2019, D1 messaged Wayland and said, “What a wonderful day! It’s time we should think about the next step”[1168]. D1 said,
Wayland said D1 hoped that Wayland would be in this leadership group and that Wayland would be able to find a number of people walking on the same path to talk to D1. 882.Two days after the District Council Election, Wayland had his third meeting with D1. Wayland was shown and he identified some WhatsApp exchanges between him and D1 on 27 November 2019 which he said pertained to that meeting[1170]. 883.According to Wayland, he was picked up by D1’s car and driven to an alleyway near Supreme Court Road in Admiralty. There, the driver Brother Chiu got off, leaving him and D1 inside the vehicle. Wayland handed over his mobile phone, the two of them began to chat. Wayland told D1 that he was unable to get in touch with the leaders of the valiant camp. He also told D1 that he had chatted with the TG users who claimed to be acquainted with the leaders of the valiant camp and conveyed to them D1’s idea about having a “big stage”. Yet, those TG users did not believe that Wayland was acting for D1. Having heard what Wayland said, D1 replied that it did not matter as he had basically got hold of the information as well as the direction of the valiant camp. 884.In cross-examination, it was put that D1 did not say such things. Wayland disagreed. He also disagreed that D1 told him that he had wanted to meet him for a chat because he (D1) was still trying to contact the leader of the valiant camp. In this connection, we have already referred to the report of the interview of four members of the “Dragon Slayers” by Apple Daily published on 15 November 2019 and the WhatsApp exchanges between Wayland and D1 between 17 November 2019 and 19 November 2019, all of which we are not going to repeat. 885.According to Wayland, D1 told him that he had recently met with Sunny Cheung (Cheung Kwan-yang) and that he had high regard for the latter. D1 said that he talked to Sunny Cheung and his team about sponsorship. Wayland was given to understand that Sunny Cheung did not require any sponsorship from D1 as he was able to deal with the matter by way of crowdfunding. D1 then told Sunny Cheung that crowdfunding would be better, as that would mean recognition. In case the target could not be reached, D1 could still inject money so as to help the crowdfunding meet its target. 886.Wayland said that during the meeting he referred to the two crowdfunding campaigns and D1 said that that was a breakthrough for the pan-democrats. Then, D1 began to talk about the recent victory of the pan-democrats. He was of the view that the forces of the street; the forces of the legislature; and the forces of the international community, should be brought together. Only then, the passion for the anti-ELAB movement could be sustained and the government could be pushed to respond to the demands of the general public. D1 told Wayland that he wanted to set up a leadership group consisting of members of the three factions. 887.In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland that:
Wayland disagreed to both. 888.As regards (1), we have already noted D1’s denial in his evidence of having met Sunny Cheung. We have also noted D1’s answer in cross-examination that the report of Apple Daily on 22 October 2019[1171] about his having met “Samuel Chu” and “Sunny Cheung” during his October US trip might be wrong. 889.As regards (2), we observe that the strategy of joining the forces of street protestors, legislators belonging to the pan-democrats and foreign countries in order to exert pressure on the HKSAR Government was not something that D1 would be unfamiliar with:
Second meeting with Mark Simon 890.According to Wayland, sometime after the District Council Election and in around early December 2019, Mark Simon initiated another meeting with him. The two of them met at Hyatt Hotel in Shatin. 891.Wayland said the two of them talked about the “EOM” and Mark Simon said that it was well done and also what they wanted. By “they”, Wayland understood Mark Simon to mean himself and D1. Mark Simon said the recent victory by the supporters of the anti-ELAB movement in the District Council Election was the general trend. He and his boss were starting to look into primaries. It was hoped that the momentum could be continued, so that a landslide victory could be obtained in the coming Legislative Council election. 892.Wayland said that Mark Simon told him that a lot of people from the democratic camp would get in touch with him or his boss in order to seek financial assistance. He said that “however, my boss is very rich, but that doesn’t mean he has to sponsor all of them”. Mark Simon said that for small sums, he could make the decision. For substantial sums, however, he would need his boss’ decision. In this connection, Mark Simon complained that every time Andy waited until the last minute before asking for help and that the latter did not really know how to get on in the world. 893.Wayland said that Mark Simon hoped that Wayland could continue to liaise between the two of them. He said that if Wayland and Andy were to be engaged in publicity literature work, then they should give up the idea of placing advertisement in the newspaper. What they should do was to do promotion work on the online platform as well as international lobbying work and that would be more effective. That was because not everyone would read newspapers. Besides, a lot of people were already paying attention to the situation of Hong Kong. There was no need to raise attention by way of newspaper advertisement. To the contrary, it would be the officials as well as the governments who liked to know more about the situation of Hong Kong, and that was why there was even a greater need for international lobbying work for the anti-ELAB movement. It was hoped that foreign governments would implement measures to compel the Hong Kong Government to respond to the requests of Hong Kong people. However, during the course of conversation neither Mark Simon nor Wayland made reference to “Five Demands” or things like that. 894.As regards the “reward” for Wayland which they had discussed in their previous meeting, Mark Simon said that it was very difficult to open a bank account for a British Virgin Islands company in Hong Kong and therefore he was unable to open one for Wayland. However, Mark Simon said that he had made enquiries and there were two vacant ones in their hands. He and D1 had a discussion and it was decided that one of the companies could be given to Wayland as a reward. He said to Wayland that, as the company was an anonymous one, apart from using it for conducting business, Wayland could also use it for social activism or international lobbying work. Mark Simon said that if he did not want to do it in his own name, then it could be done by way of the company. However, Wayland replied that he probably would not do that. Lacock given to Wayland as reward 895.Wayland said that Mark Simon asked him to contact his assistant Evan Lau to follow up the transfer of a company. Eventually, a company called “Lacock” was transferred to Wayland and the documents for transfer were signed around January 2020 at the Next Digital Building. 896.Now, there is no dispute that Lacock held an HSBC account in Hong Kong. It is also admitted that between 26 April 2018 and 13 January 2020, D1, Royston and Mark Simon were the authorised signatories of Lacock. Since 14 January 2020, Wayland became the sole signatory of that bank account and at which time there was a credit balance of HK$80,000 in the company’s bank account. 897.According to Wayland, Mark Simon had asked that the money be withdrawn and returned to him in cash. However, Wayland had yet to do that up to the time of his arrest. D1 asking to meet “Mutual Destruction Bro” (「攬炒巴」) 898.After Wayland’s third meeting with D1 on 27 November 2019, the two of them had a telephone conversation. D1 noticed that the Mutual Destruction Team was developing very well. He was aware of the fact that Wayland was unable to get in touch with the valiant teams. Yet he said that Wayland should be able to get in touch with “Mutual Destruction Bro”[1176], who was relatively well-known in both international front and publicity literature. D1 would like to have a meeting with “Mutual Destruction Bro” in order to understand his thoughts and to discuss with him the idea of setting up a leadership group. As a result, Wayland went to get in touch with “Mutual Destruction Bro”. 899.From 4 December 2019 onwards, there was a series of WhatsApp exchanges between Wayland and D1 about arranging D1 to meet “the guest”, who Wayland said was in fact Finn Lau[1177]. D1 told Wayland that he would be in Taipei during which time he could make himself available. Wayland said he would liaise with Mark Simon. 900.The WhatsApp records of D1 shows that since 5 December 2019, D1 had been asking Mark Simon to follow up on the arrangement of his meeting with Wayland and “Mutual Destruction Bro”[1178]. 901.On 18 December 2019, Wayland informed D1 that he was going to meet with “him” who was Finn Lau in person and that he would let D1 know about “his” schedule[1179]. Wayland also told D1 that he would like to make the most of his time in London and asked D1 whether there were others that D1 wanted him to meet there. D1 suggested Wayland to meet with Benedict Rogers who’s the founder of Hong Kong Watch, a fervent HK freedom fighter and supporter, who might be available to arrange a meeting with Lord Alton, who, D1 said, was working on giving Hong Kong people BNO status[1180]. Wayland said in Court that in the end, Lord Alton was not available and he only met with Benedict Rogers before his meeting with Finn Lau in London. 902.On 31 December 2019, Mark Simon reported to D1 that “Wayland” had reached out to “Lam Chou” (Laam Caau) and he could come to Taipei from London[1181]. D1 told Mark Simon that “Wayland” could come and he asked Mark Simon to have someone arrange every facilities for him[1182]. According to Wayland, a trip was eventually arranged for Finn Lau to meet D1 in Taipei and all the expenses would be borne by D1. Fourth meeting with D1 903.After Wayland’s return from London, on 31 December 2019, D1 asked to meet with him again. Similar to the last occasion, Wayland was picked up by D1’s vehicle and driven to an alleyway on Supreme Court Road in Admiralty. After they arrived there, the driver alighted, leaving D1 and Wayland inside the vehicle. 904.According to Wayland, the two of them talked about Wayland’s trip to London and the hesitation of “Mutual Destruction Bro” about D1’s idea of adopting the “peaceful, rational and non-violent” approach as the mainstream. D1 then said that he would like Wayland to understand it was not the case that he was not supportive of the valiant. It was just that he had to cater for the West in order to obtain international support and therefore he needed to present such a stance. D1 was of the view that when compared with the support of the valiant camp, the international support was more important.[1183] Wayland understood that D1 would like to lead the entire international front. 905.In cross-examination, Wayland agreed that he had not mentioned in any of his video-recorded interviews to the police that D1 told him during this meeting that D1 would like Wayland to understand it was not the fact that D1 was not supportive of the valiant[1184]. In re-examination, Wayland said that he did say in his first video-recorded interview[1185] that D1 said on that occasion that “Local Hong Kong need to maintain the intensity, but in any event, on international front, a unified voice is needed.” Wayland said that at that time D1 was of the view that the valiant camp was one of the reasons for the maintaining of the intensity of the protest. 906.In cross-examination, Wayland agreed that D1 did say that people should not be talking about Hong Kong independence and mutual destruction in international forums and that he was concerned about the way the young people were behaving and the impact that was having internationally. Wayland got the impression that D1 did not really understand that the leadership of the young people was decentralised. He disagreed that D1 did not say that he would like to lead the entire international front. 907.Wayland said that D1 wanted him to pass on what D1 said to the young people, i.e., they should focus on election work. By conducting primaries, votes of the “yellow ribbons” could be brought together. D1 was of the opinion that the primaries could attract the votes of young people and that the turnout rate could be increased. In that way, the seats to be obtained by the pan-democrats could be secured. In cross-examination, Wayland disagreed that there had been no discussion of the primaries at that fourth meeting. 908.Wayland said that he passed on D1’s message to the young people through the TG publicity literature group and also to Andy. He also informed Andy about D1’s wish to meet with “Mutual Destruction Bro”. 909.In cross-examination, Wayland disagreed that the idea of Finn Lau coming to Taiwan arose out of D1’s desire to get a message across to the valiant leaders that they needed to calm down. Wayland said Finn Lau could not be regarded as a member of the valiant camp. It was just that his idea of “mutual destruction” was radical. Regarding the valiant camp, Finn Lau’s view was that “brothers climb up the mountain, each working on his own”, i.e., he would not oppose to what they were doing. The activities of the “Mutual Destruction Team” were mostly outside Hong Kong and they were not of a violent nature. Wayland disagreed that D1 did not say that he wanted to consolidate the international front and the “mutual destruction” front. Meeting with “Mutual Destruction Bro” delayed 910.On 2 January 2020, D1 texted Wayland and asked the latter to confirm the trip of “our guest” to Taipei for “Monday and Tuesday”. Wayland replied that the guest was in trouble and the trip would have to be postponed[1186]. Eventually, it was agreed that the meeting should take place at a later date whilst D1 was still in Taipei[1187]. 911.Wayland asked whether D1 would like him to meet anyone else in Taipei. D1 said that he did not know if anyone would be available, as it is election time. He suggested Wayland meet Shih Ming-teh, who was good to talk about resistance technique.[1188] Wayland agreed. D1 referring to Luke de Pulford’s article 912.D1’s WhatsApp records show that at 12:15 hours on 8 January 2020, he forwarded to Wayland a link to an article published in Apple Daily on 7 January 2020 which was written by Luke de Pulford with the title “Advice from a friend”[1189]. Wayland replied to D1 that he had read the article the day before and that it helped him “persuade the rest of the stubborn leaders”, i.e., those in the valiant camp working at the international front who wanted to promote more radical thoughts. At 12:16 hours, D1 told Wayland that it was worth some time to read the article, as it was “quite cogent and our friend should read it, too. See you in Taipei.”[1190] According to Wayland, the friend D1 referred to was in fact Finn Lau. Wayland took the article as D1’s guidance on how to persuade other people. 913.In that article[1191], Luke de Pulford addressed the “campaigners in Hong Kong” and advocated for a more unified voice at the international front. He made the following points:
He said that some serious multilateral initiative – “capable of making Beijing sweat” - was needed.
He suggested a process-led solution in which each major faction of the pro-dem movement nominated a (short-term) temporary representative on a rolling basis.
He commented that although the “Five Demands” was a common platform for the campaigners, they did not currently have a common agenda for the international community. Instead, he recommended “a consensus building project around three demands” for the International Community and then to package those in some kind of Convention on Hong Kong, and then lobby other nations to sign.
He said that international lobbying is not pointless, it was just hard. He encouraged them by saying that the work required “consistency and constancy, shrewd organisation and strategic discipline”.
He pointed out that violent resistance really hurt the movement internationally. If the object of the campaigning was (even in part) to influence the international community, then this was a problem that had to be taken seriously. 914.In D1’s evidence-in-chief, he said that he forwarded the article to Wayland, not because of the forthcoming meeting in Taipei but because the article was good. D1 said he sent this article to Wayland and for him to refer it to Mutual Destruction Bro for the purpose of point 5, to caution the people on the ground about violence. In cross-examination he repeated that he wanted them to understand point 5 that violence hurts the support of the international community. Upon enquiry by the Court whether that meant that he had read the article before forwarding it to Wayland, D1 answered in the affirmative, “Yes, because it was in Apple Daily so I read it.” D1 admitted in cross-examination that this article was all about international lobbying. We found D1 did send this article to them as he wanted them to engage in international lobbying. 915.Coincidentally, D1’s WhatsApp records showed that Lee Wing-tat forwarded to D1 the link to the same article at 12:18 hours[1192]. However, it appeared that by which time D1 would have already forwarded the article to Wayland. No matter which happened first, the bottom-line is that D1 read the article and knew it was about international lobbying before he forwarded the same to Wayland. In this regard, we note also that at 12:20 hours, D1 replied to Lee Wing-tat[1193]:
We note that the idea of forming a leadership group had been mentioned by D1 on various occasions before. D1 reimbursed Wayland for his UK and Taiwan trips 916.Wayland said that he provided the personal particulars of Finn Lau (the real name of “Mutual Destruction Bro”) to Mark Simon for booking the air-ticket for the Taipei trip. Besides, he also arranged D1 to meet with a female surnamed Lam. He said that both Lam and her boyfriend belonged to the valiant camp and that Lam had been providing Wayland with information. 917.On 9 January 2020, Wayland texted D1[1194]:
D1 replied[1195],
918.According to Wayland, he incurred a total of $80,000 as expenses for his trips to UK and Taiwan and also Lam’s trip to Taiwan. He got reimbursement from Mark Simon. There was no dispute that a sum of $80,273 was deposited into Wayland’s bank account on 24 February 2020 from Dico Consultants Limited[1196] which was D1’s company. The meeting at D1’s villa in Yangmingshan 919.On 10 January 2020, Wayland arrived in Taipei together with Lam. On the following day, i.e., 11 January 2020, D1 sent his driver to pick up Wayland and Lam from the hotel. Finn Lau arrived in Taipei separately that day[1197]. According to Wayland, in D1’s villa at Yangmingshan, the four of them had a luncheon meeting: D1 was sitting on the left; Finn Lau was sitting on the big chair; and Lam and himself were sitting on the other side on a big chair. 920.Wayland said that after the initial introduction, he started off the conversation by mentioning the activities of Finn Lau (who was referred to simply as “Laam Caau” (「攬炒」)) in the United Kingdom; Finn Lau’s involvement in the crowdfunding campaign; the G20 team and the “Mutual Destruction Team” working together and the “EOM”. Then, Wayland also mentioned the US trip in December 2019 and D1 said that he had knowledge about that. Finn Lau supplemented that they had also held assemblies in Germany and Edinburgh and processions were also held. Then, there were some discussions about the crowdfunding campaigns. When D1 asked Finn Lau whether he had joined the US trip, the latter answered, “No”. At this juncture, Wayland said, “The one who went to the trip was Andy.” D1 asked whether Finn Lau had encountered any difficulties in his work. He also said that he wanted to cultivate him as a political star and he could grant him £10,000 as living expenses as well as providing him with some political, economic and human connections. However, Finn Lau did not accept D1’s offer right away and said that he did not want to be a political star. 921.Concerning the US trip, D1 said that it was a waste of resources for them to get acquainted with people like Rick Scott, Ted Cruz and Todd Young, all of whom D1 described as people “above the table”, as they already had connections with the traditional pan-democrats. D1 opined that what was more important was that they should get acquainted with young and low-ranking political consultants or national policy planners which D1 described as people “beneath the table”. D1 said that after 10 to 20 years, those low-ranking officials might become high-ranking officials and this kind of relationship would be very useful. D1 cited the example of Anson Chan and Nancy Pelosi. 922.During the luncheon meeting, D1 said that pan-democrats had raised the matter about cancelling the special status of Hong Kong. In that context, D1 mentioned about anti-China policy, economic blockade and sanction. D1 further said that in the long run they should try to get international recognition. Then, they would engage with embargo, sanction, to apply pressure to the government. Next, they needed to unite different sectors, including the legislature front, the international front, the street front and businessmen. It was only by the combined forces of these sectors and the grievances of the people that they could achieve “China implosion” (「支爆」), by that Wayland understood to mean the collapse of the economy and the political regime. On the other hand, Finn Lau was very pessimistic and he said that he did not believe that “China implosion” could be achieved. However, D1 said that “China implosion” would happen very shortly. That was because the Chinese Government has spent a lot of resources on the surveillance of the people and he cited the historical example of the Ming dynasty. D1 said that even after “China implosion”, China’s GDP would still be around 60% and that would be the best time to introduce the US democracy. Therefore, D1 told Finn Lau that he should make better use of his current resources and the support of the “Mutual Destruction Team” to promote sanctions against the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong Government. To achieve that, international lobbying should not be conducted in the way as he did it. Instead, Finn Lau should let foreign governments know what was happening in Hong Kong and appeal to them for their concern and condemnation on those incidents. D1 supplemented that it was only when the views of foreign governments were brought back to Hong Kong, then Hongkongers would know that foreign governments had not abandoned them and the morale could be maintained. Lastly, D1 said the relationship formed with those people “beneath the table” could influence their policies towards China. This could urge them to impose sanction against Hong Kong. In the future, it might be possible to overthrow the CCP. That said, D1 accepted that this might not be realised in the present generation. He hoped that the “Mutual Destruction Team” headed by Finn Lau and the young people could take up the task. At this point, Finn Lau expressed that he was willing to co-operate and he agreed to this overall direction. However, he said that regarding the entire Mutual Destruction Team, he needed to discuss with “RIP”. At this juncture, Wayland told D1 that “RIP” was “Andy”. 923.D1 also mentioned about the primary election of the coming LegCo election in 2020. He mentioned that he would like to follow the US model and that he had obtained a quotation from a company in Europe which was engaged in voting programmes. D1 said that the quotation was about $100,000 odd and it was not expensive. He said, however, for these voting programmes, one could register by using a mobile number and therefore it would be difficult to ascertain the voter’s identity. That would very easily lead to the loss of public confidence and so he was just considering it. 924.D1 asked whether Finn Lau would like to run in the election. D1 said that he would help some political neophytes to get media exposure or give them assistance financially, as long as they were willing to take part in the primary election. He said that he had already invested money in the previous “ThunderGo” campaign. 925.Wayland said that after the luncheon meeting, later in the evening, other people (Lee Wing-tat and his wife, Albert Ho and his wife and Shih Ming-teh and his wife) came. Finn Lau did not stay for the dinner. Over the meal, they talked about the Taiwan presidential election and they watched the election on television together. 926.In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland and he agreed that he had not mentioned the following in any of his video-recorded interviews:
927.In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland that:
Wayland disagreed to all of the above propositions. 928.In re-examination, Wayland explained that during the course of the taking of the statements, all that came to his mind was the conversations between D1 and “Mutual Destruction Bro”. As for the introduction part, he did not remember that and therefore he did not mention that. 929.On the other hand, in D1’s examination-in-chief, he said that the reason for him suggesting Wayland share the aforesaid article of Luke de Pulford with Finn Lau (“Mutual Destruction Bro”) was to convince the latter to pacify the radicalism of those valiants. D1 said that he thought that the article could be helpful. When his counsel asked him, “How about the other points, point 1 to 4? Did you intend Mr Finn Lau to read them for his own benefit?” He answered, “Well, I only thought about the point he made about the violence that will revoke the support of the international community.” Upon enquiry by the Court as to whether the topic of international lobbying was raised in the meeting, D1 said that by the time of the meeting, he had forgotten about Luke de Pulford’s article totally and therefore the topic was not raised. 930.It was D1’s evidence that he did not ask Finn Lau whether he wanted to run for the election later in that year. That was because Finn Lau lived and worked in London. Upon the enquiry of the Court as to how he would expect Finn Lau to assume a leadership role in the valiant camp in Hong Kong if the latter lived and worked in London, he said that while the latter was in London, he was very influential to the valiants. He said that he did not expect Finn Lau to lead them, but to pacify them through his influence as “spiritual leader”. He wanted Finn Lau to form a group of leaders among the valiants so that their action would be directed and regulated instead of spontaneous individually. 931.It was also D1’s evidence that his meeting with Wayland, Lam and Finn Lau lasted for about one and a half hour, during which none of the names “Andy”, “Andy Li”, “Li Yu-hin” and “RIP” was mentioned. Meeting with Shih Ming-the (“Shih”) 932.According to Wayland, while he was still in Taipei, in the morning of 12 January 2020, D1 sent his driver to drive him and Lam to the place of Shih Ming-teh for a meeting[1200]. Despite Finn Lau’s earlier indication that he would not join the meeting with Shih, he also participated in it. 933.Wayland said that Shih told them that but for the referral by D1, he would not have met with them. Shih described to them his political life and his views on politics and then asked Lau his views on the anti-ELAB movement in Hong Kong. Shih suggested that if Finn Lau were to take part in mass movement in future, he definitely needed to consider three points, namely “recognition”, “uniformity” and “clarity of political demands”. “Recognition” referred to the support from the people and positive feedback from and report by the mass media. By “uniformity”, Shih meant the ability to take action, the colour of the clothing and labelling. Shih said that the mass should follow the command of the main leader. For “clarity of political demands”, Shih cited the example of the “Five Demands”. Then, Shih talked about how to live as a political prisoner. Shih told Finn Lau not to think that he could avoid the consequences for the things he was doing. Shih said that because Finn Lau still wanted to remain anonymous and stay out of Hong Kong. Shih said that if Finn Lau went to Hong Kong and was arrested, it would be even better. Not only that Finn Lau could gain more support from the people, but also that he could gain support from imprisoned protestors. He encouraged Finn Lau to uphold the spirit of sacrifice and said, “You cannot ask others to do the work, yet you yourself do not make the sacrifice.” Video conference with Andy 934.After the meeting with Shih, Wayland and Finn Lau returned to the hotel where they had a video meeting with Andy in Wayland’s room. We have already covered this part of the evidence which we are not going to repeat here. We note that there is evidence that after the video conference, Wayland sent D1 a WhatsApp message at 12:51 hours on 12 January 2020[1201]:
According to Wayland, he then had a WhatsApp call with D1 who was told what had been discussed in the video conference. He told D1 that both “Andy” and “Mutual Destruction Bro” agreed to support international front, to follow D1’s actions and that “Andy” would fight at the international front. D1 responded by saying that Finn Lau and Andy should fight. 935.In re-examination, Wayland’s attention was drawn to his video-recorded interview conducted on 29 April 2021 where he explained why he, Finn Lau and Andy had an online meeting. There, Wayland said[1202],
936.Wayland explained that towards the end of the meeting at D1’s residence, Finn Lau had already mentioned that he needed to have a discussion with Andy and therefore before Finn Lau left Yangmingshan, it was said that they should have a meeting with Andy to relate to him what D1 had said to them. Updates for D1 after the Taiwan Trip 937.On 21 January 2020, Wayland messaged D1 and said that he had some progressive updates for D1, “some good, some bad”[1203]. At the time, D1 was still in Taipei but was about to leave for Bangkok. On 24 January 2020, D1 texted Wayland and said he would call him after the Chinese New Year[1204]. On 26 January 2020, D1 texted Wayland and asked if it was then a good time to call Wayland[1205] and the latter replied affirmatively and said “19:00”[1206]. 938.According to Wayland, when the two of them eventually managed to talk, Wayland informed D1 that:
939.In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland and he agreed that he did not mention in any of his video-recorded interviews the following:
940.In re-examination, Wayland explained that he had not been asked by the police about this telephone conversation. Moreover, he was not shown the relevant text messages with D1 between 21 January and 26 January 2020[1210], as by which time he had already discarded his mobile phone. Mark Simon helping to resolve argument in SWHK US front 941.At the end of January or February 2020, Wayland contacted Mark Simon and said that “Mutual Destruction Bro” and “RIP” had some controversies with the Hongkonger organisations in New York of the United States and it was hoped that he could offer help by coming forward to mediate. According to Wayland, the controversies were in which name their actions were to be carried out; who would attend meetings with officials or who would act as their representatives. Wayland understood that Mark Simon immediately made a phone call to a Hongkonger in New York whose name was “Anna” and the problem was basically solved. He said that it was after this incident that he knew that the entire US front had communication with Mark Simon. 942.In cross-examination, Wayland agreed that he did not mention in any of his video-recorded interviews the aforesaid discussion with Mark Simon or the request made of him for assistance[1211]. D1 kept informed of development of publicity literature 943.In February 2020, Wayland twice sent to D1 information about anti-ELAB exhibitions:
944.Wayland said his purpose was to show D1 the development of publicity literature at the time. Wayland updating D1 on primary election 945.In February 2020, there were some news floating around as to who were going to run in the primary. According to Wayland, however, even back in late November 2019, D1 had already raised the idea of a primary election. In early January 2020 when D1 met Finn Lau in his villa in Taipei, D1 mentioned primary election again. 946.Therefore, on 26 February 2020 Wayland texted D1 and informed him who were said to be the candidates for the primary election in some of the geographical constituencies. D1 said[1216],
Wayland replied[1217],
D1 then said[1218],
D1 forwarding to Wayland messages about US stance on sanction 947.On 5 April 2020, D1 forwarded to Wayland several messages which appeared to have been sent by a person called “Jim” addressed to another person called “Mark”. They read as follows[1219]:
D1 asked Wayland to keep those messages confidential and not to share with anyone.[1220] 948.Upon receiving the above messages, Wayland said that he then made a call to D1 asking him whether he could reveal the aforesaid message to “the two of them”. With the permission of D1, Wayland shared the gist of the aforesaid messages with Finn Lau and Andy. This, Wayland said, was because he wanted Finn Lau and Andy to know the aforesaid stance of the US Government on sanction. According to Wayland, Finn Lau was relatively sad upon hearing the news, as the latter had expectation that the US Government would impose sanction. 949.In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland that there was in fact no such a call from Wayland to D1. Wayland disagreed. Wayland updating D1 on the “international front” 950.On 1 May 2020, Wayland messaged D1 and reported that[1221],
951.Wayland said in Court that by “projects”, he meant the several fronts of SWHK, namely, the international front, the US front, the Japanese front led by Andy, the UK front and the Northern European front led by “Mutual Destruction Bro”. Wayland explained that at the time he wanted to work with D1, that is to say, to go overseas to meet with government officials or people “beneath the table” for the purpose of pushing forward sanctions. 952.In reply to Wayland’s message, D1 wrote[1222],
Wayland said that D1 was at the time appealing to the public for subscription of Apple Daily. He understood that D1 was asking whether people engaged in publicity literature could help Apple Daily promote the subscription. 953.Wayland said that there was a third meeting between him and Mark Simon which took place at the Murray Hotel. Although he put the date of that meeting in around May 2020 in his examination-in-chief, he moved the date to sometime before 18 April 2020 upon being shown in cross-examination the movement records of Mark Simon which showed that the latter had left Hong Kong and not returned since 18 April 2020. 954.According to Wayland, the third meeting was initiated by Mark Simon. Mark Simon told Wayland that he and D1 had already made contact with some media outlets and they would assist in organising the primary and holding election forums. Mark Simon said it was hoped that these would become election traditions providing for check and balance against the Hong Kong Government and added that that was also what the US Government wanted to see and that was better than resorting to violence. Mark Simon said that he and D1 wanted Wayland and several young people to attend the hearing at the US Congress in order to push forward sanction against the Hong Kong Government. Mark Simon hoped that they would not continue with newspaper advertisement campaigns. He said that resources should be focused to the international lobbying work for sanction. He also repeated the four points mentioned by D1 earlier on 11 January 2020 in Taipei as to how international lobbying should be conducted. Mark Simon was of the view that currently the work was done very well. D1 asking Wayland to persist despite the forthcoming NSL 955.On 21 May 2020, D1 forwarded to Wayland a link to an article in HK01 with the heading “NPC announced ‘Hong Kong National Security Law’, (which) is different from Article 23, to block loopholes in national security”[1223]. D1 noted that there would be a press conference of the details to be held at 9:45 pm that night. D1 said,
In reply, Wayland said[1226],
956.In Court, Wayland explained that at the time he thought D1 might be open to ‘legal risk’, as D1 had already instructed them to do sanction and D1 also kept on appealing to different people to resist the government. Therefore, Wayland was of the view that if anyone were to be arrested under the NSL, D1 would be the first one. In cross-examination, Wayland added that many people were saying that the purpose of setting up the NSL was to target at D1. 957.As regards Wayland’s warning that D1 had “to be careful”, D1 replied[1227],
958.Wayland understood that D1 was asking that the resistance be persisted and in that context to continue to push for sanction. Therefore, Wayland then said[1228],
By “our forces”, Wayland meant the international front. D1 said further[1229],
959.On 28 May 2020, Wayland forwarded to D1 a link to the statement: “PRC National People’s Congress Proposal on Hong Kong National Security Legislation – United States Department of State”.[1230] D1 replied by saying, “Just saw it. More draconian sanctions are coming from Trump hopefully this weekend. Cheers. Jimmy”.[1231] 960.Later on the same day, Wayland forwarded to D1 a link to a post in LIHKG which said: [Breaking (news)] After mutual destruction comes the morning light! The crowdfunding campaign of the mutual destruction team's "Hong Kong Rise From the Ashes Campaign" is on(line) ...[1232] (【突發】攬炒過後是晨曦！攬炒團隊《重光香港計劃》眾籌上線…) D1 replied he would read it later when he had time[1233]. The aforesaid post[1234] was about a crowdfunding campaign with a target of US$800,000 for international lobbying launched by SWHK. The post contained the following statement:
961.Wayland said that before the aforesaid crowdfunding campaign was launched, he was messaged through TG and called by both Finn Lau and Andy. The two of them said that the crowdfunding campaign would be launched. Wayland also agreed. However, he reminded them what Mark Simon had advised earlier, that is, no advertisement should be placed on printed newspapers and that other things should instead be done, especially international lobbying. So they tried to find a way to allocate some of the resources to international lobbying. Eventually, they decided to add a “multi-strategic liberation plan” to the crowdfunding campaign, so as to cater for more flexibility in the use of the fund raised. The “multi-strategic liberation plan” aimed to push forward sanction or economic blockade. Later, Andy worked out the contents of the webpage and sent the hyperlink to Wayland. The webpage said,
962.Wayland said that Andy’s idea of setting up “Hong Kong cultural offices” around the world was inspired by Mark Simon, who had previously suggested that they rent an office in Capitol Hill to hold exhibitions. Wayland said that he forwarded the hyperlink of the webpage to D1, as he needed to report to the latter what they were doing. More importantly, they were concerned that some people would find international lobbying offensive and therefore it was hoped that D1 could assist in the promotion. 963.Over US$1.75 million was raised by the “Rise from Ashes” crowdfunding campaign and a US consultancy company was hired to make contacts with Democratic Party members and Congressmen to push forward sanctions. Wayland said that he subsequently talked to D1 about the crowdfunding campaign. He told D1 that they had launched a crowdfunding campaign and the target was met. The resources would later be applied to the international front. 964.In cross-examination, Wayland’s attention was drawn to his cautioned interview on 11 October 2020 (which was before his assistance to the prosecution) where he said:
965.Wayland answered that those statements in his cautioned interview were false. At the time, he was trying to exonerate Andy. He understood at the time that one of the activities of SWHK was to lobby other countries to impose sanctions on Hong Kong or China. He was not telling the truth to the Police in that cautioned interview when he said that he personally did not play any part in those lobbying activities. 966.On 11 June 2020, Wayland texted D1 and said “There are a lot going on” and that he would “love to catch up”[1238]. D1 replied that he might be leaving for an overseas trip but that would depend on whether he could have permission to leave Hong Kong. 967.As it turned out, D1’s application to lift his travel restriction was refused by the Court[1239]. The two of them then arranged to meet on 16 June 2020 in Next Digital Building. D1 said he would send his driver to pick up Wayland[1240]. Wayland asked to enter Next Digital Building stealthily 968.On 16 June 2020, Wayland was picked by D1’s driver Chiu Gor. When he reached the Next Digital Building, he was about an hour late. A male staff member showed him the way through the back door to a big room with a big round table where D1 was alone. In answer to Wayland’s query, D1 said that the arrangement was mainly to avoid being captured by cameras, as he did not want people to know that he was having contacts with young resisters or to expose Wayland’s identity. D1 mentioned “English News” 969.During the meeting, D1 told Wayland that he needed some commercial support as Apple Daily kept losing money. D1 also told Wayland that the English version of Apple Daily was launched and he required a lot of funds to operate that. The English version was equivalent to an international version and it catered to foreign readers. If Apple Daily had an English version available, then first-hand information could be available directly and quickly to people “beneath the table” who would then be able to form judgements more favourable to D1’s political ideas. Therefore, even though it was in deficit, it was still very valuable to him. The launch of the English version could also change the entire Apple Daily from a local media outlet to an international one. As such, it would have a greater right of discourse globally. 970.In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland that: it was he who was concerned about being seen getting into D1’s car and ultimately going to the Next Digital Building; it was he who asked D1 about the English Version of Apple Daily; and D1 told him that launching the English version was a way of increasing subscribers to Apple Daily and providing them with more content. Wayland disagreed to all those. D1 setting a good example 971.Wayland said that the two of them talked about the NSL during the meeting. Wayland was worried and he expressed the view that all people should cease to push forward sanction. However, D1 said the NSL was “more bark than bite”. D1 said that he would set a good example, appeal for sanction in different media and ask for attention. He said that Wayland should do the same. Wayland was also asked to continue to ask other people, including members of the SWHK, to continue with their publicity literature and international lobbying and also to support the primary election. Wayland explained to D1 that it was very difficult to engage in publicity literature. That was because the NSL was about to be promulgated and a lot of the members of the publicity literature groups had already left TG. 972.In cross-examination, Wayland agreed that:
D1 asking about IPAC 973.D1 and Wayland then talked about the “Rises from the Ashes Hong Kong” campaign held by the Mutual Destruction Team. D1 said it was great to apply resources to international lobbying. Then he asked about IPAC, and whether IPAC would also use the fund raised in the crowdfunding campaign. He asked Wayland why he did not participate in it. D1 was of the view that IPAC was very important in that such kind of international support was definitely needed. 974.In cross-examination, Wayland disagreed that there had been no discussion about IPAC on that occasion. D1 asking the US to help young resisters 975.According to Wayland, towards the end of the meeting D1 told him that he would see how he could help the youngsters, i.e., resisters who supported the anti-ELAB movement. He said that he was already talking to the US side. However, he did not mention specifically as to what would be done. Cross-examination on Wayland’s previous statements 976.In cross-examination, concerning this meeting, Wayland agreed that neither in his video-recorded interviews nor witness statements had he mentioned that:
977.Wayland also agreed that he did not mention in any of his video-recorded interviews that he had mentioned Andy to D1 on any occasion[1244]. In re-examination, as regards (2) and (3) above, Wayland’s attention was drawn to his video-recorded interview on 29 April 2021 where he said that during the sixth meeting, D1 told him to ask the people around him to continue to work on “international lobbying”. Wayland explained that at the time, the conversation was about the “Mutual Destruction Team” and IPAC, as SWHK had just joined IPAC to which Andy was providing assistance. Therefore, D1 was referring to SWHK and IPAC. Wayland’s attention was also drawn to his witness statement dated 4 May 2021, where he said that in that meeting D1 asked him to continue to, among other things, conduct “lobbying activities worldwide”. Wayland explained that that was a reference to the lobbying work of SWHK. 978.As regards (3) above, Wayland’s attention was drawn to his video-recorded interview on 29 April 2021[1245] where he said,
Wayland explained that at that time when D1 told him that he should continue to work on international lobbying, D1 also wanted him to relay the message to SWHK. 979.As to the defence proposition that there was no mention by Wayland in any of his video-recorded interviews or witness statements of his mentioning to D1 about “Andy Li” on any occasion[1246], Wayland’s attention was drawn to the video-recorded interview on 29 April 2021, where he said that he acted as a messenger between “Mark or Lai Chee-ying” on the one hand and Andy on the other. Wayland gave the example of the Japan front having difficulties getting in touch with people “beneath the table”. As to this, D1 said that patience would be required. Wayland then relayed to Andy what D1 said. Another example was D1’s view that IPAC was very important. Wayland said he related the same to Andy so that he should continue to stay in IPAC to provide assistance. Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act and HKDC 980.Concerning Wayland’s evidence that D1 talked about asking the US to help young resisters in the sixth meeting, Wayland said that in around July 2020 he had occasion to talk to Mark Simon, during which he was told that D1, with the assistance of Samuel Chu of HKDC, had launched the “Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act”, which was to specifically help those Hong Kong young protesters, had they become political offenders, so that they could live in the United States. As such, the youngsters could set their mind at ease to continue to fight. 981.According to Professor Wang[1247], the prosecution expert, on 30 June 2020, “Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act” (“HKSHA”) was read twice in Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary[1248]. On the same day, it was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs[1249]. The purpose of the HKSHA is mainly for designating certain residents of Hong Kong as priority 2 Refugees of special humanitarian concern. The following points are of note:
982.It was Wayland’s evidence that he knew that the fund raised by the “Rise from Ashes” campaign was used to hire a US consultancy firm. According to him, that US consultancy firm was later used to contact Democratic Party members and parliamentarians in order to push forward sanctions. He knew about that because by which time, he had joined the SWHK US Front TG group with the help of Mark Simon. Wayland supplemented that it was through Mark Simon’s suggestion that a political consultancy firm, which relatively speaking was closer to the Democratic Party, was chosen. Apart from the above, the lobbying work of the US front after the promulgation of the NSL also included making contact with some policy commentators in the hope that they could remind these policy commentators about or of the situation in Hong Kong, that the situation of Hong Kong would pose threats to the interest of the US. In cross-examination, Wayland said that although he was not involved in the hiring of the US consultancy firm, after he had joined the US front of SWHK, he took part in its discussions and decision-making process. 983.As to how Wayland managed to join the US front, he explained that in June or July 2020 he had a discussion with Mark Simon about him joining that TG group. At that time it was hoped that Wayland would physically take part in the international front as well. However, Wayland experienced some difficulties joining that SWHK US Front TG chat group as he was a newbie to them and he had not been active in the other groups of SWHK. After the promulgation of the NSL, Wayland had a discussion with Finn Lau about this. Finn Lau suggested that if Wayland had the support of Mark Simon and D1, it would then be much easier to persuade others to accept him. As a result, Wayland sought help from Mark Simon who said that he would deal with it. Later, when Wayland contacted Finn Lau again, Finn Lau said that since Mark Simon and D1 had agreed, there was no longer any objection from anyone. 984.According to Wayland, Shirley Ho was the person in charge of the US front and the US front would report to Mark Simon nearly on a weekly basis. The other members of the TG chat group of the SWHK US front included Shirley Ho, “Always”, “Madison”, Wilson, “Yellow” and “Mutual Destruction Bro”. Regarding “Madison”, we have already noted the Signal exchanges between Andy and Wayland[1254] on 10 August 2020 that it was “Madison” who asked, after the arrest of D1, whether Wayland should be kicked out of the chat group because of his seemingly close relationship with D1. 985.In cross-examination, Wayland was asked about his mindset at the time he joined the US front, i.e., in deciding whether or not to comply with the NSL or to breach it, whether he took into account what other people were doing then. He answered that at that time he did not give much thought to whether other people would continue to do, as he had already breached the law. Wayland thanking D1 for the primary election 986.On 12 July 2020 at 10:51 pm, Wayland sent D1 a Signal message thanking him “for everything on the primary election” and said that it was remarkable in the history of Hong Kong. On the following day, D1 replied that it was a miracle[1255]. 987.Wayland said that he sent that message to D1 because he was one of those few people who knew that the concept of primary election came initially from D1. Wayland said that during his meeting with Mark Simon and during his meeting with D1, both of them coincidentally specifically mentioned they would use the media to support those political neophytes to run in the primary election, so that the primary election could gain greater recognition. 988.In cross-examination, Wayland agreed that after the NSL he did not have any telephone conversation, physical meeting or WhatsApp message with D1. Chapter 21 – D1’s knowledge of IPAC 989.It is D1’s case that he was never aware of IPAC until he was in Court. However, the totality of the evidence on this issue suggests otherwise. D1’s communication with Benedict Rogers 990.There was a text message on 31 May 2020 from Benedict Rogers who informed D1 that Luke de Pulford would like to be in touch with D1 regarding a new Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China which Luke de Pulford was setting up. Benedict Rogers said that he himself was also involved in it as an advisor. Benedict Rogers asked whether he could give D1’s number to Luke de Pulford. D1 agreed.[1256] D1 informing Chan Pui-man of the launching of IPAC 991.There was a series of exchanges between D1 and Chan Pui-man concerned a document titled: “PRESS RELEASE: THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY ALLIANCE ON CHINA”[1257] which was marked “EMBARGOED UNTIL 23:00 (UTC) THURSDAY 4th June 2020” which D1 had received from Luke de Pulford on 3 June 2020.[1258] 992.The press release began by announcing:
The press release said that countries represented in the IPAC included legislators/politicians from Australia, Canada, the European Parliament, Germany, Japan, Norway, Sweden, the UK and the US. 993.Upon receiving the press release from Luke de Pulford, D1 immediately forwarded the same to Chan Pui-man and asked her to deal with it. D1 told Chan Pui-man that Luke de Pulford would send her a photo of himself just in case it was needed. D1 also forwarded to Chan Pui-man his message to Luke de Pulford saying that “We pu (sic) it on tomorrow’s newsprint”[1259]. 994.On 5 June 2020, the news about the launching of IPAC was covered by Apple Daily with the heading: “Criticising the imposition of Hong Kong National Security Law for trampling on human rights, Nine parliamentary alliances to take tougher stance on CPC”.[1260] There was also a photo which Chan Pui-man received from Luke de Pulford showing himself and Alan Leung. Apple Daily’s report on IPAC 995.On 13 June 2020, on A5 section of Apple Daily there was a report: “Reports blast Beijing for scourging Hong Kong and urge toughest countermeasures - The Republican Party name Wang Yang and Han Zheng as the ones to be sanctioned.” [1261] On the right bottom part of the report, there was a headline saying, “Italian and Dutch legislators joined the International Alliance to counter the CPC”. The top bar of the page read, “The evil law is approaching the city”. That formed the theme of the Print Form in the interim leading to the promulgation of the NSL. 996.On 15 June 2020, in the column “Walls have ears” of Apple Daily, there was an article: “The Communist Party of China (CPC) threatens global democracy (and) freedom. Mutual Destruction Bro joins the international alliance to resist”[1262]. According to Chan Pui-man, “Mutual Destruction Bro” began to feature in the news in 2019 because of his posts in discussion forums on the Internet and he was famous for his global advertisement campaign which was reported in the media including Apple Daily. D1 receiving updates from Luke de Pulford 997.Luke de Pulford was no stranger to D1. Back on 2 October 2019, D1 forwarded to Mark Simon two WhatsApp messages from Benedict Rogers[1263] informing the latter about the visit of Lord Alton and Luke de Pulford to Taiwan. On that occasion, D1 also forwarded to Mark Simon the telephone number of Luke de Pulford[1264]. 998.Moreover, in D1’s evidence-in-chief, he said he knew that Luke de Pulford was the assistant of Lord Alton. He said that he had a brief dinner with Luke de Pulford in November 2019 when Lord Alton came to Hong Kong to observe the District Council Election. On 29 March 2020, D1 forwarded to Chan Pui-man[1265] and Chief Editor Law Wai-kwong[1266] an article which Benedict Rogers and Luke de Pulford had op-ed[1267]. He asked Chan Pui-man[1268] and Law Wai-Kwong[1269] respectively to see what they could do to help Benedict Rogers. 999.It was D1’s evidence in chief that the only purpose of Luke de Pulford contacting him was for him to publish the latter’s articles and that he had never read those articles. However, there is evidence that on 8 January 2020, which was shortly before the Taipei meeting in D1’s residence, he shared with Wayland “a great open letter by Luke de Pulford!” and recommended that “our friend” (i.e., “Mutual Destruction Bro”) should read it too[1270]. We will come to the evidence about the Taipei meeting in due course. 1000.Furthermore, between June and August 2020 Luke de Pulford kept D1 updated of the activities of IPAC including (but not limited to) the following:
Reports about Finn Lau and IPAC in Apple Daily 1001.That D1 had knowledge of IPAC is also supported by the following articles in Apple Daily which was his newspaper:
1002.As regards (2), we note that the interview was also referred to in D1’s personal Twitter account on 24 October 2020, where there was a tweet with the comments[1285]:
1003.We reject D1’s evidence to the effect that he had not read the above articles as inherent improbable and therefore incredible. See our assessment on D1’s credibility. 1004.Insofar as it is relevant to the present trial, D1 was arrested twice in 2020: the first time was on 10 August 2020 and the second time was on 3 December 2020[1286]. 1005.On 10 August 2020, D1 was first arrested for the present case. Also arrested on that day were D1’s two sons, Cheung Kim-hung, Royston and Andy. The news of their arrest was covered on the front page of Apple Daily on the following day.[1287] 1006.On 13 August 2020, Apple Daily published an exclusive interview with D1[1288], in which D1 was reported to have said, “Apple will definitely hold on till the end”. Between August and December 2020, during which time D1 was on bail, Chan Pui-man was not aware of D1 talking about changing the angle of reporting of Apple Daily. Chan Pui-man basically acted in accordance with the strong stance adopted by D1 as before. This was because D1 was her boss and he would insist on what he did, believing that what he did was right. 1007.On 14 August 2020, there was another interview of D1 in Apple Daily where it said,[1289]
Chan Pui-man said that D1’s Twitter account was meant to face the international community in order to gather support or to express his own views. She believed that that included having those countries exert pressure on the HKSAR Government and the Chinese Government in relation to the request he was seeking after. 1008.On 3 December 2020, D1 and two others were arrested for a charge of fraud. On the following day, Apple Daily reported in its front page the second arrest of D1 and others for a charge of conspiracy to defraud in which he was described as a “political prisoner”[1290]. Chan Pui-man took part in deciding on that headline. At the bottom of that page, there was an open letter to readers saying, “A letter of Apple Daily to readers: we will not resign to our fate.”[1291] 1009.On 5 December 2020, the front page of Apple Daily carried the headline, “Lai Chee-ying: No fear. Keep fighting.”[1292] On 13 December 2020, Apple Daily reported, again in its front page, that D1 was additionally charged with an offence under the NSL and that his bail application was refused in the Magistrates’ Court.[1293] Cheung Kim-hung’s visits to D1 in December 2020 December 2020 1010.According to Cheung Kim-hung, two or three days after D1 was remanded in custody in December 2020, he paid a visit to D1, during which he sought instructions from the latter as to how to run Apple Daily from then on. D1’s instruction was as follows, “Don’t be scared. Continue to run it as usual”, that, Cheung Kim-hung understood, was to run it according to D1’s editorial policy. 1011.Cheung Kim-hung said that he therefore passed on D1’s instruction to the senior management of Apple Daily including Chan Pui-man, Nick Cheung, Law Wai-kwong, Fung Wai-kong, “Li Ping” (Yeung Ching-kee), the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Hong Kong News and Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Breaking News section, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Cross-Strait News and the supervisor of the International News section. To Cheung Kim-hung’s knowledge, D1’s instruction was followed by the senior management of Apple Daily. Besides, Cheung Kim-hung continued to support the resistance movement, with the same expectations of seeking the attention of Western countries to the Hong Kong situation. He also continued the English News and adhered to D1’s criteria of selection of articles. However, live chat and D1’s column “Sink or Swim, Smile” were stopped. 1012.As regards Chan Pui-man, she said after D1’s arrest, she continued to act in accordance with his views. As to whether Apple Daily’s editorial policy had changed after D1’s arrest, Chan Pui-man recollected that after the promulgation of the NSL, as to whether they should cease to use certain terms, there was a reminder from Cheung Kim-hung that regarding the reports on sanction, care should be exercised. In cross-examination, she was asked about what Cheung Kim-hung had told her about D1. Her attention was drawn to a text message from Cheung Kim-hung on 7 December 2020 where she was told that D1 had requested not to put too much focus on the news about him.[1294] It was put to her that there was nothing in what Cheung Kim-hung said in that message about “hanging on”. Chan Pui-man agreed that Cheung Kim-hung did not use this wording there. 1013.Chan Pui-man was also examined on her article[1295] published on 27 March 2021 in Stand News and Apple Daily. In that article, she referred to her second visit (on 22 March 2021) to D1 in the Reception Centre and wrote that D1 had said, “I will hang in there but I won’t tell the people outside to hang in there.” It was put to her that D1 said that he himself would hang on but he would not ask others to do the same. Chan Pui-man answered that the context of D1’s remark to her was a reference to the case about the primary election. Chan Pui-man understood at that time that “the people outside” was a reference to D1’s friends in the political sector or those engaged in social movements. When D1 said the price that one had to pay to hang on might be very great, he was talking about those friends of his. April 2021 1014.Cheung Kim-hung was cross-examined on his visit to D1 in custody in April 2021. He said that he went with D1’s two sons. He disagreed that D1 had not said that Apple Daily should continue until it was closed down by the authorities. Cheung Kim-hung remembered that afterwards D1 also instructed him to relate to Wong Wai-keung (of the Administration Department) that D1’s personal collections of the drawings of Huang Yongyu (黃永玉) hung in the office of Apple Daily should be removed, as they were worth money. Cheung Kim-hung said he did not know that by March 2021 D1 was already making enquiries with the board of directors as to whether the various Next Digital companies should be wound up. 1015.At this juncture, it would be convenient to take stock of the evidence about a major and mysterious character - Mark Simon. Although Mark Simon is named as a co-conspirator only in Count 3 and he occupied no formal position in Apple Daily, the prosecution evidence show that he acted behind almost all of D1’s activities. 1016.One thing remarkable was the complete trust and responsibility D1 placed in Mark Simon. The following serve as examples:
We note that (2) is supported by D1’s WhatsApp messages with Mark Simon when D1’s instruction was sought by Mark Simon concerning the amounts of the donations[1296]. As regards (1), even if Mark Simon did manage D1’s stock portfolio, we wonder why it was necessary for D1 to transfer large sums of money to him instead of having him manage D1’s stock account. Nevertheless, putting aside whether any of D1’s explanations above is or might be true, the mere fact that he transferred such an enormous amount of money to an employee is telling. In the following discussion, we will explore further examples of D1’s exceptional trust in Mark Simon, not only about his money, but also other aspects of his life. 1017.When dealing with this part of the evidence, however, we are fully alive, as we have been in all the other chapters of this verdict, that the prosecution has taken what we consider to be the surprising approach of disavowing in this trial any reliance on the well-established co-conspirators’ rule: Oei Hengky Wiryo v HKSAR (No.2)[1297]; and Vivien Fan & Ors v HKSAR[1298]. Because of that peculiar position of prosecution and as a matter of fairness to defence, we have not resorted to that rule in our findings. 1018.That said, it does not mean that the evidence of what Mark Simon had said or done is irrelevant to the charges that the defendants are facing. This is because the evidence about Mark Simon, if true, may provide the relevant background and context of the alleged offences. Secondly, the interaction and communication between D1 and Mark Simon may bear on D1’s state of mind at the time. Last but not least, Mark Simon’s conduct and statements, when considered together with other evidence as a whole, may provide non-hearsay circumstantial support to the prosecution case. How D1 said he and Mark Simon met 1019.Upon enquiry by the Court, D1 said that before Mark Simon came to work for him, the latter was a shipping company’s president in Taiwan. However, D1 said that he did not know the name of that shipping company. D1 said that he met Mark Simon through Church connections, as both of them were Catholics. As to how long Mark Simon had been working for him, D1 said that it was almost 20 to 30 years and he forgot how long it was. D1 said that when Mark Simon first worked for him, the latter took care of his personal investments. 1020.When asked by his counsel whether he knew the political background of Mark Simon, D1 said that they “seldom talk about politics”. D1 knew that Mark Simon was once “the Chairman of the Republican ‘Charter’ in Hong Kong” and that would be before the latter came to work for him. D1 said that Mark Simon did not have any connection with the US administration, yet D1 knew that Mark Simon was able to attend a meeting at the NSC and a video conference at Capitol Hill[1299]. D1 gathered that Mark Simon might have obtained information about the US administration through James Cunningham or Christian Whiton and information about the NSC from Matt Pottinger. 1021.For the reasons which we have already given, we find that D1 is neither credible nor reliable as a witness. In particular, we find that D1’s evidence that he and Mark Simon “seldom talk about politics” is not only incredible, but is also far from the truth. The fact, as we find it, is that D1 talked extensively with Mark Simon on political matters and relied upon the latter for information and input. We have already referred to numerous occasions where D1 and Mark Simon talked about and were involved in political issues together. For the present purpose, the following example would be sufficient to illustrate this point. In their WhatsApp exchanges on 8 November 2019, D1 forwarded to Mark Simon the following question which D1 received from Lee Wing-tat earlier that day[1300]:
Judging from the date of the enquiry and Mark Simon’s reply, the “HK Freedom and Human Right Act” that Lee Wing-tat referred to should be the HKHRDA. Mark Simon in reply to D1’s request of his “take” on the issue[1301], advised,
Upon receiving Mark Simon’s replies, D1 forwarded the same to Lee Wing-tat (without mentioning Mark Simon)[1304]. It can be seen therefore that D1 not only talked with Mark Simon about politics, but also sought and adopted the latter’s advice as his own on the matter. Mark Simon’s involvement in D1’s political/non-commercial activities 1022.In the previous chapters, we have already noted the involvement of Mark Simon on various occasions and activities, both before and after the promulgation of the NSL. For the present purpose, we recap the following examples which are based mainly on the agreed WhatsApp records between D1 and Mark Simon and also other uncontradicted evidence:
Mark Simon’s involvement in D1’s private/household matters: 1023.Besides, the agreed WhatsApp records also show that D1 would use Mark Simon in relation to other matters, personal or business. To name a few:
Mark Simon allowed to use D1’s money without prior approval 1024.There is cogent and strong evidence that Mark Simon could use money belonging to D1 or D1’s company. 1025.Besides, there is also the evidence of Royston. In his examination-in-chief, Royston was asked about an email from Linda Mendoza[1351] dated 25 April 2019[1352] addressed to him and Mark Simon (copied to Evan Lau, one of the Dico’s employees) and Royston’s reply email on the following day. Linda Mendoza was an employee of Dico. The emails were about certain payment requests. One of the requests was a payment of US$2 million from D1’s personal US dollars account to Lais marked “For projects per Mark’s e-mail”. According to Royston, for projects approved by Mark Simon, payment requests would be issued and he believed that D1 would approve it. That was the procedure adopted in the Accounting Department. If Linda Mendoza sent Royston an email, that meant that all the procedures had been completed. Therefore, Royston would also approve it. In any event, D1 needed to sign the payment cheque or remittance. As to the purpose of that payment, since it was marked “Mark’s project”, Royston did not need to ask any question. Royston said that Mark Simon told him that D1 had agreed to it. He added that in the past there had also been other payments given for “Mark’s projects” and no query was raised after D1 had read the reports. 1026.As regards Royston’s email to D1 dated 20 June 2019[1353], he said the purpose of which was to inform D1 of his expenses incurred in May 2019. Royston said that every month he would prepare a similar summary for D1’s information. The summary would be based on the report provided to him by a staff member called Linda Mendoza. However, Royston would not check the raw data or documents upon which the report was based. Royston was asked about three sums in the aforesaid summary:
1027.Besides, in D1’s examination-in-chief, D1 was asked by his counsel about a report in NBC (dated 30 October 2020) [1355] that Apple Daily had commissioned a false document purportedly written by a researcher which implicated Hunter Biden (son of Joe Biden) in a conspiracy[1356]. D1 was also referred by his counsel to his responses in his personal Twitter account[1357]. D1 said that after the NBC report was brought to his attention by Chan Pui-man, Mark Simon admitted to him in a telephone conversation[1358] that he (Mark Simon) had paid US$10,000 to the researcher. D1 then tweeted in his personal Twitter account on 30 October 2020[1359]:
1028.Here, we are not concerned with the truth or otherwise of what D1 had been told by Mark Simon. The point is that by D1’s own admission, there were occasions when Mark Simon used his money without first having obtained his approval. Conclusion 1029.Based on all of the above, Mark Simon was no mere employee of D1. Mark Simon appeared to be adept in multiple areas and well-connected. He maintained daily communication with D1. We are sure and we find that Mark Simon was in fact D1’s right hand man, faithful collaborator and a most trusted ally. D1 maintained a free flow of information with Mark Simon and he relied heavily on the latter for almost everything, personal, commercial and political. Mark Simon also acted as D1’s “eyes and ears” on the US politics - a topic which D1 would seek his views and acted on it. Notably, it was also with Mark Simon’s help that D1 sought to contact US senior officials and politicians. 1030.Furthermore, we find also that Mark Simon was given virtually carte blanche to D1’s money. On the other hand, it was not the case that D1 would not ask any questions, in case of sizeable amounts, he would ask Mark Simon for an explanation. However, the extent of D1’s almost blind trust on Mark Simon was such that even for an amount as large as USD$2 million, D1 would simply accept the latter’s words without requiring further proof. 1031.We should add that we are able to make the aforesaid findings even before any consideration of the evidence of Wayland who had direct dealings with D1 and Mark Simon. 1032.Apart from the aforesaid WhatsApp records and financial evidence, we have in the previous chapters dealt with the evidence about Mark Simon’s role in the newspaper advertisement/crowdfunding campaigns and various activities of D1, all of which we are not going to repeat. 1033.We now turn to Wayland’s direct evidence about Mark Simon. As regards the credibility of Wayland’s evidence, that will be addressed in due course. Wayland’s meetings with Mark Simon 1034.According to Wayland, he met Mark Simon in person on the following occasions:
First meeting with Mark Simon 1035.According to Wayland, in July 2019, at a café in Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Central, Wayland met with Mark Simon who took his son along with him. Mark Simon introduced himself as D1’s assistant, saying that he basically would carry out his boss’ orders. Mark Simon highly commended the G20 international advertising campaign, saying that he and D1 were very satisfied with its result and effect. He went on to talk about the future direction of the publicity literature campaign, saying that it should be a continuation of the effect of the G20 advertising campaign. He gave the example of holding exhibitions and said that not everyone would read newspapers. He said that if Wayland could work more in this area, this would be in line with their political ideology and they were willing to provide financial assistance as well as human connection and media assistance. Mark Simon did not explain in detail what he meant by political ideology but he emphasised the term “democracy” several times. 1036.Mark Simon asked Wayland whether he would continue to take part in publicity literature work and Mark Simon talked about local publicity literature work as well as international lobbying. At that time, Wayland did not know much about lobbying and therefore he told Mark Simon that he would try and take part in newspaper exhibitions. Wayland was then given a brown envelope containing some invoices and receipts relating to one Canadian account, one Hong Kong account, and one Taiwanese account respectively. 1037.Wayland was also asked by Mark Simon what he would like to do in future. He answered that he and one of his friends would like to do business. Mark Simon then asked if he had encountered any difficulties. Wayland said that it was very difficult to set up a bank account of an offshore company in Hong Kong. Mark Simon then replied, “It would not be very difficult. In fact, I can help you out. You can consider it to be a reward to yourself.” 1038.In cross-examination, Wayland was shown Mark Simon’s immigration movement records which showed that the latter was out of Hong Kong until 24 July 2019. Wayland agreed that his aforesaid meeting with Mark Simon would be sometime after that date. Second meeting with Mark Simon 1039.According to Wayland, sometime after the District Council Election and in around early December 2019, Mark Simon initiated a meeting with him. 1040.Eventually, the two of them met at Hyatt Hotel in Shatin. They talked about the “EOM” and Mark Simon said that it was well done and also what they wanted. By “they”, Wayland understood Mark Simon to mean himself and D1. Mark Simon said the recent victory by the supporters of the anti-ELAB movement in the District Council Election was the general trend. He and his boss were starting to look into primaries. It was hoped that the momentum could be continued, so that a landslide victory could be obtained in the coming Legislative Council election. 1041.Mark Simon said that a lot of people from the democratic camp would get in touch with him or his boss in order to seek financial assistance. He said that “however, my boss is very rich, but that doesn’t mean he has to sponsor all of them”. Mark Simon said that for small sums, he could make the decision. For substantial sums, however, he would need his boss’ decision. Mark Simon complained about Andy that every time Andy waited until the last minute before asking for help and that he did not really know how to get on in the world. Mark Simon hoped that Wayland could continue to liaise between the two of them. He said that if Wayland and Andy were to be engaged in publicity literature work, then they should give up the idea of placing advertisement in the newspaper. What they should do was to do promotion work on the online platform as well as international lobbying work and that would be more effective. That was because not everyone would read newspapers. Besides, a lot of people were already paying attention to the situation of Hong Kong. There was no need to raise attention by way of newspaper advertisement. To the contrary, it would be the officials as well as the governments who liked to know more about the situation of Hong Kong, and that was why there was even a greater need for international lobbying work for the anti-ELAB movement. It was hoped that foreign governments would implement measures to compel the Hong Kong Government to respond to the requests of Hong Kong people. However, during the course of their conversation neither Mark Simon nor Wayland made reference to “Five Demands” or things like that. 1042.As regards the “reward” for Wayland which they had discussed in their previous meeting, Mark Simon said that it was very difficult to open a bank account for a British Virgin Islands company in Hong Kong and therefore he was unable to open one for Wayland. However, Mark Simon said that he had made enquiries and there were two vacant ones in their hands. He and D1 had a discussion and it was decided that one of the companies could be given to Wayland as a reward. He said to Wayland that, as the company was an anonymous one, apart from using it for conducting business, Wayland could also use it for social activism or international lobbying work. Mark Simon said that if he did not want to do it in his own name, then it could be done by way of the company. However, Wayland replied that he probably would not do that. Lacock transferred to Wayland 1043.Wayland said that Mark Simon asked him to contact his assistant Evan Lau to follow up the transfer of a company. Eventually, a company called “Lacock” was transferred to Wayland and the documents for transfer were signed around January 2020 at the Next Digital Building. 1044.There is no dispute that Lacock held an HSBC account in Hong Kong. It is also admitted that between 26 April 2018 and 13 January 2020, D1, Royston and Mark Simon were the authorised signatories of Lacock. Since 14 January 2020, Wayland became the sole signatory of that bank account and at which time there was a credit balance of HK$80,000 in the company’s bank account. 1045.According to Wayland, Mark Simon had asked that the money be withdrawn and returned to him in cash. However, Wayland had yet to do that up to the time of his arrest. Third meeting with Mark Simon 1046.In around May 2020, Mark Simon initiated a meeting with Wayland and they met at Murray Hotel. Mark Simon told Wayland that he and D1 had already made contact with some media outlets and they would assist in organising the primary and holding election forums. Then, he said it was hoped that these would become election traditions providing for check and balance against Hong Kong Government. This was also what the US Government wanted to see and that was better than resorting to violence. Mark Simon said that he and D1 wanted Wayland and several young people to attend the hearing in the US Congress in order to push forward sanction against the Hong Kong Government. Mark Simon hoped that they would not continue with newspaper advertisement campaigns. He said that resources should be focused to the international lobbying work for sanction. He also repeated the four points mentioned by D1 earlier on 11 January 2020 as to how international lobbying should be conducted. Mark Simon was of the view that currently the work was done very well. 1047.In cross-examination, Wayland’s attention was drawn to the immigration movement record of Mark Simon which showed that the latter left Hong Kong on 18 April 2020 and did not return after that. Wayland agreed that his last meeting with Mark Simon should be in April before the 18th. Wayland’s post-NSL communication with Mark Simon 1048.We now turn to what Wayland said about his post-NSL communication with Mark Simon. Of course, what Mark Simon said to Wayland about D1 would not be used as evidence of the truth of its contents. However, it bears on the respective intention and state of mind of Wayland and Mark Simon and may also help one to understand their conversations in context. 1049.Wayland said that, after the arrest of D1 and Andy on 10 August 2020, he still maintained contact with Mark Simon by way of Signal call. By which time, Mark Simon had already left Hong Kong. 1050.In mid-August 2020, Mark Simon told Wayland that he had talked with D1 and both of them were of the view that D1’s arrest was a good thing, as that would arouse more attention, as a result the sales of Apple Daily would increase. Wayland and Mark Simon talked about Andy and IPAC. They worried that Andy’s arrest would have an impact on IPAC, and the operation of IPAC Japan front. Mark Simon said the arrest of Andy would not affect the operation of “Team Laam Caau” (“Mutual Destruction Team”). He asked Wayland not to worry, as there was a “Plan B”, i.e., sending Finn Lau to go on a tour to give speeches in various US colleges to continue to advocate the concept of “mutual destruction” and continue to call for sanction. 1051.Wayland said that prior to his own arrest, he had discussed with Mark Simon about SWHK US. Mark Simon briefly explained to him the difference between Democratic Party and Republican Party and also described the stance of D1 and himself. Mark Simon said that both he and D1 were relatively supportive of the Republican Party, as they believed that that party would have a relatively continuous anti-China policy and they would continue to launch measures of sanction against the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese Government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party tended to cooperate with China on issues like climate change, environmental protection and economic issues which were conducive to the “China implosion” that they would like to achieve. Then, Mark Simon went on to explain the need to engage political consultants. This was because, comparatively speaking, members of the Republican Party had a business background. If one could afford political consultants, then one would be able to meet members of the Republican Party as well as the officials. Mark Simon cited the example of D1 engaging a political consultant for him to meet with Vice President Pence. As regards the Democratic Party, however, they would like to meet new faces. SWHK was a new organisation formed by Hongkongers on their own initiative and therefore it very much met the requirements of the Democratic Party. 1052.In cross-examination, it was put to Wayland and he agreed that he did not mention in any of his video-recorded interviews his aforesaid post-NSL conversation with Mark Simon concerning IPAC[1360] and Japan line[1361]. In this regard, in re-examination, Wayland was referred to his witness statement dated 5 May 2021[1362] where he talked about his conversation with Mark Simon after the arrest of D1 and Andy during which Mark Simon said the arrest of Andy would not affect the operation of “Team Laam Caau”. Wayland explained that he was talking about the international lobbying work of “Team Laam Caau”. As for Andy, he was heading the Japan front and also one of the persons inside the board of SWHK which was providing assistance to IPAC. Wayland further explained that he did not refer to IPAC in that statement because he did not take part in IPAC and therefore he did not have a clear recollection at the time. Wayland’s post-arrest communication with Mark Simon 1053.On 11 October 2020, Wayland was arrested by the police for the offence of assisting an offender and he was released on police bail. According to Wayland, a few days afterwards, he gave Mark Simon a call. Mark Simon told Wayland that there was no need for him to worry. He told Wayland that, “I myself and Lai Chee-ying would make arrangement to give you support in various aspects. Also, would arrange a way out for you in US”. Mark Simon said that he would continue to look for information through channels of US and Taiwan concerning Wayland’s case and that Wayland needed to do nothing. On the other hand, he told Wayland that he should be mentally prepared that he would be arrested again for offences under the NSL but he needed not worry. He told Wayland that he should continue to carry out democratic activities such as international lobbying like pushing forward with sanctions. 1054.In cross-examination, Wayland agreed that he did not inform Andy (who was then in custody on the mainland) of the contents of his aforesaid conversation with Mark Simon. 1055.Wayland said that in November 2020 he had another communication with Mark Simon. At that time, Mark Simon had engaged a writer to prepare a report in Apple Daily about the business activities of the son of Joe Biden in China. However, that piece of news was later said to be fake. In the US, this might be regarded as interfering with the presidential election which might attract the investigation by the FBI and offend the Democratic Party. Mark Simon said that he had discussed the matter with D1. In order not to affect the interest of Next Digital, he would resign. However, he would still be in the US and Taiwan and would continue to take care of D1’s business and there was no need to worry about him. Mark Simon said further that if Wayland wished to get in touch with D1, Wayland could still do that through him. 1056.In cross-examination, Wayland disagreed that from the time he first met Mark Simon until the time he was arrested, Mark Simon had never asked him to do anything. He agreed that he had told the police the contrary in the cautioned interview on 11 October 2020 (when he was interviewed as a suspect). However, he said that he did not tell the police the truth in that interview. Wayland disagreed that in his last dealings with Mark Simon, the latter said to him, “You need to think about how to get your life back on track because there will no longer be large-scale social movements in Hong Kong”. He said that what he had told the police in the cautioned interview to the contrary was not true. We will come back to this when we deal with Wayland’s credibility as a witness. Chapter 24 – Assessment of PWs 1057.Having summarized the prosecution evidence, we now turn to the assessment of the evidence of the major prosecution witnesses. It should be noted that the prosecution witnesses were only cross-examined by counsel for D1 but not by counsel for the Corporate Defendants. For the sake of convenience, we will first deal with the evidence of prosecution witnesses from Apple Daily. Then, we will deal with the evidence of Andy and Wayland. Prosecution witnesses from Apple Daily 1058.There are many areas of Cheung Kim-hung’s evidence which leading counsel for D1 challenges in cross-examination. To name a few examples: whether there had been a “sea-change” of Apple Daily’s stance and policy since 2014; what role D1 played in lunchbox meetings; whether there was editorial independence in Apple Daily or whether D1 was taking a leading role and was giving editorial directions; whether D1 would monitor the news uploaded in Apple Daily’s website and published in the Print Form; whether the selection criteria for articles published in Apple Forum were made according to the framework set down by D1; whether D1 told Cheung Kim-hung certain things which Cheung Kim-hung said he did. We will come back to those when we make our factual findings. For the present purpose, it suffices for us to say that we have taken note of all the points raised in Cheung Kim-hung’s cross-examination. 1059.As far as Cheung Kim-hung’s credibility as a witness is concerned, leading counsel for D1’s attack is based mainly on the following grounds:
It would be convenient for us to recap the following: as aforesaid, Cheung Kim-hung was arrested on 17 June 2021 and was charged on the following day. He first appeared before a magistrate on 19 June 2021 and his bail application was refused. As a result, he made an application for bail in the High Court[1363] and filed an affidavit[1364] in support of his bail application. As it turned out, Cheung Kim-hung’s bail application was heard and refused on 5 November 2021 by the High Court and the reasons for the refusal were handed down on 10 November 2021. Eventually, on 17 May 2022, he pleaded guilty to Count 2 and the other charge was left on court file upon the prosecution’s application.
Cheung Kim-hung’s affidavit 1060.In Cheung Kim-hung’s aforesaid affidavit, he said, among other things, the following:
Cheung Kim-hung’s explanation 1061.Cheung Kim-hung did not agree with leading counsel that his affidavit painted a completely different picture from what he had been telling the Court. He said that:
1062.It was put to Cheung Kim-hung that his testimony in Court was inconsistent with his affidavit because he wanted to implicate D1 and that he did so in the hope that he would receive a lighter sentence. Cheung Kim-hung disagreed to both. 1063.Cheung Kim-hung was referred to his statement in the affidavit at para.40:
When asked whether the above statement was still true, Cheung Kim-hung said simply that he had already pleaded guilty. (b) The staff meeting on 11 May 2021 1064.Cheung Kim-hung was questioned on his speech made on 11 May 2021 at the staff meeting where he said that he believed Apple Daily was operating legally at the time and would continue to operate legally. 1065.Cheung Kim-hung explained that they all along had been working according to the editorial policies set down by D1. That meant prior to the promulgation of the NSL they had been doing it in this way. After the promulgation of the NSL, D1 kept mentioning that he would not be scared. He would continue to fight, he would continue to put up resistance, and therefore he started his live chat programme and continued to say what he would like to say. As for those of the senior management, they were very worried as to the effect or the impact of the NSL on the news outlet and that was why they set up those WhatsApp chat groups such as the “NSL Response Committee” and the “Advertising” group, and so forth. That was also why they organised some legal seminars for the staff members both of the assignment desk or otherwise. It was hoped that the colleagues could operate as much as possible within the red line. After D1 was remanded in December 2020 and was charged under the NSL, they removed some sensitive articles written by D1 and Benny Tai[1365] as well as D1’s videos from the platform of Apple Daily. From that time onwards and up to the time Cheung Kim-hung made his affidavit, they were hoping that Apple Daily could try as much as possible to operate while at the same time complying with the relevant laws and legislations. Upon the Court’s clarification, Cheung Kim-hung said that before D1 was charged with NSL offences, D1’s articles and videos were still on the platform of Apple Daily. Cheung Kim-hung said there was no substantial change in Apple Daily’s editorial policies before and after the NSL. (c) Cheung Kim-hung agreeing to assist the prosecution SSgt Lai’s visit on 11 November 2021 1066.In cross-examination, Cheung Kim-hung agreed that on 11 November 2021 SSgt Lai went to see him in Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre for the purpose of serving on him the Court’s reasons (consisting of 10 pages) for refusing his bail application. He agreed that SSgt Lai spent a lengthy period of time with him on that day, during which SSgt Lai let him read the Court’s reasons. Cheung Kim-hung agreed that he was visited by SSgt Lai again on 12 November 2021 and this time SSgt Lai came with DPC 8315. During that visit, Cheung Kim-hung told SSgt Lai that he had something to disclose to the police and wanted to become a prosecution witness. 1067.Cheung Kim-hung was shown a letter dated 16 December 2021 written by his new solicitors to the Prosecution saying, “the police had invited our client to be a prosecution witness”[1366]. Cheung Kim-hung said he was not clear about this. He said it was not the case that he was invited by Police to give evidence as a prosecution witness. He disagreed that SSgt Lai persuaded him to give evidence for the prosecution during the visit on 11 November 2021. He said he talked with SSgt Lai about his life in general in the Reception Centre. The topic of him being a prosecution witness was not raised on that occasion. He said that he only had lunch after SSgt Lai’s visit. 1068.Cheung Kim-hung said that it was only after he had read the Court’s reasons for refusing him bail that he began to think that he would like to tell the truth. However, he did not disclose that idea to that police officer. He did not agree that the decision to become a prosecution witness was as a result of words said to him by SSgt Lai on 11 November 2021. SSgt Lai 1069.SSgt Lai was tendered by the prosecution for cross-examination. He said that on 11 November 2021, he arrived at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre at about 10 am. The purpose of his visit was to deliver to Cheung Kim-hung the Court’s reasons for refusing bail. After completing some registration procedure which took about 30 minutes, he was asked to wait. When he eventually saw Cheung Kim-hung at about 11 am, he let the latter read the Court’s reasons himself. After that, SSgt Lai initiated a chat with Cheung Kim-hung. Cheung Kim-hung talked about the daily routines he had to go through in the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre. For instance, he was in individual detention and therefore usually there was no one to chat with him. Cheung Kim-hung revealed to SSgt Lai he was a Christian and therefore he would be visited by a pastor and after the visits he would wait for his meal. He also described to SSgt Lai about the meals inside. On a regular basis he would order food from outside and he also talked about the food he liked. SSgt Lai said that Cheung Kim-hung made no request on that occasion and they did not talk about the evidence of the case. Cheung Kim-hung did not ask to be a prosecution witness. Towards the end of the meeting, Cheung Kim-hung asked SSgt Lai to come and visit him on the following day. That was because other than the visits from his friends as well as the religious visits, he did not have many visits. According to SSgt Lai, his meeting with Cheung Kim-hung ended at around 2:45 pm. By which time, Cheung Kim-hung had not had his lunch. 1070.On the following day, i.e., 12 November 2021, SSgt Lai went with DPC 8315 to visit Cheung Kim-hung. According to SSgt Lai, on that occasion Cheung Kim-hung indicated that he wanted to become a prosecution witness. That was much to his surprise. SSgt Lai’s police notebook 1071.SSgt Lai was questioned about certain entries in his police notebook[1367]. According to the notebook, on 11 November 2021 he reported duty at 07:30 hours. At 09:00 hours, he went to the District Court to attend an unrelated matter. Then, there was a deleted entry marked “16:30” which SSgt Lai said was a careless mistake made by him. Following that was an entry marked “09:30” said: “Instructed by CIP C1 SD Duty and proceed to Lai Chi Kok Correctional Centre to deliver judgment”. SSgt Lai said “SD Duty” (“special duty”) was a very general term and it involved nothing confidential. The next entry in his police notebook was at 16:00 saying: “Finished and return base and to case followup”. That, SSgt Lai said, was in fact a reference to the time when he arrived at his base, not the finishing time of his visit. There was no record in his notebook as to the finishing time of the meeting with Cheung Kim-hung. SSgt Lai disagreed with counsel that the real reason why he spent several hours with Cheung Kim-hung was to persuade him to become a prosecution witness. Assessment on Cheung Kim-hung’s credibility 1072.Having considered the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung and SSgt Lai and having observed them giving evidence in the witness box, we find that there is no substance in the defence assertion that Cheung Kim-hung was persuaded by SSgt Lai to become a prosecution witness. We find also there are no material inconsistencies between Cheung Kim-hung and SSgt Lai as to the circumstances which led to Cheung Kim-hung becoming a prosecution witness. There is no reason for us to doubt their evidence in this regard. 1073.Furthermore, having closely examined the contents of Cheung Kim-hung’s aforesaid affidavit and carefully considered his explanation given in cross-examination, we accept his explanation. We find also that there is no material inconsistency between what he said in his affidavit and his testimony in Court. Having observed and heard Cheung Kim-hung giving evidence in Court, we find Cheung Kim-hung to be a credible witness. We reject the defence submission that Cheung Kim-hung was exaggerating or fabricating his evidence against D1. As regards Cheung Kim-hung’s reliability as a witness, we will come back to this in due course. 1074.Chan Pui-man was cross-examined on certain areas and some of those areas overlapped with the cross-examination of Cheung Kim-hung. Examples include whether D1 would give instructions to editorial staff as to what to and not to publish; whether there was editorial independence in Apple Daily; whether Yeung Ching-kee would make his own decisions without following the instructions of his superiors; and D1’s role in lunchbox meetings and in Apple Daily generally. Again, we will deal with the material ones in our findings of fact. 1075.It is pertinent to note at this point, however, that unlike the case of Cheung Kim-hung, there was no attack on Chan Pui-man’s credibility as a witness in cross-examination. In particular, there were no suggestions that Chan Pui-man was making up evidence against D1. Having carefully considered Chan Pui-man’s evidence and based on our observation of her giving evidence in the witness box, we find her to be a credible witness. 1076.The cross-examination of Yeung Ching-kee was relatively brief (less than 2 hours) when compared with that of Cheung Kim-hung (about 3 days) and Chan Pui-man (a little over 2 days). 1077.Similar to the case of Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man, there were areas of Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence with which the defence did not agree. For example, it was put to him that he was “quite independent” in his decisions as to the articles and the contributors for the forum page – a proposition to which he did not entirely agree. Yeung Ching-kee said that if the editors did not suit D1’s taste, then D1 would change the editor. He said that it would not be accurate to say that the principle of not interfering with the writers applied to all the writers who were under his control. He said that at least he needed to approve the articles before they would be published. He agreed, on the other hand, that if an article was calling for something which would obviously violate the law, then he would not approve it. However, if the articles were “playing edge ball” and they were consistent with the stance of Apple Daily, then they might be adopted. He agreed that the list of writers would be regularly updated. He disagreed with leading counsel that D1 had not mentioned about “sanction” in the third dinner gathering at D1’s home that Yeung Ching-kee attended. Concerning the perspectives of the commentaries in Apple Forum, he said some of them were quite critical. On the other hand, he agreed with leading counsel that the criticism was for the purpose of pointing out deficiencies in the policies of the Hong Kong Government or the Mainland Chinese Government and they were not criticisms purely for the sake of criticism. Yeung Ching-kee agreed that he did not intentionally breach the law. 1078.Despite the disagreement by the defence on some areas of Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence, we note that there was no suggestion that Yeung Ching-kee was fabricating his evidence against D1. Having carefully considered Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence and based on our observation of him giving evidence in the witness box, we find him to be a credible witness. Royston 1079.Similar to the other prosecution witnesses, Royston was cross-examined on the nature of “lunchbox meetings” and whether D1 had laid down any editorial directions in those meetings. He was also asked about the financial situation of Next Media Limited (which later became NDL) from the financial year 2001 and onwards. He was also asked about the time when Apple Daily started an online subscription system, the change in revenues of Apple Daily from advertisements over the years and the shareholder loans that D1 made to the company. 1080.Despite the fact that Royston was giving evidence under immunity there was no suggestion that Royston was fabricating his evidence against D1. Having carefully considered Royston’s evidence and based on our observation of him giving evidence in the witness box, we find him to be a credible witness. Reliability of the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee and Royston 1081.Given that Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man and Yeung Ching-kee gave their evidence as accomplice witnesses pending sentence and that Royston gave evidence under immunity, we remind ourselves that their evidence should be examined with care and extra caution. On the other hand, as we have noted above, the credibility of Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee and Royston was not challenged. 1082.Having considered the evidence of all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses from Apple Daily carefully, we find that their evidence is consistent and supportive of each other. We have no doubt that they gave truthful evidence. Their evidence is reasonable and without inherent improbability or exaggeration. We find them all to be honest and reliable witnesses. Prosecution witnesses on Count 3 1083.Despite the fact that Andy’s evidence spanned a total of 15 days, his cross-examination only occupied about 1½ days. Presumably, that was because Andy agreed with defence counsel that he had never met or spoken to D1 and that he had only met Mark Simon once and that was on 29 September 2019 when he met with Senator Rick Scott. Moreover, he had never spoken to Mark Simon over the telephone. We note also that a significant number of questions put to Andy was not about him but about Wayland with a view to showing that the Wayland was himself a valiant or at least was closely connected with the valiant camp. 1084.In cross-examination, Andy said that he believed what he did prior to the NSL, namely advertisement/crowdfunding campaigns, international lobbying work including his visit to the United Nations Human Rights Council (“UNHRC”) in Geneva; his visit to France; receiving Bob Seely in Hong Kong; and meeting Senator Scott in Hong Kong, was legal. Andy agreed that his activities on behalf of SWHK before 1 July 2020 were not illegal. Shortly after the text of the NSL had come out on 30 June 2020, he read it. Having realised the breadth of the NSL and that it had extra-territorial effect, he told Luke de Pulford (at 23:39) that “you have committed a crime according to the text” [1368]. We find by implication at that stage Andy also knew that he was committing a crime, although Andy said that he was reckless as to whether international lobbying would be illegal or not. Upon clarification sought by the Court, Andy explained his reasoning at the time. He said that:
Andy said his decision was to carry on what he had been doing regardless of the NSL. He said that he had discussed this with “T” (Wayland) on 23 July 2020. The decision was not one that he was particularly comfortable with, but as far as he was concerned it seemed to be “the least evil one”. That was because he thought that he had already been targeted by Beijing as a political enemy and therefore, already the regime would have a way to have him arrested and charged. Therefore, he thought that even if he did not continue with the international lobbying, he would still be arrested. 1085.Andy was asked in cross-examination whether Wayland saw valiant as a way to undermine the Hong Kong Government. He said that he had such a perception. For example:
1086.Once again, we note that the cross-examination of Andy was more about seeking clarifications, extracting evidence which might help D1 and throwing a bad light on Wayland rather than to challenge Andy’s veracity. Indeed, there was no suggestion from counsel that Andy was not telling the truth or was exaggerating in his evidence. Having carefully considered Andy’s evidence and based on our observation of him giving evidence in the witness box, we find him to be a credible witness. We also find that Andy’s evidence is reliable except in relation to two matters: (1) Wayland’s role in assisting his fleeing from Hong Kong; and (2) whether Wayland was a leader or member of the valiant. We will address these two areas when we turn to Wayland’s evidence. Introduction 1087.Wayland’s evidence-in-chief spanned seven days. He was cross-examined for a total of about three days, after which he was re-examined for some time. There was no dispute that Wayland did meet with D1 on six occasions. In any event, the fact that there were those six meetings is supported by the WhatsApp records between him and D1. The disputes were about what D1 had said in those meetings. There were also disputes about the contents of telephone conversations which Wayland said he had with D1. The relevant evidence has already been covered and we are not going to repeat it. 1088.In the main, the line of cross-examination of Wayland was that many of the things he said in his evidence were not covered by his video-recorded interviews under caution (when he was questioned as a suspect), his subsequent video-recorded interviews (after he had indicated his willingness to assist the prosecution) and written (non-prejudicial) statements. It was D1’s case that Wayland fabricated evidence against him[1369]. Limited communication with D1 post-NSL 1089.In cross-examination, Wayland agreed that in none of those video-recorded interviews or written statements did he mention a telephone conversation after the NSL with D1. Wayland said that was because he did not have any telephone conversation or meeting with D1 after the passing of the NSL. His communications with D1 on 12 and 13 July 2020 were by way of Signal[1370] and those were about the primary election. Wayland’s state of mind post-NSL 1090.Wayland was asked about his state of mind when he communicated with Andy on 23 July 2020 when he said[1371],
He said that at the time he was of the view that they should continue to push for sanctions. That was because even for people of such standing as D1, he was fearless and had nothing to worry and even set himself as an example. Therefore, Wayland thought something should be done. But as to what extent it should be done, at that time he was still contemplating. When asked by the Court whether he knew that D1 did set an example, Wayland answered in the affirmative. Wayland was aware that after the sixth meeting and even after the promulgation of the NSL, D1 pushed for the “Safe Harbor Act” in the US. Besides, Wayland knew D1 took part in interviews with foreigners or overseas think tanks and D1 himself continued to speak out on social media. Wayland said he still carried on with pushing for sanctions, as D1 said that they had to persist and continue. Upon further clarification, Wayland said that D1 said that he was pushing for something to help young people and he did not specifically mention “Safe Harbor Act”. Subsequently, Wayland heard from Mark Simon that D1 was doing something about “Safe Harbor Act”. Therefore, Wayland connected the two pieces of information together. Upon further clarification sought by the Court, he added that after the sixth meeting at the Next Digital Building, even after the NSL, as far as he knew, D1 invited well-known people or people from think tanks overseas to take part in interviews. D1 continued to speak out on social media. 1091.Wayland was cross-examined at length on his knowledge about what D1 had said about sanction after the NSL. Wayland said that he believed that he watched at least one of D1’s interviews between Andy’s arrest on 10 August 2020 and Wayland’s own arrest on 10 October 2020, but he could not remember whether D1 called for sanctions in that episode. As regards Wayland’s knowledge of D1’s statement on social media, Wayland said firstly that he received a link (from someone through TG) to an article or interview posted on Apple Daily’s website. There was a short summary of the article or interview saying that D1 was calling for foreign countries to impose sanctions. However, he said that he did not click on the link and he was unable to provide further details about that article or interview. Secondly, Wayland said that he also saw on YouTube one or two videos in which D1 appeared and that was around September 2020 in which D1 said that he had nothing to fear, that he had a sense of mission and that he would continue to do what he considered to be right. 1092.In cross-examination, Wayland was asked what his future intention was after the NSL. Wayland answered that his thinking at that time was that it would depend on what people were beside him. If there were still some people working, for example Andy and D1, whom he knew were still working hard for the sake of Hong Kong, he thought eventually he would engage in it. Upon enquiry by the Court whether he still continued in his work, Wayland answered in the affirmative and said that was because D1 said that they had to persist and continue. On the other hand, Wayland agreed that from 1 July 2020 until the day of his arrest, he did not tell D1 that he was going to continue to work on international lobbying to impose sanctions against the officials of the Hong Kong Government even though that was illegal after the NSL. He agreed that at no time after 1 July 2020 did he ever discuss with D1 the effect of the NSL. Similarly, after the NSL D1 did not ask him personally to carry out any activities that were then unlawful under the NSL. Inconsistent statements in cautioned interviews 1093.We have already referred to Wayland’s cross-examination on his communication with Mark Simon after the NSL and his arrest, all of which we will not repeat. 1094.In cross-examination, Wayland’s attention was drawn to the following assertions he made to the police in his cautioned interviews (as a suspect) on 10 October 2020 and 11 October 2020[1372]:
Wayland answered that the above statements were not true. 1095.Wayland disagreed that he was lying when he subsequently told the police that Mark Simon said, “Keep up with the lobbying work”. He said that he was not a member of SWHK when it was set up, but he became a member in June or July 2020. He said that in the cautioned video-recorded interview he just wanted to distance himself from SWHK and to exonerate Andy. On the other hand, Wayland said that he did have doubts about the purpose of SWHK and he had shared those with Andy in private. 1096.In re-examination, Wayland admitted that he made false statements in his cautioned interviews conducted on 10 and 11 October 2020 immediately after his first arrest. That was because at the time he still thought that luck would be on his side so that he would be able to dissociate himself from Mark Simon, D1, SWHK, Finn Lau and Andy, all of whom he knew had breached the law and he believed that it was very likely that his connections with them had already been unveiled. He further elaborated that at that time SWHK was still pushing forward with sanctions, and he knew that Mark Simon, Finn Lau and others were still taking part in that. For Wayland himself, he was in the US front. Therefore, he was of the view that they had already contravened the NSL. He also thought that Mark Simon would be able to make arrangement for him to leave Hong Kong. It was in March or April 2021 that he agreed to assist the Police and after that, he was interviewed by the police as a witness and told the truth. D1’s statement about a leadership group 1097.In cross-examination, Wayland was asked whether D1 said in their second meeting on 13 November 2019 that D1 wanted to be a leader of the valiant. Wayland answered in the negative. In re-examination, Wayland was referred to his WhatsApp exchanges with D1 on the day before where D1 said[1373]:
Wayland explained that he was not saying that D1 said that he wanted to be a leader of the valiant team. What Wayland meant was that D1 wanted to set up a main stage spanning across the “peaceful, rational and non-violent” camp and the valiant camp which D1 could dominate. At that time there was no big stage for the valiant camp. At that time all there was just some bits and pieces of valiant teams that were relatively well-known. Therefore, if the valiant camp and the “peaceful, rational and non-violent” camp could set up a leadership group, then that would in effect dominate the entire movement. 1098.In cross-examination, when Wayland was asked whether, in his dealings with Martin Lee, Mark Simon and D1, all of them had a very negative attitude to the concept of “mutual destruction”, Wayland answered, “At the beginning, yes.” In re-examination, Wayland said, however, that after the District Council Election (in November 2019) D1 and Mark Simon changed their attitude towards “mutual destruction” in that they no longer criticised or opposed to those who espoused the concept of “mutual destruction”, especially on the international front. They were of the view that the latter could be united with the traditional pan-democrats. Whether Wayland Chan was a valiant 1099.In cross-examination, Wayland denied that he was a leader or a member of the valiants. He said that he and the valiants were just in the same TG group. The reason why D1 asked him to pass on the messages to the valiant was that he was in touch with the leaders. He disagreed that he saw valiant as a means to achieve the perception that the regime in Hong Kong could not actually govern the territory. 1100.On the other hand, Wayland agreed that in around July or August 2019, he asked Andy to meet him on the ground floor of a building in the Fo Tan industrial area. Also present at the meeting was “Captain” and Cath. Wayland said that this “Captain” was different from “Cap”. According to Wayland, both “Captain” and Cath belonged to the valiant. Moreover, Cath was the female who was later introduced to Mark Simon and had met with Rick Scott. Concerning the Fo Tan meeting, he denied that Andy was told that Cath was responsible for explosives and petrol bombs. All that was said was “Cath played with fire magic”. 1101.Wayland denied having told Andy on any occasion that his valiant team was involved in causing chaos in Central Liaison Office or that his valiant team was responsible for the explosion near the border around the New Year of 2020. 1102.Wayland denied having told Andy words to the effect that if an army could be set up, then eventually it would be for Wayland or other valiants to try to do it. Wayland also denied having told Andy that he (Wayland) would be in charge of the army or that the Israeli army would be available for training the valiants. Assisting Andy’s attempted fleeing 1103.Regarding Wayland’s role in Andy’s attempted flight from Hong Kong to Taiwan, Wayland agreed in cross-examination that between Andy’s first arrest (on 10 August 2020) and his subsequent arrest by the mainland authorities (on 23 August 2020), Wayland had communication with Andy. However, Wayland disagreed that he had told Andy in a telephone call that he would arrange for Andy to leave Hong Kong but they did talk about Andy wanting to leave. Wayland said that there were in fact a number of telephone conversations during that period and in one of those Andy told him that he wanted to leave Hong Kong. Wayland said that the telephone conversation was about Andy borrowing money from him. According to Wayland, there was another telephone conversation during which Andy asked him to look after his family and also mentioned what SWHK wanted to do. What Andy said about SWHK was that the fight on the international front should continue. Andy hoped that if he was able to escape, then he would continue to carry on. If not, he was worried that no one would be supporting Hong Kong. They also talked about the Japanese front and mentioned about the United States front. In case Andy was not able to escape, whether Wayland should leave Hong Kong. 1104.Upon further cross-examination, Wayland said that they also talked about the possible effect of Andy’s arrest on SWHK, as the call records stored in his mobile phone concerning “Mutual Destruction Bro” and Wayland would be exposed. 1105.Wayland said that in the cautioned interview held on 10 October 2020, he was not telling the truth to the Police when he said that he did not assist Andy in leaving Hong Kong. Wayland said on the day Andy was granted bail, Andy contacted him by a TG call and said that he needed a safe-house; that he had been arrested; and that he needed support. However, Andy did not ask him on that occasion whether he could arrange a boat for Andy to leave Hong Kong. Subsequently, Andy did ask Wayland if he could make arrangements for Andy to leave Hong Kong. Wayland said that he had to see if anyone could help. Then, there was a discussion about anti-tracking strategies. Subsequently, a person called “Kyle” told Wayland that he could provide a safe-house. Wayland passed on to Andy the contact of Kyle. Afterwards, Andy told Wayland that he was safe. Later on, Wayland was contacted by a person called Chan Sai-tak who said that he was able to provide Andy with a safe-house and transportation. Wayland in turn informed Andy about this. Then, Wayland was contacted by “Cap” who said that he would arrange fishing equipment and a boatman for Andy. Eventually, Wayland received a call from Andy, saying that he was about to board the boat and leave. Wayland could not remember whether he had told Andy that upon his arrival in Taiwan, he should surrender to local authorities and seek help. However, Wayland denied having told Andy that when the authorities in Taiwan release him, he should take a private plane of the President of the Senate of the Czech Republic and go to the Czech Republic. 1106.Wayland said that after Andy’s arrest on the high seas, other than receiving Andy’s letters, there was no communication between the two of them before Andy’s return to Hong Kong on 22 March 2021. How Wayland became a prosecution witness 1107.For the sake of convenience, we remind ourselves that Wayland was first arrested by the police on 10 October 2020 for “assisting an offender” but was soon released on police bail. On 15 February 2021, he was re-arrested for the offence of collusion and remanded in custody thereafter. 1108.There is no dispute that Wayland first enquired about the possibility of becoming a prosecution witness on 31 March 2021. After that day and before the first video-recorded interview on 28 April 2021, he had been visited by the police on six occasions[1374]. Wayland said that during those meetings, the conversation was mainly about his emotions. Other than that, he had no recollection. After the aforesaid six police visits, he gave four video-recorded interviews (“VRIs”) to the police as follows:
1109.There was also a total of four written (non-prejudicial) statements given by Wayland to the police on the following dates:
He said that when the above statements were being taken, the statement-taking police officers had a laptop with them and they would type in his statements as they were discussing things with him. 1110.Wayland agreed that between 7 May 2021 and 15 January 2024, he was also visited by the police on 65 occasions (not including the statement on 10 November 2022) which lasted for a total of about 65 hours. He said that he did not discuss with the police the substance of his evidence in any of those meetings over that period and the conversation was about his physical condition, his life as an inmate and his complaints. Wayland said that in the very beginning, he very often had emotional breakdowns. At a later stage, he would talk about his life. Evidence not covered by video-recorded interviews and witness statements 1111.In cross-examination, Wayland agreed that his second meeting with D1 was not covered in his 1st VRI given on 28 April 2021. 1112.Wayland was also cross-examined on certain things which he said that D1 had said[1379]. It was put to Wayland, and he agreed, that he had not mentioned the following matters in any of his pre-trial statements:
Notably, there were two important themes in this line of cross-examination, namely: (1) whether D1 had been told anything by Wayland about Andy; and (2) whether Wayland had any discussions with D1 in relation to the “international front”, SWHK and IPAC.[1380] 1113.It was put to Wayland that as regards the statements or topics which Wayland testified about in Court but could not be found in his VRIs, his testimony was untrue and was something which he came up with in the witness box for the first time. Wayland disagreed. He also disagreed that he made up statements to try and benefit himself in sentencing. 1114.In re-examination, Wayland said that after he indicated his willingness to assist the prosecution, what he told the police in his VRIs and witness statements were true. He said that the statements that he gave initially under caution were not the truth and subsequently gave an account of the truth because he did not want to have a guilty conscience. 1115.As regards the statements which Wayland said were made by D1 but were not covered in his VRIs or witness statements, he made the following clarifications in re-examination:
Cross-examination of SSgt Lai relating to Wayland 1116.In the cross-examination of SSgt Lai concerning Wayland, SSgt Lai agreed that between 11 August and 9 November 2022, he visited Wayland on 14 occasions. Having refreshed his memory by his police notebook, SSgt Lai also agreed that he and his subordinate Sgt 1237 went to take a statement from Wayland on 10 November 2022. He said that Sgt 1237 took the statement with a computer. When the statement-taking was about to begin, SSgt Lai needed to liaise with the CSD to find a way to have the statement printed out for Wayland’s signature and also to find out from the CSD the situation of Wayland. When SSgt Lai returned to the interview room, the statement-taking process had finished. Allegation of “coaching” Wayland 1117.Upon enquiry by the Court as to the relevance of the above line of cross-examination, counsel for D1 said that it was their suggestion that evidence was discussed during the prior visits. Furthermore, it was D1’s case that Wayland had been subject to “witness training” and “witness coaching”. As regards this suggestion, we note the following:
1118.In view of all the circumstances, having considered the evidence of Wayland and SSgt Lai and having observed them giving evidence in Court, we are satisfied so that we are sure that, despite the number and total duration of police visits to Wayland, there had been no “witness training” or “witness coaching” of Wayland as suggested by the defence. 1119.Wayland admitted that he had told lies to the police under caution when he was first arrested by the police in October 2020 for assisting Andy’s attempted flight. It was only four months later that he was arrested for an NSL offence. We accept his explanation that at the time when he was first interviewed as a suspect in October 2020, he was trying to exonerate Andy and to distance himself from SWHK. He only changed his mind and indicated his willingness to assist the prosecution about one and a half months after his second arrest. 1120.We are also alive to the inaccuracies relating to certain dates of events in Wayland’s testimony in Court. Examples included:
On the other hand, we take into account the fact that Wayland was recounting events which took place about three to five years before based solely on his recollection. He had discarded his mobile which contained all his WhatsApp communications with D1 and others. We do not consider Wayland’s inaccuracies about certain dates to affect his credibility as a witness. 1121.We have not ignored the fact that there are some apparent discrepancies between Andy and Wayland as to: (1) the latter’s role in the former’s attempted flight to Taiwan; and (2) Wayland’s alleged affiliation with the valiant. As regards (1), Andy did not have personal knowledge as to how and by whom the boat to Taiwan was arranged. We accept Wayland’s direct evidence that his role in the matter was limited to lining up Andy and other people who could offer help to Andy and that he did not himself arrange a boat for Andy to go to Taiwan. As regards (2), Andy only partially or conditionally agreed with the proposition put to him that Wayland saw the valiant as a way to undermine the Hong Kong SAR Government. We have no doubt that Wayland had contacts with the valiant. He admitted as much that he introduced “Cath” to attend the meeting with Rick Scott for her to talk about what happened at the frontline of the protest. However, the evidence of Andy in cross-examination about Wayland being a leader or member of the valiant camp is simply ambiguous. The proposition put to Andy that Wayland was involved in various violent acts was also highly speculative. In any event, we do not consider the apparent discrepancies between Andy and Wayland on (1) and (2) above to have any material bearing on the credibility of Wayland’s evidence about D1. 1122.We have gone through certain parts of his evidence which have not been covered by his VRIs and witness statements. We note, however, that:
1123.Having taken into account Wayland’s evidence under cross-examination and having seen and heard him in the witness box giving evidence as well as all the relevant evidence as a whole, in our assessment the fact that some parts of Wayland’s evidence had not been covered by his video-recorded interviews or witness statements does not affect his credibility as a witness. 1124.Given Wayland’s status as an accomplice witness knowing that he has an obvious incentive to give false evidence which implicates D1, the potential benefit of him giving evidence against D1 and the importance of his evidence, we have taken extra caution in examining his evidence. Having taken everything into account and the criticisms levelled by the defence in particular, we find the many features listed above are highly supportive of Wayland having told the truth. 1125.We find that Wayland is a credible and reliable witness who gave clear, reasonable and straight forward evidence which is without inherent improbabilities or exaggeration. Chapter 25 – Adverse measures by foreign countries 1126.In the previous chapters, we have referred to some of the US legislations relevant to the present case and also the suspension of extradition arrangements by foreign countries. 1127.The details and the effects of the relevant US legislations, executive order and measures can be found in the two expert opinions (redacted version) of Professor Wang Guiguo[1409] which are produced pursuant to section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. In the absence of cross-examination and contrary evidence, we attach full weight to Professor Wang’s opinions (as redacted). For the sake of convenience, we highlight the following which is extracted from the Prosecution Closing Submission[1410]. 1128.What is in dispute and what needs to be resolved is whether the conduct of the US and other foreign countries under consideration as disclosed by the evidence before us would amount to “sanctions” or “blockade” or “other hostile activities” for the purpose of NSL 29(4). This is an issue solely for this Court to address and not for Professor Wang. We shall in due course come back to this issue. The relevant US legislations and measures Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (“HKHRDA”)[1411] 1129.The HKHRDA was signed into law by President Trump on 27 November 2019. It modified the treatment of the HKSAR under the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, with effects including, inter alia, providing convenience for visa applications for certain individuals charged, detained, or convicted by the HKSAR or the Central Government of the PRC, requiring annual reports on the HKSAR relating to alleged violations of the US export control laws and UN sanctions, and the imposition of sanctions on certain persons in the HKSAR. Hong Kong Autonomy Act (“HKAA”)[1412] 1130.The HKAA became a law of the US on 14 July 2020. In brief, it imposes sanctions on foreign individuals and entities alleged to have materially contributed to China’s failure to preserve Hong Kong autonomy. The HKAA mandates the President of the US to impose property-blocking sanctions and visa-blocking sanctions on named individuals or entities[1413]. 1131.The EO was issued by the US President Donald Trump on 14 July 2020. It references and builds upon the HKAA, which was signed into law on the same day, as well as the HKHRDA. The EO suspended the application of several statutes that provided HK with special treatments in areas such as immigration, visa application, and export controls. Furthermore, section 4 of the EO stipulates the imposition of blocking sanctions in respect of any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasury to have been involved in, inter alia, the coercion, arrest, detention, or imprisonment of individuals under the authority of the NSL. Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act (“HKSHA”)[1415] 1132.The HKSHA designates certain HK residents with priority status for refugee consideration. The bill provides that HK residents involved in the 2019 and 2020 protests seeking asylum into the US can earn exception to the general presumption that applies to aliens seeking asylum. The HKSHA has been introduced but is yet to become a law of the US. Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act (“HKPFCA”)[1416] 1133.The HKPFCA was introduced in the US Senate on 20 July 2020. It provides for immigration benefits related to HK in the event that China puts into effect national security legislation in HK that would curtail political freedoms. Under the HKPFCA, qualifying HK residents who apply for permanent resident status are deemed to have an approved petition, and would be exempt from certain provisions such as those requiring applicants to have a valid entry document. The HKPFCA has been introduced but is yet to become a law of the US. Adverse measures taken by the US 1134.Throughout 2020 and 2021, a series of adverse measures was taken by the US including the following:
Suspension of extradition agreements by foreign countries 1135.According to the admitted facts[1423], between 3 July and 22 October 2020, nine jurisdictions have suspended their agreements with the HKSAR on the surrender of fugitive offenders28. Canada was the first jurisdiction to suspend such agreements with the HKSAR, with the suspension having taken effect on 3 July 2020. 1136.The following table is a summary of other jurisdictions which have suspended their respective agreements with the HKSAR on the surrender of fugitive offenders and the respective dates of suspension:
Chapter 26 – Summary of D1’s Personal background and his case 1137.We set out below D1’s personal background and an overview of D1’s case. 1138.In D1’s examination-in-chief, Mr Kwan commenced D1’s evidence by asking him to confirm his personal background mentioned by himself in two interviews. One interview was with Father Sirico published on 18 June 2020[1424] and the other with Benedict Rogers on 27 November 2020[1425]. 1139.We set out the summary of his background from what D1 stated in those two interviews. 1140.D1 was born in 1947 in Mainland China into a wealthy family. When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took over China his family became marginalised and his family life was shattered. His mother went to a labour camp. At 9 or 10 years old he had to work to make ends meet to feed his twin sister and an older sister. He found work at a train station carrying luggage for tips. Once he was handed a chocolate bar from a Hong Kong resident as a tip. He tasted chocolate for the first time and was determined to go to Hong Kong as he thought it must be heaven. 1141.At the age of 12 he smuggled himself to Hong Kong by hiding at the bottom of a fishing boat. Upon arriving in Hong Kong he worked in a factory and taught himself English. He then went to work and live in New York as a sales representative in a factory in 1969. With the money he earned, he went into retailing textile business in China and set up Giordano. 1142.After D1 participated in the Tiananmen Square student movement on 4 June 1989, he wrote a letter to Li Peng, the then Chinese Premier. Thereafter he was told by the CCP that either he sold his business or they were going to close down Giordano. He was given five days to sell it[1426]. He sold Giordano in 1990 and went into media business in the same year. Founding of Next Magazine and Apple Daily 1143.In around 1990, he founded Next Magazine as he thought it a good opportunity that a businessman like himself should participate in delivering information, he equated information with freedom. As the more information one gathers, the more free one is[1427]. 1144.He launched Next Magazine as opposition to the Chinese communists as he found that other media businesses were scared and went into self-censorship to avoid offending the communists[1428]. He also started Apple Daily as an expansion of his media business in 1995 as a daily newspaper[1429]. A few years later he also started Apple Daily in Taiwan as a leverage to protect his Hong Kong newspaper. His thinking/plan being, if the CCP wanted to crack down on him they would have to consider his presence in Taiwan as they wanted to claim Taiwan as well[1430]. When 1997 was approaching he was worried that China might interfere with the freedom in Hong Kong. D1 believed Hong Kong must maintain its Western values, such as freedom of speech, religion, travel and the rule of law. He was resolutely against China imposing their values upon Hong Kong. 1145.D1 was of the view that China slowly interfered with Hong Kong by violating the law to erode freedom in Hong Kong. First by proposing a bill based on Article 23 of the Basic Law in 2003, China tried to suppress freedom and on that occasion, half a million people went out to protest. The draft bill was then withdrawn. Then came the Umbrella Movement. Then the CCP tried to control elections and disqualified the legislators especially the young and more radical ones. Then came the Extradition Law which the Government withdrew. Because they failed on the Extradition Law, the CCP used the National Security Law (NSL) which he believed superseded the Basic Law. D1 was of the view that the introduction of the NSL meant the destruction of the rule of law in Hong Kong. There would be no protection for the people and instead people would have to bribe officials who had the power to protect them[1431]. A businessman and social activist 1146.D1 is a businessman, he lived in Hong Kong. He had business investments in Hong Kong and Taiwan. D1 is a permanent resident in Taiwan. D1 first became involved in politics on 4 June 1989.[1432] D1 did not consider himself a political figure[1433] but considered himself a businessman and a social activist as he participated in and supported social events[1434]. He had never been a member of any political party in or outside Hong Kong[1435]. 1147.D1 had however been invited to sit in on several meetings of the US think tanks in Washington, one of which John Bolton was a member. This commenced from about 2018 onwards. The think tanks would update D1 on what was happening in the US and D1 would update them on what was happening in Hong Kong. It was mostly about policy or international matters. He had been donating money to US think tanks[1436]. He resonated with what they supported which was a free market and freedom. He donated about US$20,000 - US$50,000 a year as a token of his support. He said these donations were too small to influence US policy on China or Hong Kong and it was too small for him to think that he would get anything in return.[1437] 1148.According to Cheung Kim-hung, D1 became more active in making editorial policies and he used Apple Daily to encourage people to seek democracy and to take to the street to put up resistance. Thus, Apple Daily “metamorphosed” into a newspaper that opposed the HKSAR Government and the Central Government. From that time onwards, the management of Apple Daily also ran the newspaper according to this stance adopted by D1. 1149.D1 disagreed with Cheung Kim-hung’s evidence that prior to 2014, Apple Daily had been mainly concerned with paparazzi and entertainment news. Shortly before and after the Umbrella Movement/Occupy Central Movement in 2014, in which D1 participated actively, Apple Daily changed its tactic and concentrated on reporting more social movements and political events[1438]. D1 said Apple Daily supported more social movements after 2014 just because they became more active. D1 agreed that he himself stepped to the forefront and became a little bit more forward after 2014. 1150.D1 accepted the evidence of Chan Pui-man that D1 had stepped into the forefront of the social movement and was more active in political events after 2014[1439]. D1 said that as there was more social/political movement after 2014, Apple Daily had to respond and follow the social/political events and therefore seemed active. 1151.D1 was first arrested in 2014 for having participated in an unauthorized assembly during Occupy Central. He was however not prosecuted[1440]. 1152.D1 disagreed with the evidence of Yeung Ching-kee that since October 2018 after US Vice President Mike Pence gave a speech at the Hudson Institute about the change of policy from the US towards China, D1’s own political stance changed and he became more radical[1441]. D1 said he was radical all along[1442]. 1153.D1 stated that Apple Daily’s core value was the core value of Hong Kong people, i.e. the rule of law, freedom of speech, religion and assembly and the pursuit of democracy. There was never any editorial policy or orientation because Apple Daily’s staff expressed the same core value as Hong Kong people. D1 said he was opposed to violence. He never advocated for the independence of Hong Kong, he considered it a crazy idea. He never allowed his writers or staff or Apple Daily to mention independence. Writers who advocated for Hong Kong or Taiwan independence would not be allowed to join Apple Daily[1443]. 1154.The first editorial of Apple Daily was written by D1 on 20 June 1995. This was the only editorial he ever wrote in Apple Daily. The title was “We belong to Hong Kong”[1444] he said the “we” referred to Apple Daily. This was an article stating amongst other content, that there were two years to go before the political regime of Hong Kong was to be handed over. They were afraid to run a newspaper now because of the change of the circumstances after 1997. He stated, they were unwilling to be intimidated by fear. As long as the readers chose Apple Daily, supported Apple Daily’s coverage and agreed with Apple Daily’s stance, they could surely stand up however great the pressure would be. What they needed was support from the readers and not nurture by the powers. He stated Hong Kong people were accustomed to freedom and would have zero tolerance for any restriction on this freedom and unfair treatment. He believed that this aligned with what he perceived to be the values of Hong Kong people. This editorial that he wrote represented the guiding principle of Apple Daily[1445]. 1155.D1 admitted that he saw the CCP as his enemy and that Apple Daily was anti-Communist. He stated that Apple Daily represented the general view of the “yellow side” of society, that is those who were highly critical of the Hong Kong and the PRC Government. 1156.D1 stated that his core values and those of Apple Daily were freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Taking up the position of Executive Chairman of Next Digital on 25 May 2020 1157.D1 took up the position of Executive Chairman of Next Digital Limited on 25 May 2020. It was his case he did so as he knew the NSL was coming and he wanted to step forward and accept sole responsibility for Apple Daily rather than hiding behind the corporate veil letting the staff members become liable after the NSL. 1158.D1 admitted that he did give some editorial directions to staff but those occasions were few and far between. [1446] 1159.The first was on 23 March 2019 when D1 sent a photo of Anson Chan and the US Vice President Mike Pence in a WhatsApp and told Cheung Kim-hung, “She met Pence! Big news. Use it to maximum effect” PW7 replied “Good morning Boss, Got it. Thanks” [1447]. 1160.The other was in relation to the “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign at the end of May 2020 when he directed the senior management of Apple Daily to publish the letter in the Apple Daily newspaper. D1 admitted during examination-in-chief that although his staff were against publishing this letter he overruled Chan Pui-man on this matter because as he said “he was the boss.” 1161.D1 denied giving any editorial directions to the senior management of Apple Daily during lunch box meetings. The meetings were for the purpose of transforming the company from a paper newspaper into an online service therefore it was a business development meeting. They would talk about the existing systems and implementing new ideas[1448]. 1162.It was D1’s case that a direction to publish is not an editorial direction but something out of the news is an editorial direction. 1163.Although D1 may have suggested articles for the English edition of Apple Daily during the initial stage after it had been launched, he denied he gave editorial directions and denied giving any during lunch box meetings. 1164.D1 was taken through the infographics of his foreign connections by his counsel Mr Kwan and was cross-examined on the same.[1449] D1’s submissions were that his foreign connections with individuals outside Hong Kong were relationships developed naturally or with his business network. It was D1’s submissions that there was nothing sinister about these relationships. D1 had the right to associate and work with these foreign individuals who shared the same values. By sharing the values, D1 did not intend to collaborate or agree with his foreign network to solicit or request for foreign intervention and the imposition of SBHA. 1165.D1 believed that the ELAB was deliberately designed to send opponents of the CCP regime, like himself back to the Mainland. He believed also that ELAB was a vicious conspiracy of undermining Hong Kong’s rule of law and human rights and freedom. It was an erosion of freedom. So everyone stood up to resist. Young people had taken up the torch to be the leaders of the movement[1450]. 1166.From the anti-ELAB movement to the time before the promulgation of the NSL, D1 had requested foreign countries to impose SBHA on HKSAR and the PRC governments and their officials. 1167.It was D1’s case that from fervently asking for SBHA prior to NSL, that with a flick of a switch from 1 July 2020, he stopped requesting for SBHA because of the NSL as he had no intention at all to break the law. Any discussions with reference to SBHA were all comments and opinions as he was permitted to do so and was guaranteed under his freedom of expression. 1168.We have borne in mind and given anxious consideration to the very detailed defence submissions, exhibits and case authorities comprising over 10,000 pages. It is unnecessary for us to repeat them here as we have dealt with the issues and their submissions in our Reasons for Verdict. We set out below a summary of D1’s case. 1169.As to Count 1:
1170.As to Count 2:
It was D1’s case that the prosecution witnesses, the accomplices in Counts 1 and 2, did not give evidence showing the formation of an agreement to pursue an unlawful course of conduct. At its highest, with respect to Counts 1 and 2, the accomplice witnesses gave evidence that they carried out acts which they worried might cross the “red line”. 1171.As to Count 3:
1172.To the extent that Andy engaged in activities after the NSL that breached the NSL, his reasons for doing so had nothing to do with any agreement with D1 or Wayland. 1173.The evidence of Andy was that he engaged in activities after 30 June 2020 that violated the NSL, he did so of his own volition. He never once said in the evidence that the reasons for his actions had anything to do with:
1174.In terms of the activities of SWHK after NSL, the prosecution relied on various posts to the SWHK website; posts to the SWHK Twitter account; posts to the SWHK Facebook account; and various SWHK press releases. Andy confirmed in cross-examination that he had nothing to do with any of those activities, except for posting to the website. Even then, he was not responsible for the content of the posts, but only the mechanism of posting. He confirmed that he was not responsible for instructing others within SWHK on the decision to post or the content of the posts. Andy confirmed in cross-examination that in terms of what he did post to the SWHK website, he did not discuss the content of those posts with D1 or Wayland before doing so. The decision to assist SWHK in the way that he did was his alone. 1175.D1 had nothing to do with the content of the uploads of posts or letters made by SWHK. 1176.In terms of the activities of IPAC after NSL, Andy updated the website; attended online meetings; attended a press conference hosted by Shiori Yamao in Japan. However he confirmed in cross-examination he did not discuss any of his activities with D1 or Wayland. The decision to assist IPAC was his alone. His activities were wholly unrelated to any conspiracy with D1. Andy never said that any of his activities after the NSL was because D1 or Wayland asked him to do so. 1177.Andy knew that it was unlawful to carry out lobbying activities after the enactment of the NSL but decided to do so because he thought that his arrest was inevitable in any event so he may as well continue. 1178.D1’s main submission was that there was no relevant communication with Wayland after the NSL and the reasons why Wayland engaged in activities that breached the NSL had nothing to do with any agreement with D1. 1179.D1 submitted that in cross-examination Wayland said:
1180.From Wayland’s evidence the only activity that he participated in that might have been in breach of the NSL was joining the US Front and participating in TG discussions and decision making with other members of the Front, of which his decision to join the TG group was not at the direction or instruction of D1. 1181.Wayland’s evidence was that he breached the NSL not because of anything that D1 had said to him personally, and not because he was part of a conspiracy with D1 to call for sanctions in breach of the NSL, but rather because of his belief that D1 continued to call for sanctions after the NSL, a belief that was:
1182.It was D1’s case that seeing something on the internet, did not form an agreement. Even less so did seeing links to articles and videos that you had not read, and reading subjects and headlines that you had no way of knowing accurately reflect the articles and videos. At no point did Wayland say that his activities were in breach of the NSL and had anything to do with an agreement with D1. The fact that his activities might have been influenced in part by a (flawed) belief that D1 continued to call for sanctions after the NSL went no way to establishing an agreement to commit an unlawful act. 1183.The Signal messages exchanged between Wayland and D1 between 12 and 13 July 2020 are irrelevant as they dealt with the primary election and had nothing to do with requesting sanctions. There is nothing in the messages that suggest that Wayland continued to follow D1s direction. 1184.In short, it is D1’s case that Andy and Wayland acted on their own volition to breach the NSL without the direction of or agreement with D1. 1185.D1 did not intend to breach the NSL and never did breach the NSL. D1 genuinely believed that what he was doing was not in breach of the NSL. 1186.The fact that D1 encouraged Wayland to persist in international lobbying, if the Court accepts that, that was before the NSL and it was legal then. There is no evidence to show that he encouraged Wayland to persist after the enactment of the NSL when it became illegal. The fact that D1 did not tell Wayland not to persist after the NSL does not mean that D1 intended Wayland to persist and continue after the enactment of the NSL. 1187.In short there was no agreement before the enactment of the NSL and if there was any agreement it did not continue after the NSL. 1188.D1 in letting foreign governments know what was happening in Hong Kong, appealing to them for their concerns and condemnation; and establishing a relationship with people below the table in foreign countries, went no way to proving D1’s unwavering support for the post-NSL activities pursued in accordance with the agreement. 1189.The prosecution has not proved that D1 agreed with Wayland or Andy or anyone else to continue to request foreign countries to request sanctions after doing so had become unlawful. Chapter 27 – Assessment of D1’s evidence 1190.D1 elected to give evidence. He was not obliged to give evidence. He does not have to prove his innocence. He does not have to prove anything. We have directed ourselves that if D1’s evidence is true or may be true then he should be found not guilty. We have further directed ourselves even if we entirely reject the account given by D1 and his defence that does not relieve the prosecution of its burden of making us sure on all the evidence of D1’s guilt. So if we entirely reject the defendant’s evidence we ask ourselves, has the prosecution proved D1’s guilt so that we are sure on the basis of the prosecution evidence which we do accept. 1191.The defence in their submissions submitted that we should bear in mind when assessing D1’s evidence that D1 a senior in his late 70’s had been in the witness box for 52 days and testified about events that occurred many years ago. They submitted that despite his failing memory, confusion, impatience, and at times argumentative and tangential answers, he was a man who told the truth. 1192.It has already been said but we emphasise again D1 is not on trial for his political views or beliefs. We stress that what D1 did or said pre NSL is not the subject matter of the charges but is only background evidence relevant to the charges. 1193.We have given thorough and careful consideration to D1’s evidence and all the evidence adduced. We have taken into account the in-depth submissions made by D1’s defence team. We have taken into account D1’s personal background, that he is a man in his late 70’s, the fact that time has elapsed since events took place and the period of time and detail in which D1 was questioned when he was in the witness box. 1194.During the whole trial in view of D1’s age, we took regular breaks especially whilst D1 was giving evidence. 1195.The prosecution alleged that D1 was an unreliable witness who gave inconsistent and untruthful evidence. In this regard we have carefully considered whether what D1 said was untrue or by mistake or out of forgetfulness or confusion. 1196.In the present case many of the relevant events were recorded in contemporaneous text messages, emails, interviews and articles. The prosecution witnesses and D1 were giving evidence about matters which occurred many years ago. 1197.In determining the contested factual issues, we consider that the contemporaneous messages whether WhatsApp or Signal and emails are of considerable assistance in assessing the credibility and reliability of D1 and the witnesses. The text messages, emails, and interviews provide reliable evidence of what witnesses were thinking at the time the relevant communications were written, sent and received. 1198.In determining the meaning of the texts, emails and interviews, D1 was asked to explain what he meant in some of them. We are not bound by the meaning D1 deposed to at trial in evidence some years after they had been spoken or written. We consider the meaning in the context of what was written and said at the time and take into account all the relevant evidence. 1199.We state at the outset that we reject D1’s evidence on the basis that he gave inconsistent, contradictory and unreliable evidence on significant and relevant matters. Although D1 was aware that much of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was documentary evidence, in answer to questions, D1 did not say he forgot or could not remember but denied outright many allegations put to him. When confronted with the documentary evidence which contradicted his evidence, D1 gave implausible explanations or reasons which we do not accept. 1200.We note that D1 in his evidence would sometimes immediately rebuke or deny matters put to him by the prosecution rather than saying he had forgotten. We find that that was because he was deliberately taking the risk in his evidence in the hope that there would not be a text to prove otherwise. If there were texts to controvert his answer, D1 would then give implausible or far-fetched explanations. 1201.Our reasons for rejecting D1’s evidence are set out below. However supplementary reasons are found in the body of the Reasons for Verdict in relation to a particular issue, matter or event not mentioned below. 1202.Below are some of the matters, where we reject D1’s evidence and our reasons for doing so are explained in the following. D1’s denial of payment to others to influence foreign policy 1203.D1 in evidence in chief stated that he never paid anyone to influence foreign policy on Hong Kong or China. This was untrue as the following evidence demonstrated. 1204.It was clear on the evidence that for the Taiwan Consultancy D1 through Mark Simon paid Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz a sum of US$750,000 each for one year. They had been contracted for two years and therefore in total they were paid US$3 million or approximately HK$23 million. D1 had paid the lawyers for Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to apply for approval from the US Department of Justice for approval of their consultancy to Taiwan. 1205.Between 27 November 2017 and 29 February 2020 Antonio Chiang was paid by Apple Daily Taiwan about NT$209,000 every month. This totalled about NT$5.8 million equivalent to more than HK$1 million when he was no longer employed by Apple Daily Taiwan. 1206.It is our finding that those payments were to influence foreign policy on China. We disbelieve D1’s evidence that the payments to Antonio Chiang were an oversight by him and we find he was deliberating hiding the truth. We are satisfied that payments made to Antonio Chiang for the period covering this Taiwan Consultancy and after when Antonio Chiang was no longer employed by Apple Daily Taiwan, were payments made to sweeten Antonio Chiang so that he would be favourably disposed to D1 and would act as a conduit for D1 to have access to Tsai Ing-wen. 1207.D1 paid for the advice of Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to Tsai for the benefit of Taiwan and the US. The payment was to influence foreign policy through the US and Taiwanese government, when he was promoting his idea to use Taiwan as a leverage against China. D1’s denial of a contract between himself and Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz 1208.D1 denied that he entered into a contract with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz. Despite being shown WhatsApp messages between himself and Mark Simon that he was told there was a contract D1 continued with his denial. Eventually when shown the payments made to them and more WhatsApp messages D1 tried unsuccessfully to say that there was an oral agreement but not a written contract. This was an unsuccessful attempt at recanting his claim and explaining his answer. D1’s denial he was promoting the idea of US military presence in Taiwan to Tsai Ing-wen as a leverage against China 1209.D1’s evidence in relation to the Taiwan Consultancy was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods. D1’s case was that Tsai through Antonio Chiang approached him to seek the US government’s sentiments and attitude. He therefore assisted Tsai by hiring Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to advise her. 1210.Despite D1 being shown numerous WhatsApp messages between himself and Antonio Chiang and Mark Simon in relation to whether it was D1’s idea to promote the idea to Tsai in relation to the presence of US military in Taiwan, D1 denied that he promoted the idea. Eventually after much searching cross-examination when D1 was shown a WhatsApp message from Paul Wolfowitz to D1 on 3 February 2018 thanking him for his idea of launching this project[1451], faced with such cogent evidence, D1 could no longer maintain his denial. D1’s denial that it was his idea of promoting US military presence in Taiwan to John Bolton as a leverage against China 1211.D1 denied he was promoting the idea of US military presence to John Bolton. It was D1’s evidence that the idea of US military presence in Taiwan as a leverage against China was raised in a think tank talk to the media. We reject D1’s evidence that he did not promote his idea to John Bolton. 1212.D1 met John Bolton in the US on 6 January 2017. D1 had prepared a note prior to this meeting. D1 had shared the note by WhatsApp to Antonio Chiang on 5 January 2017. It was headed “strictly confidential” and he asked Antonio Chiang to destroy the note after he read it and not to show it to anyone. After D1 met John Bolton, Mark Simon sent D1 a commentary written by John Bolton on 16 January 2017 titled “Revisit the ‘One-China Policy’ A closer U.S. military relationship with Taiwan would help counter Beijing’s belligerence.” D1 denied that when John Bolton used the word ‘belligerence’ it was his word, and this was a word commonly used. We reject D1’s evidence as this was a word D1 often used when referring to China. 1213.We find that D1 promoted the idea as evidenced in the WhatsApp messages D1 sent to both Antonio Chiang and Mark Simon immediately after his meeting with John Bolton. In the WhatsApp message to Antonio Chiang D1 said, “Accomplished what I want from John. He’s going to write in WSJ of a good idea.” [1452] In his WhatsApp to Mark Simon “My meeting with John accomplished”[1453], undoubtedly, D1 had achieved his mission to align John Bolton with his idea of using Taiwan as a leverage against China. John Bolton’s alignment with D1’s idea was reflected in the similarities between the ideas in D1’s note and John Bolton’s article and the use of D1’s word of ‘belligerence’. D1’s denial that he never tried to influence foreign policy in Hong Kong or PRC – D1’s collaborations with Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, James Cunningham and Mark Simon 1214.We reject D1’s evidence that he never attempted to influence foreign policy in relation to Hong Kong or the PRC. There was ample evidence which we accept of his collaboration with his foreign connections. This was demonstrated by his collaboration with Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, Antonio Chiang, James Cunningham and John Bolton in the Taiwan Consultancy and this collaboration with all of them save for Antonio Chiang continued after the Taiwan Consultancy on matters related to Hong Kong and the PRC. 1215.We find D1 engaged with Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, Christian Whiton, Mark Simon and Rupert Hammond-Chambers on US policy towards Hong Kong and PRC. This included sanctioning CCP and Hong Kong officials to stop them “suppressing” pro-democracy activists which continued into 2020 near the time of the enactment of the NSL. This was evident as D1 was part of an email chain in April and May 2020 discussing the Magnitsky Act[1454], suggesting potential sanction targets such as Hong Kong’s District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin, Luo Huining (the then new director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong) on the basis that Luo was an agent of a government engaging in “gross violations of internationally recognised human rights” so that they could make it a political case. D1 explicitly endorsed targeting Luo Huining saying “a great idea”[1455]. D1 advocated the “most effective way is to freeze the bank accounts of Chinese officials’ corrupted money in US and the West.”[1456] 1216.D1 continued to discuss Taiwan’s strategic importance to the US with Jack Keane (and Paul Wolfowitz, Rupert Hammond Chambers and Mark Simon) in an email dated 9 July 2020 after the enactment of the NSL. D1 said “With US greater military support, people feel more secure to live and invest in Taiwan. Things are looking up.” [1457] This clearly shows D1 intent and support and agreement with Mark Simon of military support in Taiwan against China after the NSL. John Bolton 1217.As regards John Bolton, apart from D1 meeting him in relation to D1’s idea of the Taiwan Consultancy in 2017, D1 met him again on 10 July 2019 in Washington DC, when notably, the latter was the National Security Advisor to Trump. D1’s purpose in meeting Bolton was to discuss the anti-ELAB movement. As can be seen in D1’s WhatsApp message to Nick Cheung of Apple Daily he told Nick Cheung he had just met with Bolton saying: [1458]
James Cunningham 1218.As regards James Cunningham, the evidence before us demonstrated D1’s clear attempts to leverage James Cunningham’s expertise and connections as a former “top-notch” US diplomat for foreign policy influence so as to re-establish US and Taiwan channels.[1459] 1219.D1 continued to seek James Cunningham’s advice in relation to the anti-ELAB movement. As early as 23 March 2019 D1 received detailed feedback and strategic advice from James Cunningham concerning his advice to Anson Chan before she met the then Vice President Pence to focus on the ELAB risks. D1 forwarded James Cunningham’s report to multiple pan-democrats such as Lee Wing-tat[1460] and Apple Daily management, such as Chan Pui-man[1461]. D1 jumped at the opportunity to rally against the ELAB by lobbying and uniting the pan-democrats. In his WhatsApp message to Martin Lee on 24 March 2019 he said[1462] :
1220.On 27 March 2019 Mark Simon conveyed James Cunningham’s idea of framing the anti-ELAB as a human rights issue, D1 agreed and hired James Cunningham to give advice on Hong Kong’s affairs in DC[1463]. On 17 April 2019, Mark Simon conveyed to D1 about James Cunningham’s strategy for the HK Dems and strategy for them to see the officials in Washington DC about the ELAB[1464]. On 15 May 2019 D1 knew of James Cunningham’s advice to Martin Lee before he met the then US Secretary of State Pompeo[1465]. 1221.On 11 June 2019, James Cunningham created a WhatsApp group named “Martin, Jimmy, and Mark”.[1466] The members in the group were Martin Lee, Mark Simon and D1. From the date of its formation until 9 July 2020, D1 continued to discuss lobbying strategies with James Cunningham and others in the group. The messages continued until, 9 July 2020 when James Cunningham suggested to the group there were ways to limit the PRC. D1 suggested that what James Cunningham was advising was collusion and would be a serious crime under the NSL. Martin Lee agreed and promptly exited the group.[1467] 1222.James Cunningham’s engagement continued via a WhatsApp group named “DC Dems”, which included Paul Wolfowitz, D1 and Mark Simon. This WhatsApp group was created by Mark Simon on 29 May 2020 after Mark Simon’s meeting with US State Department David Feith after the NPCSC 28 May 2020 decision. The WhatsApp group was active between May and June 2020.[1468] The discussions in this group demonstrated continued engagement on US political dynamics and policy towards Hong Kong and the PRC during the critical period from the 28 May decision to the enactment of the NSL. Such discussions included assessments of the Biden campaign stance and strategies for engaging different political factions.[1469] 1223.After the enactment of the NSL, on 14 July 2020 Mark Simon by a Signal message informed D1 that James Cunningham had organised a joint letter from former US Consulate Generals urging both Trump and Biden to adopt a tough stance on Hong Kong issues. [1470] On 15 July 2020 D1’s response was “good to hear!”. We are satisfied that D1 affirmed his approval of these efforts to sustain US pressure after the NSL took effect. 1224.We are sure that D1 in his collaboration with James Cunningham and his foreign connections and Mark Simon as demonstrated, attempted to influence foreign policy on Hong Kong and the PRC. D1’s denial that there were prearranged meetings between D1 and US officials in July 2019 before he arrived in Washington DC 1225.D1 stated in examination-in-chief and initially under cross-examination that his meetings with US Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in July 2019 were not prearranged before his arrival in the US. He claimed that he did not expect to meet them and that arrangements were only made subsequent to his arrival in the US. 1226.We reject his evidence as lacking any credibility. The WhatsApp evidence showed clearly that arrangement for these meetings with the senior US officials had been made and confirmed well before D1 arrived in Washington DC for the July 2019 meetings. The WhatsApp messages sent by Mark Simon to D1 on 20 and 28 June 2019 contradicted D1’s evidence. [1471] 1227.D1’s concession under cross-examination that the messages showed he knew about these confirmed meetings before arriving in Washington was inevitable given the content. Moreover D1 had received guidance from Mary Kissel before D1 met with Pompeo. We do not accept that this was a failure of memory, we find that this was a deliberate attempt to downplay his knowledge and purpose of his lobbying trip to meet senior US officials. D1’s denial that he had asked for sanctions when he went on the US trip in July 2019 1228.D1 stated that he had asked for and lobbied for support by way of encouraging Hong Kong young people by action. D1 denied that he had asked for sanctions to be imposed when he went on the US trip in July 2019.[1472] Later in cross-examination he conceded that he did request Mike Pompeo to take action to sanction the HKSAR officials who were involved in “repressing” the resistance movement. The concession was only because he was shown a report in an Apple Daily article on 25 July 2019 titled “Adversarial Power Movement” Jimmy Lai Calls for Peace and Standing up to Show Contempt for the Triad Urges International support on Anti-Extradition Movement in Hong Kong.” D1 accepted that what was quoted in the article was correct. It said:[1473]
1229.We reject D1’s evidence that he did not ask for sanctions. Moreover, significantly prior to meeting with Pompeo, D1 believed that Mary Kissel, Pompeo’s assistant, advised D1 to specially ask Pompeo for sanctions against the children of the CCP and HKSAR officials[1474]. D1’s denial that his live chat programme was his own programme and had nothing to do with Apple Daily 1230.D1 had 24 episodes of “live chat” programme. It was D1’s evidence that his live chat was his own programme and had nothing to do with Apple Daily. The senior management of Apple Daily had never sought his consent for the programme to be published on Apple Daily’s Twitter account and that it was broadcast on his own Twitter account. 1231.D1 said Apple Daily only broadcast his live chat after it was aired on his own Twitter account. D1 then altered his evidence to say Apple Daily might have broadcast his programme simultaneously. The WhatsApp messages in the English News Group and D1’s WhatsApp messages with Nick Cheung and Cheung Kim-hung contradicted D1’s evidence. 1232.Two persons from Apple Daily helped him with the technical aspects. The programme was promoted by Apple Daily. The episodes were mostly conducted in his own office in Apple Daily and sometimes at his home. 1233.D1 discussed his live chat in the English News WhatsApp group of Apple Daily extensively, as well as with senior management of Apple Daily namely, Nick Cheung and Cheung Kim-hung. The discussion was in terms of the production, promotion, logistics, planning, technical and the rundown arrangement of the programme, with the senior management of Apple Daily. They were all involved as part of Apple Daily. 1234.Apple Daily staff would assist D1 to post his live chat on to D1’s Twitter account. It is pertinent to note, for D1’s first, second and third episodes on 9, 17 and 23 July 2020, they were not broadcast on D1’s own Twitter account but only on the Twitter account of Apple Daily. D1 agreed this was so in cross-examination[1475]. For D1’s fourth episode on 30 July 2020, it was retweeted, on D1’s own Twitter account[1476]. In a WhatsApp message Nick Cheung informed D1 that he assumed the reason there were more viewers was because the episode was retweeted on D1’s Twitter account. For the live chats episodes that appeared in D1’s Twitter account from the fourth broadcast, they were all retweets from Apple Daily Twitter accounts. On 6 August 2020, D1’s live chat was posted on four platforms, namely Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Goodest Channel, all of which were related to Apple Daily. On 20 November 2020 a full page advertisement of D1’s talk with Natan Sharansky of D1’s live chat was published in Apple Daily’s page A3 and D1 was informed of this by Nick Cheung.[1477] 1235.D1’s discussions with senior management staff of Apple Daily showed his live chat was related to Apple Daily. D1 also asked the whole senior management of his English News group WhatsApp to give him feedback after each broadcast.[1478] Nick Cheung had informed the WhatsApp English News group that Apple Daily would promote D1’s live chat on instant news and Apple Daily’s Facebook and Apple Daily’s Twitter account[1479]. Corita[1480], one of the Apple Daily staff also assisted D1 during his live chat on 9 July 2020 and gave him feedback.[1481] After D1’s live chat on 9 July 2020, Apple Daily prepared a summary or “showcase” of highlights in the Apple Daily news showing what was on D1’s Twitter programme[1482]. 1236.We do not accept D1’s evidence when he said live chat was his own programme and had nothing to do with Apple Daily. The idea of the programme was to interact with foreigners to engage the international front and he did so only with the assistance of Apple Daily employees, its senior management and platforms. Elmer Yuen Gong-yi’s video letters to President Donald Trump and Secretary Pompeo 1237.D1 gave repeated contradictory and inconsistent evidence in relation to Elmer Yuen’s videos. We find D1 was evasive and had tried to distance himself from Elmer Yuen. 1238.Initially D1 denied any personal involvement in Elmer Yuen’s videos on the Apple Daily platform or their production. He was however directly contradicted by the WhatsApp messages between 28 May 2020 and 3 June 2020 showing he repeatedly monitored, coordinated and encouraged further video productions on Apple Daily[1483]. When confronted with the messages D1 said he forgot or his memory failed him. We entirely reject his evidence that it was a failure of his memory. 1239.D1 denied knowing the idea or content of Elmer Yuen’s video letter to Trump. He said he did not watch Elmer Yuen’s video after it was made. The WhatsApp messages showed that D1 did know what Elmer Yuen was going to say and that D1 had watched the video and even commented on it. D1 replied to Elmer Yuen and stated:[1484]
1240.Elmer Yuen’s daughter Erica sent the transcript of her father’s video letter to D1 on 29 May 2020. D1 read it. This evidence showed D1 knew the content and idea of the video letter which stated:[1485]
1241.D1 replied to Erica:
1242.This letter contained a request to President Trump to sanction these communist entities which D1 agreed to as he replied that it was a very good letter and was consistent with his view. 1243.D1 said in his evidence that he disagreed with the factual assertions that police raped and murdered protestors made by Elmer Yuen. He said they were false accusations.[1486]However, despite his disagreement he never mentioned this until his evidence in Court that these were false nor did he ever tell Elmer Yuen or his daughter Erica. Despite these false assertions he permitted Elmer Yuen to make yet another video. 1244.On 31 May 2020 when Erica Yuen told D1 that her father’s video was shown in the US, D1 was pleased to hear that the Americans were listening and endorsed Elmer Yuen’s continuation of his anti-CCP and HKSAR government rhetoric and his call for sanctions. Their WhatsApp exchange was as follows[1487]:
1245.D1 likewise denied he allowed Elmer Yuen to make another video letter on Apple Daily’s platform. The WhatsApp messages on 31 May 2020 between D1 and Elmer Yuen’s daughter directly contradicted D1’s evidence. [1488] Erica informed D1 in WhatsApp: [1489]
In reply D1 informed Erica to contact Nick Cheung to assist Elmer Yuen to make another video. D1 knew this other video was asking for sanctions to create an impact on the CCP and he agreed to assist. 1246.In D1’s WhatsApp exchanges with Nick Cheung, D1 confirmed that Apple Daily had assisted Elmer Yuen in making both videos. The other video was a letter addressed as follows “letter to @SecPompeo: Please Free #HongKong from the CCP Criminals.[1490] Apple Daily was used as a platform for Elmer Yuen’s video letters and on its various channels like Twitter, and Facebook. 1247.At about the time of Elmer Yuen’s video letters D1 commenced his own campaign of “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” to President Trump. Both Elmer Yuen and D1’s letters were addressed to Trump through the Apple Daily platform. We reject D1’s claim about his ignorance and lack of interest in Elmer Yuen’s video letters. At that time D1 was anxious about the impending NSL and was anxious to attract the attention of the US administration and Trump. On 27 May 2020, D1 published two tweets which he confirmed were written by him directly addressing President Trump concerning the NSL. D1 explicitly advocated for specific sanctions against Chinese officials. The tweets stated: [1491]
With a link to an article in Bloomberg and tagged to President Trump.
1248.We found D1’s account implausible that he did not know of and was not interested to know the content of Elmer Yuen’s video letters. Elmer Yuen was using Apple Daily as a platform and it defies credibility that D1 was not interested to know what Apple Daily’s platform would be used to promote and more so when he was also actively making specific requests to Trump. By agreeing to allow Elmer Yuen to use Apple Daily as a platform this was another message aimed at Trump and the US administration which was precisely D1’s purpose and intent. D1’s sole purpose of meeting with Wayland 1249.D1’s evidence was that the sole purpose of meeting Wayland was to ask him to pacify the valiants. We find D1’s account implausible, as the evidence showed that D1 also wanted and had plans for Wayland to engage in international lobbying. 1250.It was the prosecution case that D1’s initial approach to Wayland in his first and second meetings was to contact the leaders of the valiant camp to establish a dialogue for fear that violent scenes during the anti-ELAB movement could cause the loss of international support (especially from the US). However, at their third meeting Wayland clearly informed D1 that he could not contact the valiant leaders. The prosecution said that D1’s continued engagement with Wayland was not only confined to pacifying the valiant, but also concerned with his wider agenda in international lobbying. 1251.D1’s case was that his sole purpose of meeting Wayland was to ask him to pacify the valiants to reduce radical violence. D1’s testimony was that Martin Lee had introduced Wayland as the Conservative of the valiant. D1 believed Wayland was not violent as otherwise Martin Lee would not have introduced Wayland to D1 to pacify the violence of the valiants. D1 himself described Wayland as one of the conservative leaders of the valiant and one of the non-violent protestors in the front line. Thus, Wayland was considered by D1 to be a peaceful protestor in the front line who would have access to those in the frontier who were violent and he could try to pacify them. 1252.There was no dispute on the evidence that D1 and Wayland had six face-to-face meetings as well as WhatsApp and Signal communications. D1 however disputed material and adverse oral evidence in Court given by Wayland. 1253.It was Wayland’s evidence that when D1 first met him at a Japanese restaurant, D1 asked him to contact Mark Simon if he wanted to contact D1 because Mark Simon would render assistance and Mark Simon reported to D1 on a daily basis. 1254.In cross-examination D1 confirmed the communications Mark Simon had with Wayland was on his behalf in the following questions and answers:[1492]
1255.From the WhatsApp messages exchanged in the group “Martin, Jimmy, Mark”, on 23 September 2019 (before D1 had met Wayland) D1 asked who Wayland was. Mark Simon replied: [1493]
Although this was before D1 had met Wayland, D1 knew that Mark Simon did not describe Wayland as a radical or violent protestor, or in the front line but was someone who was related to the international newspaper campaign, which was about international lobbying. 1256.D1 said in examination-in-chief that Wayland did not tell him at the third meeting that he was unable to get in contact with the valiant leaders. In cross-examination D1 gave contrary evidence and said that Wayland may have told him that he could not get in contact with the valiant leaders. He said that he continued to contact Wayland after the third meeting as it did not mean Wayland could not continue to try and contact the valiant leaders and had hoped Wayland would be able to contact them. D1 said he thought Wayland could do so as he was in touch with them all the time. 1257.D1 agreed that before he had the third meeting with Wayland he had already got hold of information of the leader of the valiant camp from Sunny Cheung, a Hong Kong University Student but the leader was not in a position to pacify them. D1 said that he continued to believe Wayland was one of the leaders and could pacify them[1494]. 1258.D1’s evidence was non-sensical. D1’s evidence was that there were two groups of protestors, peaceful ones like himself and violent ones who were generally known as the valiants who were in the front line of the protests. D1 also explained there were also peaceful ones amongst the valiants and Wayland was one of the conservative among the valiants and therefore non-violent. It is bewildering to comprehend how a peaceful protestor as Wayland would be able to pacify a violent protestor. It beggars belief that a violent protestor would listen to Wayland. 1259.In an Apple Daily article published on 15 November 2019 titled “Dragon Slayers, Borderline Calling”[1495], Apple Daily interviewed four persons who were said to be members of a truly valiant squad called “Dragon Slayers”. 1260.After the publication of the article on 16 November 2019, D1 messaged Wayland and asked who the black-clad people were and who were occupying the campus of the Chinese University of Hong Kong[1496]. Wayland told D1 that they belonged to different groups led by teams such as “Dragon Slaying (Brigade)” and “black Bloc” which formed an undisciplined gang of people[1497]. 1261.On 17 November 2019 Wayland told D1 Apple Daily had interviewed them and one was the leader. He told D1[1498]:
1262.It was Wayland’s evidence that he sent this message to D1 because he had been unable to get in touch with the valiant teams but he thought that the persons interviewed by Apple Daily may be able to help D1 to get in touch with them. 1263.It is noted that when D1 was asked about the “Dragon Slayers” interview in Apple Daily, at first he denied reading it. After he was shown his WhatsApp messages with Wayland he said he did not remember[1499]. 1264.Notwithstanding Apple Daily having interviewed one of the leaders D1 did not try to obtain their contacts through Apple Daily. D1 did not act upon Sunny Cheung’s information. If it was D1’s aim to pacify the valiants it is unbelievable that D1 failed to utilize these channels. D1’s oral evidence contradicted by his WhatsApp’s messages with Wayland 1265.D1’s claim that his sole purpose of communicating with Wayland was so he could pacify the violent protestors was contradicted by the WhatsApp communications D1 had with Wayland. D1’s communications with Wayland went far beyond the topic of pacification. They covered international lobbying, the US sanction legislation and the primary election in Hong Kong:
1266.D1 knew that Sam Chu was working at the HKDC and D1 knew that HKDC was involved in pushing for sanctions against the PRC and Hong Kong officials in the US. D1 had sent the WhatsApp link to Wayland in November 2019 about the HKHRDA from HKDC. 1267.D1 said that Mark Simon knew that D1’s sole purpose of contact with Wayland was to ask him to pacify the valiants. If that was true, there was no reason for Mark Simon to be sharing this information and reporting to the group about what Wayland did. 1268.D1 had in fact met Sam Chu in the US during his Washington trip in October 2019 when they met four Republican senators, Steve Daines, Todd Young, David Perdue and Be Sasse as confirmed by D1 and reported in Apple Daily[1505]. D1 identified Sam Chu from a photo shown to him in Court taken from Facebook page of SWHK on 11 December 2019 showing Todd Young, Sam Chu, Andy and others at Capitol Hill[1506]. On the evidence before us we accept Wayland’s evidence that in his Taipei meeting with D1 (6 days after Mark Simon’s WhatsApp message to the group) he told D1 about this US trip in December made by Andy and D1 said he knew of it. We find that D1 knew of Andy’s involvement in international lobbying against the PRC and Hong Kong. 1269.When D1 was cross examined about the message received from Mark Simon he denied that he knew the “folks that did the international ads.” He said he did not know “The Fight for Freedom Group” and he was not trying to understand Mark Simon’s message about Wayland’s success in syncing the folks who did the international ads with Sam Chu as it was of little concern to him. We reject D1’s evidence that he did not know the “Fight for Freedom Group” as he had earlier said in his evidence that Wayland was related to the group and was someone of importance as he had asked for the bridging loan through Mark Simon. It is significant that D1 said that Mark Simon knew that D1’s sole purpose of contacting Wayland was to ask him to pacify the valiants.[1507] If that was true, there was no reason for Mark Simon to be sharing this information or reporting to the group about what Wayland did in relation to international lobbying. 1270.We do not accept D1’s evidence that he was not concerned about Wayland having synced up the two competing voices together. D1 knew Sam Chu was the voice in the US from HKDC. We are satisfied that Mark Simon’s sending D1 this message about Wayland shows that D1 had been informed of Wayland’s engagement in the international lobbying by syncing these two fronts. 1271.On 8 May 2020, the content in a WhatsApp exchange D1 had with Mark Simon about Wayland showed that it had nothing to do with pacifying the valiants:[1508]
1272.D1 was cross-examined on what “final things” Mark Simon was referring to that Wayland was sending over. D1 said he forgot and did not know. He said he did not think it was related to Benedict Rogers, Chris Pattern or Anson Chan. D1 agreed these messages had no relation to pacifying the valiants[1509]. D1 agreed in cross-examination that all the while Mark Simon was updating D1 about what Wayland was doing but D1 stated that Mark Simon did so as he knew D1 had a connection with Wayland[1510]. We find that Mark Simon was all along updating and reporting to D1 about Wayland’s engagement in international lobbying which plainly had nothing to do with Wayland pacifying the valiants, and it is clear D1 knew of Wayland’s involvement in international lobbying. D1’s communications with Wayland about the primary election and D1’s denial about them 1273.As demonstrated below D1 communicated with Wayland about the primaries both orally and by WhatsApp and Signal messages. 1274.During D1’s fourth meeting with Wayland on 31 December 2019, D1 said in his evidence in chief that Wayland made up his evidence that D1 talked to him about the primary election. D1 said he was not ‘conscious nor very concerned’ about the primary election in December 2019. D1 said he did not even remember that the pan-democrats were talking about it yet and if they talked about it, he was not privy to it[1511]. D1 claimed that Wayland raised the topic of primary election “out of the blue” on 26 February 2020 when D1 received a WhatsApp message from Wayland about the proposed candidates for the primary election[1512]. 1275.We do not accept D1’s evidence about his lack of “concern or consciousness” about the primary election as the contrary was clearly shown in the WhatsApp messages. D1 was actively involved, he was talking to the pan-democrats about it and he was specifically focusing on the electronic voting software for the primary election. He also publicly endorsed the primary and e-voting in his own column in Apple Daily ‘Sink or Swim, Smile’ dated 22 December 2019.[1513] 1276.On 15 December 2019 D1 was already in communication with Lee Wing-tat (a pan-democrat) about on-line voting for the primary election. He told “Brother Tat” that Simon Lee had knowledge about the initiator of primary election software for on-line voting, and that Simon Lee could help with the operation and set up and give him a demonstration.[1514]. 1277.D1 said he had heard about the idea of the primary election from the pan-democrats and knew of Simon Lee’s idea of e-voting because it was floated amongst the colleagues of Apple Daily. For that reason he informed Lee Wing-tat.[1515] In D1’s WhatsApp message to Simon Lee on 12 December 2019 it was crystal clear that it was D1 who had asked Simon Lee to find electronic voting software and it was not Simon Lee’s idea. D1 asked Simon Lee if he could have the software ready before his dinner with the pan-democrats the following day; Simon Lee was able to provide a shortlist of software for his review by the morning of 13 December 2019. 1278.Significantly D1 admitted that on 13 December 2019 he had dinner with the pan-democrats, which included Lee Wing-tat, Albert Ho, Lam Cheuk-ting, Lee Cheuk-yan and they talked about the primary election. After the dinner with the pan-democrats, at about 9 pm, D1 then messaged Simon Lee by WhatsApp and told him they found the on-line voting useful and discussed the costs. On 15 December 2019 he then asked Simon Lee if the pan-democrat Lee Wing-tat could contact him directly about it and hence the WhatsApp message on 15 December 2019 to Lee Wing-tat about Simon Lee. 1279.D1 told Simon Lee that he would pay him “any cost” that accrued to him for his work on the primaries and told him he will have Mark (Simon) take care of it.[1516] 1280.On 17 December 2019 D1 told Simon Lee that Lee Wing-tat and Lee Cheuk-yan would contact him later that day and for Simon Lee to handle the whole e-voting for them. Three days later D1 was keen to work on the software and e-voting for the primary election and asked Simon Lee to meet him for tea to discuss it.[1517] 1281.In D1’s article in “Sink or Swim, Smile” titled “There is hope only if we persevere” published on 22 December 2019, he referred to the primary election and e-voting. D1 wrote: [1518]
1282.D1 admitted in cross-examination that he called for the continuation of the anti-authoritarianism movement and for it to be continued on the three fronts that were the legislative front, the street front and the international front[1520]. 1283.We find this supports Wayland’s evidence that in the third meeting on 27 November 2019, D1 took the view that the force of the street, the force of the legislature and the force of the international front should be brought together. D1 admitted in cross-examination he may have talked about the three fronts in the Taiwan meeting and that his article mentioned about e-voting in the primary election.[1521] This also supports Wayland’s account that D1 talked about the three fronts and the e-voting in the fifth meeting in Taipei on 11 January 2020. 1284.In a WhatsApp exchange with Lee Wing-tat on 30 December 2019, D1 gave the pan-democrats the idea that the anti-authoritarianism movement was important in gathering support for the primary and September election D1 also suggested to arrange brainstorming debates in the town halls of each district and use Apple Daily as a digital platform to broadcast the brainstorming. He suggested the neophytes join in the discussions.[1522] D1 admitted that it was his thinking that the primary election was part of the anti-authoritarianism movement and the neophytes were the candidates who joined the elections for the first time. D1 admitted on 30 December 2019 he was still following up with the progress of the holding of the primary election among the pan-democrats.[1523] 1285.Wayland’s evidence was that during their meeting on 31 December 2019, D1 asked him to pass on the message that young people should put more focus on election work and only then the popularity of the general public could be gathered together. Wayland also mentioned that D1 told him about the advantages of holding the primary election including the votes of the “yellow ribbons” could be brought together and that would help to secure more seats for the traditional pan-democrats in the LegCo election. D1 said in evidence he might have said that as it sounded logical.[1524] 1286.On 5 January 2020 Mark Simon told the “Martin, Jimmy and Mark” WhatsApp group that he just returned from DC and updated them. Mark Simon said: [1525]
On the same date Mark Simon sent a WhatsApp to D1 privately, suggesting that D1 as a senior figure should go to Washington DC to talk and explain to the folks in DC about the primaries. Mark Simon said[1526]:
1287.D1 admitted in cross-examination that he knew the US administration would like to know more about the primary election plans of the pan-democrats at the time and that Mark Simon suggested he talk to them about it as “a senior”. [1527] 1288.On 30 December 2019 Simon Lee continued to update D1 about the electronic software in relation to the primary election and the quote for using the e-voting was approximately USD80,000 which D1 agreed to pay. [1528] 1289.It was Wayland’s evidence that in the Taipei meeting on 11 January 2020 D1 told him that he wanted to follow the US model on the primary election and that he had obtained a quotation in Europe from a company engaging in a voting program. D1 mentioned to him that the quotation was about $100,000 and it was not expensive. 1290.D1 admitted in cross-examination that he talked to Wayland and Mutual Destruction Bro[1529] about the primaries [1530]. D1 however denied he talked about the quotation of the voting system. D1 denied that in the meeting in Taiwan there was a discussion about Mutual Destruction Bro as a neophyte to participate in the primary election. D1 denied he told Wayland that he would provide financial assistance in the primary election but agreed that Apple Daily was to provide a platform for the primary election. 1291.Wayland’s evidence that D1 had told him in the Taipei meeting of the quotation for the e-voting system was a matter which was not publicly known at that time. It was but one aspect amongst many others which is highly supportive of Wayland’s evidence that he was telling the truth. We reject D1’s evidence to the contrary. 1292.On 28 January 2020 D1 was getting updates in a WhatsApp message from Lee Wing-tat about the primary election. D1 replied that he wanted to get together for dinner to follow up about the primary election with several big brothers meaning the pan-democrats. It was clear that D1 was keeping track of the development of the primaries. [1531] 1293.On 25 February 2020 Mark Simon informed D1 that Vice President Pence and senior staff read his piece in WSJ. Mark Simon told D1 they were anxious to see him when he was in the US. Mark Simon was surprised at the level of knowledge they had about Pan-Dem primary. Mark Simon said in a WhatsApp message to D1:[1532]
1294.D1 admitted in cross-examination he knew Mark Simon was conveying a message to him from the US administration that they were anxious to know about the development of the primary election. [1533] We find that this is evidence of D1’s belief in Mark Simon’s insider knowledge from the US administration. It is to be noted by this time, February 2020 D1 was thinking of travelling to the US to talk to the US senators. 1295.On 26 February 2020 Wayland sent a WhatsApp to D1 providing an update about the names of the neophytes in the constituency as to who will join the primary however he said they are not bound. [1534]
1296.In examination-in-chief, D1 said these messages about the primary election came ‘out of the blue’ from Wayland. He said from this message Wayland was obviously involved in lobbying people for the primary. Wayland just thought the primary was something that he would be concerned with or have an interest in and that these people were not bound[1535]. 1297.We find this WhatsApp message from Wayland did not come out of the blue and reject D1’s evidence. When it was put to D1 in cross-examination that Wayland’s message to D1 was not out of the blue but that both of them had been discussing about the primary election, D1 altered his evidence to say it was “out of the blue” that Wayland was connected with the primary people. D1 said in cross-examination:[1536]
1298.D1’s alteration of his evidence was an unsuccessful attempt to salvage his evidence. These WhatsApp messages were highly supportive of Wayland’s evidence that D1 did talk to him about the primaries. We reject D1’s evidence that he was not concerned about the primary election.[1537] Importantly only after searching and painstaking cross-examination when D1 was taken through the numerous WhatsApp communications, D1 was left with no option when confronted with these WhatsApp messages, to ultimately admit that he was interested in the primary election. Moreover D1’s involvement can be seen when, on 26 February 2020, he forwarded Wayland’s message with the names of the proposed neophyte candidates to other pan-democrats like Lee Wing-tat[1538], Lee Cheuk-yan[1539], and Albert Ho[1540]. After forwarding the message to Lee Cheuk-yan, D1 said:
Lee Cheuk-yan replied:
1299.D1 said in cross-examination after 26 February 2020 he was interested in the primary election but not concerned with it in that he was not involved in it. D1 then altered his evidence and admitted in cross-examination he was still concerned on 3 March 2020. 1300.On 3 March 2020 D1 sent a WhatsApp message to Lee Wing-tat telling him the primaries were moving slowly. Lee Wing-tat replied on 4 March 2020 saying they would push to expedite the primary election. [1541] D1 ultimately admitted that he was concerned about the primary election from March to July 2020 because Apple Daily provided the platform for the primary election. 1301.The primary election was eventually held on 11 and 12 July 2020. On 12 July 2020 Wayland sent D1 a Signal message saying:
On 13 July 2020 D1 replied[1542]
D1 then made two tweets about the primaries on 12 July 2020[1543] and on 13 July 2020[1544] and attached a printed Apple Daily report. 1302.The above WhatsApp and Signal messages established that D1’s assertion that he was not concerned with the primary election or no longer concerned was clearly contradicted. They further gave support to Wayland’s evidence. D1 suggesting Wayland meet Shih Ming-teh a “true revolutionary” 1303.In a WhatsApp message on 6 January 2020 Wayland asked D1 if there was anyone D1 wanted him to meet in Taipei. In reply D1 suggested he meet Shih Ming-teh who D1 described as a “true revolutionary.”[1545] 1304.D1 said that despite Wayland being the middle man between D1 and the radicals to decrease their violence, he suggested Wayland meet a revolutionary in Taiwan because he thought Shih Ming-teh was a very wise man and would be able to tell something beneficial to Wayland. D1 agreed that meeting a true revolutionary was not related to violence. D1 described Shih Ming-teh as the once head of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and was head of the resistance to KMT.[1546] 1305.As Shih Ming-teh had nothing to do with pacifying the valiants, there was no legitimate reason to introduce Wayland to him but for the fact that Shih Ming-teh had a connection to a resistance movement. D1 forwarding Luke de Pulford’s article “Advice from a Friend” to Wayland and Finn Lau aka Mutual Destruction Bro 1306.On 7 January 2020 Mark Simon forwarded an Apple Daily article written by Luke de Pulford titled “Advice from A friend” to D1 stating:[1547]
1307.On 8 January 2020 D1 sent the article written by Luke de Pulford to Wayland. Wayland replied almost immediately saying:[1548]
D1 replied to Wayland:
1308.Wayland’s evidence was those “stubborn leaders” were the leaders working at the international front who wanted to promote more radical thoughts. According to Wayland the friend D1 wanted him to refer the article to was Mutual Destruction Bro or Finn Lau. D1 in his testimony agreed. 1309.The article “Advice from A Friend” contained five points and was addressed to democracy campaigners. They were all about international lobbying: [1549]
Significantly, D1 in his testimony acknowledged that these five points were concerned with gaining more effective international support. 1310.D1 denied that he sent it to Wayland and asked him to send it to Finn Lau to read because he wanted them to engage in international lobbying. He said he sent this article to them because the whole article was good. In cross-examination he repeated that he sent it to them to understand Point 5 that violence hurt the support of the international community. D1 said he did not talk to Wayland nor tell him his concern that violence would hurt the international support[1550]. If Point 5 was so significant D1 would have emphasised the point to them but he did not. We find the reason why D1 sent this article to them to read was because it was about their involvement in international lobbying. Confidential messages sent by D1 to Wayland on WhatsApp on 5 April 2020 in relation to sanctions[1551] 1311.After not communicating with Wayland on WhatsApp for over a month, D1 suddenly forwarded him messages he and Mark Simon received from James Cunningham. These messages concerned a meeting between the Hong Kong Consul General, “a Hill Staffer” and the “Establishment from Hong Kong Regina and Bernard Chan”[1552]. One of the messages stated[1553]:
After sending these messages D1 said:[1554]
1312.D1 said he forwarded the messages to Wayland about sanctioning of police for police violence as Wayland would be concerned about it. Despite James Cunningham telling D1 the messages were confidential he forwarded them to Wayland because he wanted Wayland to know that the US was concerned about violence. Wayland said in his testimony that he called D1 and asked if he could reveal these messages to Mutual Destruction Bro and Andy, D1 gave him permission to do so. Wayland wanted to share the messages because he wanted them to know about the US government’s stance on sanctions. 1313.If D1’s sole purpose of engaging Wayland was for pacifying the valiants, it is inconceivable that D1 would send Wayland these confidential messages not related to pacifying the valiants. This is but another aspect of D1’s evidence which we wholly reject. Wayland updating D1 on “the international front” which had nothing to do with pacifying the valiants 1314.On 1 May 2020, Wayland sent a WhatsApp message to D1 and reported:[1555]
Wayland said in Court that by “projects”, he meant the several fronts of SWHK, namely, the international front, the US front, the Japanese front led by Andy, the UK front and the Northern European front led by “Mutual Destruction Bro”. In reply to Wayland’s message, D1 wrote,[1556]
1315.Wayland said that D1 was at the time appealing to the public for subscription of Apple Daily. He understood that D1 was asking whether people engaged in publicity literature could help Apple Daily by promoting subscription. 1316.On 21 May 2020, D1 sent a WhatsApp message to Wayland which was a forwarded message informing Yue Yam, the CEO of Apple Daily Taiwan, that the youth group of the anti-authoritarian movement would like to contact Audrey Tang and the China Academy of Culture as they were going to Taiwan. D1 told Wayland to contact the CEO of Apple Daily in Taiwan.[1557] 1317.Wayland’s evidence was that because he was unable to get into contact with Mark Simon, he directly contacted D1 to inform him that there was a discussion within SWHK as an organisation and its wish in developing the Taiwan front. It was then that D1 asked Wayland if he wanted to meet Audrey Tang and according to D1’s testimony she was the Minster of Digital Affairs of the Taiwan region. Wayland also said D1 asked if he wanted to meet The China Academy of Culture and D1 said Antonio Chiang was the head of this “pseudo-government organisation”.[1558] D1’s suggestion for Wayland to meet Audrey Tang and the China Academy of Culture was shown in the WhatsApp message dated 21 May 2020[1559]. 1318.Once again D1’s communication with Wayland had nothing to do with pacifying the valiants. D1’s discussion with Wayland about NSL and informing Wayland to fight to the last and persist 1319.Also on 21 May 2020 D1 sent a WhatsApp message to Wayland with a link to a report about the announcement of the future promulgation of the NSL. D1 remarked:[1560]
Wayland replied:
In relation to Wayland’s warning that D1 had to be careful, D1 replied:[1561]
1320.Wayland understood that D1 was asking that the resistance be persisted and in that context to continue to push for sanctions. Therefore, Wayland then said[1562]:
By “our forces”, Wayland meant the international front. D1 said further:[1563]
1321.On 28 May 2020, Wayland forwarded to D1 a link to the statement: “PRC National People’s Congress Proposal on Hong Kong National Security Legislation – United States Department of State”. D1 replied by saying:
Later on the same day, Wayland forwarded to D1 a link to a post in LIHKG webpage which said: “[Breaking] Bright future comes after Mutual Destruction! Crowdfunding for the “Rise from the ashes plan” launched by Mutual Destruction Team (now) online!”.[1565] D1 said he did not know why Wayland sent it to him. Clearly this link was not related to pacifying the radicals. 1322.D1 explained he sent the link about the NPC announcement of the NSL and his remarks to Wayland because Wayland had joined the movement and would be affected by the NSL. D1 said in cross-examination that when he said “we may not win but we must persist’ that was from the perspective of all the people who had joined the movement not Wayland, but included himself. He did not ask Wayland to continue to fight. D1 said he was expressing an objective view of what he believed was the perspective of all the people who had joined the movement they should persist to fight to the last and even after the NSL. That included himself as well. He did not ask Wayland to fight after the NSL when he said Wayland and his comrades were their hope of victory in the long war. D1 explained that he was saying the fight would be a long time but he did not ask Wayland to come out to fight[1566]. D1 understood Wayland to say that he was going to persist in the resistance movement with the valiants.[1567] 1323.We reject D1’s evidence that Wayland was referring to himself persisting with the resistance movement with the valiants. D1 was encouraging and commending Wayland to be the last man standing and telling him to persist with international lobbying even after the NSL. D1 had referred to sanctions and also admitted that he hoped that Trump would sanction China or the Chinese Government so as to try to stop the NSL. At that time there were no sanctions yet despite D1 using the word more, he explained that he used the word draconian to ask for more serious and damaging sanctions.[1568] We find D1’s request to Wayland clear and unambiguous that he was telling Wayland to continue to persist and fight despite the enactment of the NSL and Wayland agreed that he would do so as he said “I will be the last man standing”. 1324.Significantly the WhatsApp messages exchanged between Wayland and D1 were largely about international lobbying and the primaries. We are satisfied on all the evidence that D1 knew and had knowledge of Wayland’s participation in and involvement with international lobbying. We reject D1’s evidence to the contrary. D1’s sole purpose of meeting Mutual Destruction Bro (Finn Lau) 1325.It was D1’s evidence that the sole purpose of meeting Mutual Destruction Bro (Finn Lau) was to ask him to take the opportunity after the PolyU defeat to form a leadership group themselves so that their violence would be directed, regulated and controlled.[1569] 1326.On 25 November 2019, D1 in a WhatsApp message to Wayland said since the defeat or loss of the valiants in PolyU now was the time to organise a leadership team.[1570] D1 said in evidence that the purpose of inviting Wayland to meet with him in the car was to discuss a leadership group amongst themselves.[1571] 1327.Wayland’s evidence was that after his third meeting with D1 on 27 November 2019, the two of them had a telephone conversation. D1 noticed that the Mutual Destruction Team was developing very well. He was aware of the fact that Wayland was unable to get in touch with the valiant teams. Yet D1 said that Wayland should be able to get in touch with “Mutual Destruction Bro”, who was relatively well-known in both international front and publicity literature. D1 would like to have a meeting with “Mutual Destruction Bro” in order to understand his thoughts and to discuss with him the idea of setting up a leadership group. As a result, Wayland got in touch with “Mutual Destruction Bro”. 1328.D1 said in his testimony he could not remember the telephone conversation with Wayland. He said he would not have said that Mutual Destruction Team was developing well as he did not know that and he did not say that Mutual Destruction Bro was well known in the international front and the publicity literature. D1 had first heard of Mutual Destruction Bro from the media. He did not know what role Mutual Destruction Bro played in the movement and he knew that many young people were following him and he had a very strong influence on the valiants. D1 did not remember when the first time Mutual Destruction Bro came up between Wayland and himself. He assumed that Wayland knew Mutual Destruction Bro because Mutual Destruction Bro was supposedly the leader of the “frontier” meaning the front line who were the valiants[1572]. He eventually agreed that over the telephone he told Wayland that he believed Wayland would be able to get in touch with Mutual Destruction Bro. D1 wanted to get in touch with Mutual Destruction Bro because he believed that Mutual Destruction Bro would be able to form a leadership group amongst the valiants[1573]. 1329.D1 said he knew that Mutual Destruction Bro lived in London. In cross-examination, D1 was asked how he could have expected Mutual Destruction Bro to assume the leadership if he lived in London when the protestors were in Hong Kong. D1 then changed his version and said he did not want Mutual Destruction Bro to be a leader but he wanted Mutual Destruction Bro to use his influence as a “spiritual leader” to influence the valiants to form a leadership group so that actions would be more organised. D1 said he used the words “spiritual leader” as they came from Andy and Wayland’s testimony but what he meant was that Mutual Destruction Bro was someone who had a lot of followers among the young radicals and on the LIHKG platform so he had the idea that he had great influence over them.[1574] D1 said he had believed and heard that Mutual Destruction Bro was the “spiritual leader” of the valiants in LIHKG. D1 admitted he never participated on LIHKG forums but that was where all the young valiants communicated with each other. D1 said everybody knew Mutual Destruction Bro was the “spiritual leader” and he had heard he was influential through the traditional media and from his colleagues who were reporters at Apple Daily. 1330.D1 said that the main topic of conversation when he met up with Mutual Destruction Bro and Wayland in Taipei on 11 January 2020 was for Mutual Destruction Bro to form a leadership group amongst the valiants. D1 said he did not know Mutual Destruction Bro’s political view. 1331.D1 was shown the following three Apple Daily articles dated 19 August 2019, 15 June 2020 and 24 October 2020 relating to Mutual Destruction Bro or Finn Lau.[1575] D1 agreed none of these articles made reference to Mutual Destruction Bro as a valiant. 1332.In the Apple Daily article [1576] published on 19 August 2019 written by Lee Pat-fong under the column “Walls have ears” titled “Mutual Destruction Baa x Team G20 crowdfunded 14 million, LIHKG to advertise in 13 Countries to catapult police brutality into the limelight”, the involvement of Mutual Destruction Bro in the international advertisement campaigns in June 2019 and his speeches at the international level were reported. D1 said he did not read this article. 1333.On 15 June 2020 in an Apple Daily article also in the column of “Walls have ears”, it stated what Mutual Destruction Bro had been doing and that he had joined IPAC. D1 said he might have read or glanced at it and he only knew of the headings”[1577]
The article content stated:
1334.D1 was shown his tweet on Twitter on 24 October 2020 in cross-examination which he confirmed he wrote. Attached to the tweet was an Apple Daily article stating Finn Lau a young professional who led “Stand with Hong Kong: a lobbyist group known for…” D1’s tweet stated[1578]:
In the attached article the words read:
1335.D1 testified that in his tweet he saluted Finn Lau as he joined the international alliance. D1 said when he referred to his former role he was referring to his role as a “spiritual leader” of LIHKG. But his current role was that he joined the international alliance. 1336.The attached article to the tweet was about Finn Lau and had displayed a photograph of him. The online version was titled:[1579]
The online article mentioned Finn Lau’s background and why he had decided to reveal his identity after having been anonymous all along. 1337.In the printed Apple Daily article there was a full page dedicated to Mutual Destruction Bro. It was titled[1580]:
The article spoke about the origin of Mutual Destruction Bro. It referred to activities of Mutual Destruction Bro seeking support from the international side. It reported about his activities of appealing to foreign governments for the cancellation of “royalist” (保皇黨) councillors’ foreign citizenship on the grounds of violation of human rights, writing petitions contributing to foreign media, placing advertisements on overseas newspapers and inviting experts and members to supervise elections in Hong Kong. He explained the point of mutual destruction: “That Hong Kong is rotten. We lost everything”. He said his view was that mutual destruction was a result that was destined to happen in Hong Kong around 2047. They were just bringing it forward. He advocated for foreign countries to block state-owned enterprises or pseudo state-owned enterprises such as Huawei and TikTok. Under the Mutual Destruction Bro’s photo it stated:[1581]
1338.D1 agreed that nowhere in the articles despite highlighting Mutual Destruction Bro’s activities and reporting his past roles did it mention that Mutual Destruction Bro had any association with the valiants or that he was the Spiritual leader of the valiants.[1582] D1 also agreed from this article he knew that Mutual Destruction Bro was involved in the international advertisement campaigns. He did not remember if that was discussed in Taipei when he met him in January 2020.[1583] 1339.Significantly in none of the WhatsApp conversation between Wayland and D1 was there any enquiries about Mutual Destruction Bro and his progress in contacting, influencing or pacifying the valiants after the Taipei meeting. If there was any truth in D1’s claim that that was the purpose of meeting Mutual Destruction Bro, D1 would have followed up on it which even on D1’s own testimony he did not. 1340.We reject D1’s evidence that the reason for approaching Mutual Destruction Bro was to ask him to form a leadership group to influence or pacify the valiants so that their violence would be directed and regulated. In D1’s tweet saluting Mutual Destruction Bro he praised him for “knowing exactly when and what role to play” which D1 admitted was Mutual Destruction Bro’s joining the international alliance. He encouraged Mutual Destruction Bro to keep on fighting on the international front and to continue to appeal for SBHA after the NSL. 1341.There is no dispute that IPAC is the acronym for the organisation Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. 1342.It was D1’s evidence that he was not aware of the existence of IPAC at all before he came to court and only heard of IPAC during the hearing. He was not aware that Benedict Rogers was an advisor of IPAC. He did not register Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China as IPAC and IPAC was not important to him. D1 said he found Luke de Pulford a nuisance as he just sent articles to him to publish. D1 did not read the articles Luke de Pulford sent him. D1 never treated Luke de Pulford’s WhatsApp messages seriously and D1 would answer him to get him “off his back”. 1343.We reject D1’s evidence that he was not aware of the existence of IPAC before the court hearing and that he never treated the WhatsApp message he received from Luke de Pulford “seriously”. The extensive WhatsApp messages between D1 and Benedict Rogers and D1 and Luke de Pulford, his tweets and the Apple Daily articles about IPAC confirmed D1’s awareness of IPAC’s lobbying activities which aligned with his own lobbying activities. We reject his evidence that he only heard of IPAC during this court hearing. The following WhatsApp exchanges discredited D1’s evidence. 1344.On 31 May 2020 Benedict Rogers sent a WhatsApp message to D1 informing him about Luke de Pulford setting up IPAC and that he was involved as an advisor. It said:[1584]
D1 replied “of course” and gave permission to Benedict Rogers to give his mobile number to Luke de Pulford. 1345.D1 said in evidence-in-chief that he did not know that Benedict Rogers was an advisor to IPAC.[1585] D1’s evidence is undermined firstly by the above WhatsApp message and by Benedict Rogers’ own message to D1 in the following tweet. On 14 August 2020 D1 retweeted a tweet from IPAC which attached an Apple Daily article:[1586]
1346.Approximately 15 minutes after D1 gave permission to Benedict Rogers to share his mobile number with Luke de Pulford, (on 31 May 2020) D1 received WhatsApp messages from Luke de Pulford. He was keen to brief D1 on something and asked if D1 could speak now. The following exchange took place:[1587]
Clearly Luke de Pulford had something pressing to tell D1 and D1 was anxious to know as D1 said he would “call him now”. 1347.D1 said in cross-examination that he was sure he did call him but could not remember if he got through.[1588]It was put to D1 in cross-examination that logically Luke de Pulford wanted to talk to D1 about IPAC. D1 replied “logically doesn’t mean it was a fact” .[1589] 1348.On 1 June 2020, Luke de Pulford sent a WhatsApp message to D1 that said:[1590]:
With that WhatsApp message was a pdf attachment. Luke de Pulford then told him there was more information on www.ipac.global. He asked D1 not to share the link yet as it was still under construction. He told D1 that he would send a press release the next day. The pdf sent on 1 June 2020 regarding the IPAC Briefing stated the following:[1591]
1349.In cross-examination D1 was asked that based on these messages he knew it was about IPAC. [1592] D1 said he did not take notice of it and he was not aware of it. He did not read it or click on what he was sent and it was not something he really cared about[1593]. 1350.We wholly reject D1’s evidence that he did not care. If he did not care he would not have called Luke de Pulford. We also find D1’s evidence that he did not remember if he got through to be incredible given the subsequent WhatsApp messages exchanged between them. 1351.D1 said in cross-examination he had not heard of the name Shiori Yamao, he might have heard of the name Iain Duncan Smith and had heard of Marco Rubio which were listed in the IPAC Briefing. We note that D1 said if he had been permitted to go to the US in July 2020 he would have met Marco Rubio as he was a very important and influential senator in the Senate[1594]. 1352.On 1 June 2020 Luke de Pulford then informed D1 that the launch of IPAC would be delayed. Luke de Pulford asked D1 if he could have the front page of Apple Daily. D1 responded by saying he did not know about the front page but would try to put it in a prominent place. It beggars belief that if D1 did not care and was as ignorant as he said about IPAC or its purpose that he would agree to put something in a prominent place in Apple Daily. On the other hand if D1 did not know what it was about he would have asked what it was about to warrant front page news. Clearly D1 knew about IPAC and the importance of its launch. 1353.On 3 June 2020, Luke de Pulford sent an attachment headed “EMBARGOED UNTIL 23:00 (UTC) THURSDAY 4 JUNE 2020 Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China Launched.”[1595] It was similar to the IPAC briefing D1 had received from Luke de Pulford earlier. 1354.On 4 June 2020, Luke de Pulford sent D1 the following:[1596]
1355.Clearly D1 had read this quote as he said he would send it to the editor. If D1 was not interested or concerned he would not have bothered to send it to Chan Pui-man as Luke de Pulford already had her contact. 1356.Further, on 5 June 2020 D1 apologised to Luke de Pulford for not putting the launch on the front page as it coincided with “June 4th reporting”.[1597] D1 said in evidence that he flipped through the paper and saw it was not on the front page. He was not interested to read about it but only had an overview of the article, a glance of it. If D1 was not interested why apologise at all? Furthermore, clearly by apologising D1 was trying to accede to Luke de Pulford’s request to put this very important piece of news which he knew was about IPAC on Apple Daily’s front page. 1357.The launch of IPAC in the Apple Daily was published on a whole page of the newspaper on 5 June 2020. It referred to:[1598]
1358.D1 said he did not register nor read this and the names had no meaning to him.[1599] D1 denied he read the names Shiori Yamao and Iain Duncan Smith. He said he had never heard of those two names until the hearing. D1 said that he may have noticed that it said “9 Parliaments Ally Themselves to Toughly Resist the Chinese Communist Party” but whether he registered it or not he forgot. He recalled that it showed the flags of several countries.[1600] D1 agreed that IPAC aligned with his idea at that time and was exactly what he wanted in relation to international support but as he did not focus on England it did not register with him. He then agreed that IPAC was not only about England but many countries. 1359.We reject D1’s evidence that he was not interested to read this, that the names had no meaning to him and he did not register that this was an Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. This was about the “Draconian” National Security Law and foreign countries allying together “to toughly resist the Chinese Communist Party” aiming to urge their governments “to adopt tougher policies towards China”. Up to and close to the enactment of the NSL, D1 was seeking international foreign support hoping to stop the implementation or promulgation of the NSL. He published the “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” to Trump between 25 and 27 May 2020. On 26 May 2020 in his Fox Business interview with Maria Bartiromo he publicly stated to change the CCP was to sanction them and freeze the accounts of the officials’ corrupt money. He had arranged interviews with a number of media and arranged a trip to the US to meet Mike Pence, the National Security Council and the State Department. IPAC was the international foreign support that aligned with his support and was exactly what he had wanted. IPAC was an Inter-Parliamentary Alliance of many countries which were anti-China at that time. It had at the time nine participating countries including USA in which we find D1 knew that Marco Rubio was involved. We reject D1’s evidence that he was not interested and did not know about IPAC prior to the court hearing. 1360.On 5 June 2020, Luke de Pulford sent a link in WhatsApp message to D1 of IPAC’s Twitter account[1601] with the message “Today we launch #IPAC”, For the tweet, Marco Rubio of the US, Iain Duncan Smith and Shiori Yamao appeared on it. D1 said he did not click on the tweet. 1361.In a WhatsApp message on 11 June 2020 with attachments which said “EMBARGOED UNTIL 1700 UTC +1 THURSDAY 11 JUNE 2020”, Luke de Pulford told D1 in the body of the WhatsApp and updated D1 about membership of IPAC. He said: [1602]
1362.On 13 June 2020 D1 posted a tweet promoting IPAC. It said:[1603]
1363.D1 said he had glanced at this tweet but did not take notice of IPAC. He said Simon Lee had written it. In addition, Luke de Pulford sent a WhatsApp to thank D1 for “tweeting about IPAC” .[1604]D1 responded “You’re welcome.” Therefore, Luke de Pulford specifically thanked D1 for tweeting abut IPAC. D1’s evidence that he only glanced at it and was not interested is wholly implausible. 1364.On 7 July 2020, notably after the enactment of the NSL, Luke de Pulford sent D1 a link to his own twitter post which was a video showing Iain Duncan Smith of IPAC in Parliament calling for sanctions under the UK’s Magnitsky sanctions regime to be imposed on Carrie Lam (the then Chief Executive): [1605]
Immediately after sending the link, Luke de Pulford told D1 that he organised it to happen. Luke de Pulford’s WhatsApp exchange with D1 was as follows: [1606]
1365.D1 said in cross-examination that he did not click on the link and replied that he was ok and believed Luke de Pulford was asking him if the situation for him was impossible now and he answered “yes not impossible now.” In court D1 said he could see he was mistaken about his understanding.[1607] 1366.We wholly reject D1’s implausible explanation that it was his misunderstanding. He had already answered that he was “OK” there was no need to answer again. We find it farcical to believe that D1 thought Luke de Pulford was asking about his impossible situation. The “not impossible now” was clearly a reference to the possibility of Carrie Lam being sanctioned. We find D1 by saying “Yes, not impossible now” was referring to the former Chief Executive to be sanctioned. It showed D1’s unambiguous intention, support and agreement with Luke de Pulford to call for sanctions. 1367.We reject D1’s evidence that he did not know that Luke de Pulford was engaged in work to call for sanctions and adverse measures against Hong Kong and its officials. We reject D1’s account that he thought Luke de Pulford was a nuisance and he replied to him just to get him off his back. If he was such a nuisance D1 could have just ignored or even blocked Luke de Pulford’s messages. In any event Luke de Pulford had Chan Pui-man’s telephone number and D1 could have told Luke de Pulford to contact her directly and not him but he did not. His communications and assistance to Luke de Pulford were contrary to his finding him a nuisance. 1368.It is pertinent to note that in D1’s evidence when asked why he did not just block Luke de Pulford he said:[1608]
If D1 did not know anything about Luke de Pulford nor about IPAC how was he able to say that his heart was in the “right place” and trying to say “good things” about Hong Kong? We find D1 knew that Luke de Pulford was aligned with his own anti-China stance. 1369.On 22 July 2020 after the NSL was enacted, a tweet was posted on D1’s Twitter account attaching a post of IPAC stating[1609]:
The body of the tweet said:
1370.D1 admitted that he agreed with the idea that the UK should suspend the extradition treaty with Hong Kong and he had to be responsible for the content of the tweets posted in his name. We find D1 clearly noticed the lobbying of IPAC and showed his endorsement of its appeal for suspending the extradition treaty with Hong Kong. 1371.D1 was arrested for the substantive offence of collusion on 10 August 2020 under the NSL. Four days after his arrest on 14 August 2020, IPAC still appeared in D1’s tweet. [1610] 1372.Regarding the over 900 tweets or re-tweets from 22 May 2020 until the closing down of D1’s Twitter account, D1 said the re-tweets did not concern him and some tweets were posted by Simon Lee without him first approving them. The only way to tell if the tweet was from him or Simon Lee was to look at the WhatsApp messages D1 had sent to Simon Lee before Simon Lee edited it. D1 confirmed that he was responsible for every one of his tweets though they were drafted by Simon Lee.[1611] 1373.We find that D1 knew that the objective of IPAC was the adoption of various foreign countries to advocate for tougher policies against the PRC and Hong Kong. D1 showed support for IPAC by featuring the launch of IPAC in Apple Daily and the various tweets in his Twitter account. D1 assisted in promoting its establishment and work through Apple Daily and his Twitter account knowing full well that IPAC requested for SBHA against the PRC and HKSAR. 1374.We find that D1 was fully aware of SWHK’s participation in IPAC from the Apple Daily article on 15 June 2020 about the Mutual Destruction Team joining IPAC as a member of its Central Secretariat and it highlighted the name and logo of SWHK on the IPAC website.[1612] 1375.Moreover, a day after the article in Apple Daily about the Mutual Destruction Team joining IPAC was published, D1 and Wayland had a discussion about IPAC during their meeting at the Next Digital Building on 16 June 2020. D1 and Wayland then talked about the “Rises from the Ashes Hong Kong” campaign held by the Mutual Destruction Team. D1 said it was great to apply resources to international lobbying. Then he asked about IPAC, and whether IPAC would also use the funds raised in the crowdfunding campaign. He asked Wayland why he did not participate in it. D1 was of the view that IPAC was very important in that such kind of international support was definitely needed. 1376.The above evidence showed that D1 knew about IPAC and its connection to SWHK’s international lobbying efforts. We reject D1’s evidence that he was not interested to know and did not know what response foreign organisations, or foreign politicians or foreign figures had to the promulgation of the NSL as being completely implausible. D1’s evidence all along was that he tried very hard to stop the promulgation of the NSL and even after the promulgation he wanted to water down the effect or impact of the NSL therefore we find he would be interested to know the response from foreigners. D1’s knowledge of Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK) Election Observation Mission (“EOM”) 1377.In November 2019, SWHK together with “Hong Kong Story” held the “Election Observation Mission” and invited foreign political figures (including British politicians Lord Alton and his assistant Luke de Pulford) to come to Hong Kong to observe the District Council Election. During the course of the EOM on 24 November 2019, D1 had dinner with Lord Alton and Luke de Pulford. 1378.D1 denied he knew that SWHK, an organisation had jointly held the EOM. 1379.On 17 November 2019 Benedict Rogers sent D1 an attachment in Chinese in a WhatsApp message stating that the EOM was organised by “Hong Kong Story” and “Fight For Freedom Stand With Hong Kong” two non-governmental organisations established by Hongkongers who have been proactively advocating for international support for the city to fight for freedom and democracy. The attachment stated:[1613]
1380.It is pertinent to note that the article clearly stated that “Fight For Freedom, Stand With Hong Kong” was an organisation. We find it implausible that D1 did not want to know more about the EOM and did not know that SWHK was one of the organisers. Tweets with hashtags to SWHK/Fight For Freedom Stand with Hong Kong 1381.In D1’s evidence he repeatedly said that Simon Lee added the hashtags. He did not know how to add a hashtag. He did not look at or pay attention to the hashtags on his tweets, claiming he was not interested in “names” or “bluefigures” and just overlooked them.[1614] 1382.D1’s Twitter account had numerous references to #StandWithHongKong and or #FightForFreedom including in tweets where D1 admitted writing the main body of the text himself. His Twitter account followed the official SWHK account and used his own hashtags to SWHK. 1383.Examples of these tweets are the following:
1384.We reject D1’s evidence that he was not aware of SWHK or did not notice or was not concerned with the hashtags #FightForFreedom and/ or #StandWithHongKong. It is wholly implausible that with the number of the hashtags of SWHK and the repeated references to SWHK in his tweets he did not know about SWHK. On the contrary, we find on the totality of evidence that he did know and was supportive of SWHK. D1’s deliberate concealment of planned meeting with US officials in July 2020 in his bail application to the Court to uplift his travel restriction 1385.We find that D1’s failure to inform the Court at his bail application of his intended meeting with US officials in July 2020 was deliberately intended to deceive and mislead the Court. We have referred to this in the Chapter on D1’s foreign connections in the Reasons for Verdict. D1’s case that he was not asking for sanctions or making requests for SBHA after NSL 1386.We have already referred to D1’s various statements in his articles, live chats and his tweets in the previous chapters and we are not going to repeat those. We reject D1’s evidence that he was just stating the facts or that he was just predicting that SBHA would come or that whatever he said could not be interpreted to be a request for SBHA. 1387.We find that even after the promulgation of the NSL, D1 advocated for using Taiwan as a leverage against China and by making remarks in his live chat he did as he intended and continued to advocate for US presence in Taiwan as a leverage against China which was a hostile activity. 1388.We refer in particular to D1’s live chat on 10 September 2020 with Benedict Rogers. D1 said to Benedict Rogers:
1389.We find that D1 knew at the time that making the request was illegal. However, he was still requesting measures as suggested by Benedict Rogers to continue. D1 knew that Benedict Rogers was the founder of Hong Kong Watch which was a foreign element and also an indirect route to the foreign powers such as the parliamentarians. D1 said in evidence that Benedict Rogers could talk to foreign politicians, foreign governments about their concern for Hong Kong.[1624] The reference by D1 to Benedict Rogers’s role being “a lot more important than before the NSL” was to the fact that Benedict Rogers could call foreign politicians and governments to raise concern and continue with measures against Hong Kong, which D1 knew could not be done after NSL as it would raise suspicion of collusion. 1390.All along D1 demonstrated before the NSL that the pressure to the CCP or HKSAR government was to request for SBHA by talking to politicians. This can be clearly seen when he spoke to Pompeo in July 2019 and in the note conveyed by Mark Simon to him on US removing the special status in Hong Kong in July 2020. D1’s evidence that he did not expect anything from politicians, just that they could respond to help HK, we find is wholly implausible.[1625] 1391.As regards D1’s live chat on 24 September 2020 with Thomas Shattuck[1626] where D1 talked about technology embargo by the US against China, we find that he was making an implicit request of keeping SBHA as an effective measure as it was hurting China’s technological development. 1392.After a thorough and careful assessment of D1’s evidence, we find his evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. We do not accept that his inconsistencies or contradictions were because time had lapsed since the events took place, or lapse of or a failing memory or stress or age. We find he gave evasive, incredible and unreliable evidence. 1393.We reject D1’s case that from fervently asking for SBHA prior to NSL then with a flick of a switch he stopped requesting for SBHA after the enactment of the NSL. Chapter 28 – D1’s foreign connections 1394.It is inevitable that there are some repetitions of what has been covered in other chapters. Although it is unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that D1 had any connection with foreign countries, institutions, organisations or individuals, on the evidence, we are sure that D1 did and that D1 knew and believed that foreign individuals were listening to him when he requested or called upon them to impose SBHA against the PRC and HKSAR governments and their officials. 1395.D1 stated that he was familiar with the US politicians but not the politicians in the UK. D1 believed that the US was more supportive, influential and caring than the UK to Hong Kong in the fight for freedom[1627]. 1396.D1’s intent to solicit foreign intervention and the imposition of SBHA against the PRC and HKSAR and its officials is demonstrated through his long term connections and collaborations with his extensive foreign network, including senior US officials or former officials, such as Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, James Cunningham and various senators. 1397.D1 said he was not a member of any think tank in the USA but had, since about 2018, been invited to sit in on several think tank meetings in Washington, one of which John Bolton was a member. D1 said he would receive updates on what was happening in the US and D1 would update them on what was happening in Hong Kong. It was mostly about policy or international matters. He said he donated a small sum of about US$30,000 - US$50,000 a year as a token of his support to US think tanks. The donations were too small to influence US policy on China or Hong Kong or to think that he would get anything in return[1628]. 1398.D1 said he had never been a member of any political party in Hong Kong or outside Hong Kong[1629]. Throughout the years he had donated to political parties in Hong Kong, for example the Democratic Party and the Civic Party[1630]. 1399.D1 was supportive of President Trump and the Republican Party and its policies[1631]. D1 had however never met President Trump. 1400.The prosecution had produced an infographic of D1’s external connections[1632], attached as Annex 1. These persons are either foreign politicians, former or present or persons connected to organisations in different foreign countries who are essentially anti-PRC or HKSAR governments. 1401.D1 gave evidence about his relationship or connection with these people or organisations. Benedict Rogers (founder of Hong Kong Watch and member of IPAC)[1633] 1402.D1 said he knew Benedict Rogers was the founder of Hong Kong Watch. D1 came to know Benedict Rogers and started to have contact with him only after Benedict Rogers was refused entry to Hong Kong. Whenever Benedict Rogers wanted to publish articles in Apple Daily he would contact D1. They communicated through WhatsApp. D1 had donated £20,000 to Hong Kong Watch in or about 2019. He initiated the donation as he thought that Benedict Rogers was doing something meaningful and supporting Hong Kong[1634]. 1403.D1 said he did not know that Benedict Rogers was an advisor to IPAC. D1 believed that Benedict Rogers was not an agent of a foreign state or country nor was he was acting as an agent for D1[1635]. 1404.[1636]Although D1 did not consider the UK as supportive of Hong Kong as the US, Benedict Rogers was supporting Hong Kong by making Hong Kong exist on the people’s radar. Benedict Rogers and Hong Kong Watch paid attention to Hong Kong’s situation and offered criticism or support. D1 knew that Benedict Rogers and Hong Kong Watch lobbied the UK government to take certain actions regarding Hong Kong. D1 knew that Benedict Rogers was very familiar with persons such as Lord Alton and Chris Patten and many politicians in the UK[1637]. Lord Alton (David Alton, member of UK Parliament[1638]) 1405.D1 said he came to know Lord Alton, a member of the UK Parliament, through Benedict Rogers when Lord Alton took him on a tour of Parliament in London and D1 had tea with him on 1 July 2019[1639]. D1 had dinner with Lord Alton and Luke de Pulford when they came to Hong Kong to observe the District Council Election on 24 November 2019[1640]. Benedict Rogers arranged that meeting. Luke de Pulford (founder of IPAC[1641]) 1406.D1 said he only met Luke de Pulford once in Hong Kong when they had dinner together with Lord Alton in November 2019. D1 came to know that Luke de Pulford was Lord Alton’s assistant. He said he never knew Luke de Pulford was the Executive Director of or had anything to do with IPAC. D1 said it was never mentioned that Luke de Pulford had anything to do with IPAC[1642]. 1407.D1 said he had never heard of IPAC before the trial. The first time he had heard of IPAC was at this trial from the evidence of Andy[1643]. 1408.D1 said he had WhatsApp communication with Luke de Pulford but never discussed anything with him, whether politics or personal affairs. D1 said that Luke de Pulford’s only purpose to contact him was for D1 to publish the latter’s articles. It was for that purpose they had contact with each other. When Luke de Pulford sent the articles to D1, he would automatically send them to his publisher Chan Pui-man or his chief editor Law Wai-kwong. D1 said he never read his articles because he found Luke de Pulford to be a nuisance as the only purpose for Luke de Pulford to contact him was to publish his articles. He however knew that Luke de Pulford “was doing something good for Hong Kong… because he always trying to say good things about Hong Kong[1644].” Lord Patten (Chris Patten, former Governor of Hong Kong between 1990 and 1997, guest of live chat on 13 November 2020[1645]) 1409.D1 said Lord Patten called him a friend but he did not consider him as a friend as the latter was the former Governor of Hong Kong. D1 met Lord Patten when he was the Governor infrequently. After the handover he met Lord Patten when he came to Hong Kong. He did not have any direct communication with him such as by WhatsApp or telephone call. Whenever D1 wanted to contact Lord Patten, he did so through Benedict Rogers or Anson Chan. Lord Patten was a guest on his “live chat” after the NSL[1646]. Tsai Ing-wen (leader of the Taiwan region) 1410.D1 said the first time he met Tsai Ing-wen was when the US Consulate in Taiwan hosted a party for D1. He met her as well as other dignitaries of Taiwan they had invited. D1 met her at about the time he established Apple Daily Taiwan. 1411.D1 said he did not meet Tsai Ing-wen again until she became the leader of the Taiwan region[1647]. He met her more than a few times. He arranged the meetings with Tsai Ing-wen through Antonio Chiang. When asked about their discussions in examination-in-chief, D1 said the discussion “was sometimes about the policy of Taiwan.” Incredibly, he said he did not remember exactly why he met her. D1 thought Tsai Ing-wen’s interest in meeting him was because of his media connection. At no time did he mention he spoke to her about US policy or sentiments of US to Taiwan. When questioned by Mr Kwan, his counsel, D1’s reply was as follows[1648]:
1412.D1 said he was a permanent resident in Taiwan but not a citizen[1649]. 1413.D1 said he knew Antonio Chiang as he was a famous writer. Antonio Chiang worked for and wrote for Next Magazine Taiwan as their editorial writer. He knew that Antonino Chiang was once Head of Security in the Taiwanese administration when Chen Shui-bian was the leader. When Tsai Ing-wen became the leader of the Taiwan region, Antonio Chiang did not hold any official position in the administration but unofficially he was the right-hand man of Tsai Ing-wen. 1414.D1 said one day during President Trump’s presidency, Antonio Chiang asked D1 whether he knew anyone who could tell Tsai Ing-wen President Trump’s internal administration’s attitude and thinking about Taiwan. D1 therefore introduced two Americans Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane to Tsai Ing-wen[1650]. 1415.D1 said he was approached by Antonio Chiang because they were friends and they always talked about US policy. Antonio Chiang knew that he was very much in touch with US think tanks and was supportive of President Trump and the Republican policy so it was natural that he be asked as he knew a lot about the US. D1 said the purpose of introducing two Americans, Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane, was because he wanted to help Taiwan to know how to deal with US better because “Taiwan is the only democracy in the whole history of Chinese people[1651]”. 1416.D1 said he had never met President Donald Trump. D1 said he knew President Donald Trump had mentioned his name during one of his rallies[1652]. Vice President Mike Pence (Vice President in 2019 and 2020[1653]) 1417.D1 said he met Vice President Mike Pence in the US in July 2019 in Washington. He had also met him briefly in a hotel after Pence gave a speech in October 2019[1654]. The photo in Annex 1 was in July 2019 when he met Pence. 1418.D1 said his purpose of going to Washington in July 2019 was to meet senators and congressman and tell them that what was happening in Hong Kong in the social movement. It was his idea to do so. Mark Simon, D1’s assistant, asked Christian Whiton to arrange the meeting with senators and congressmen[1655]. Mark Simon told D1 when he was in Washington that Vice President Mike Pence wanted to meet him. D1 did not know that he would be meeting Vice President Mike Pence before he went to Washington[1656]. 1419.When D1 met Pence he said he did not dare to request Pence for anything in particular. He said he did not ask Pence for any action. D1 said he just related to him what happened in Hong Kong when he was asked by Pence. He said he however asked Pence to voice out by saying something for Hong Kong and support Hong Kong[1657]. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Secretary of State of the US in 2019 and 2020[1658]) 1420.D1 said in the same trip when he met Pence in July 2019, he also met Mike Pompeo in Washington. Their photograph is seen in Annex 1[1659]. They discussed the movement in Hong Kong. He said he did not request Mike Pompeo “to do something”, he just asked Mike Pompeo “to voice out his support for Hong Kong”[1660]. D1 said he met Pompeo in his office alone, nobody else was present[1661]. John Bolton (US National Security Advisor in 2019[1662]) 1421.John Bolton was the US National Security Advisor in 2019. D1 said he had known him since 2018. When D1 first met John Bolton, he did not have an official role in the US Government[1663]. 1422.D1 said he met John Bolton in Washington in a think tank meeting in which John Bolton was a member. D1 said he was not a member of the US think tank but members nevertheless invited him to sit in on the meetings. D1 said whenever he visited the US he would see John Bolton and whenever John Bolton was in Taiwan they would see each other. John Bolton went to Taiwan often in 2018 and 2019. In a wilful misrepresentation, D1 said that his discussions with John Bolton were empty casual chat. The following question was asked by Mr Kwan[1664]:
1423.In cross-examination D1 said by January 2017 he had already been friends with John Bolton for many many years[1665]. D1 had met and spoken to John Bolton on 6 January 2017 about US military presence in Taiwan. D1 had prepared a note before seeing John Bolton and shared this ‘strictly confidential note’ with Antonio Chiang. Mark Simon in a WhatsApp exchange shared a commentary article with D1 that John Bolton wrote on 16 January 2017 titled, “Revisit the ‘One-China Policy’ A closer US military relationship with Taiwan would help counter Beijing’s belligerence”[1666]. The article was similar to the topic and themes D1 mentioned in his confidential note. This is what this court referred to as the Taiwan Consultancy which will be referred to below. Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of US House of Representatives in 2019[1667]) 1424.D1 said he was introduced to Nancy Pelosi by Martin Lee as she had been a longtime friend of Martin Lee. D1 said the photo in Annex 1 was taken in October 2019 in her office in the US when she was the Speaker of the House of Representatives. D1 said during the meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Martin Lee, he only listened to the two of them talking. He cannot remember what was discussed[1668]. Mary Kissel (former journalist of Wall Street Journal Asia and assistant to Mike Pompeo in 2019 and 2020[1669]) 1425.D1 said he had known Mary Kissel since 2009. He first met her in Hong Kong. They were personal friends[1670]. Mary Kissel was in Hong Kong as an editorial writer for the Asian Wall Street Journal, they became very good friends more than 10 years ago. She left Hong Kong to become the editorial writer of the Wall Street Journal in New York. Later she became the assistant to Secretary of State Pompeo. When D1 met Mike Pompeo in July 2019, she was already Pompeo’s assistant[1671]. 1426.D1 said he continued to have contact with her when she worked for the Wall Street Journal. He knew that Mary Kissel was the assistant to Mike Pompeo when he went to Washington to meet Mike Pompeo in July 2019. Because Mary Kissel worked for the government they stopped communicating. When he went to see Mike Pompeo, Mark Simon warned D1 not to embrace Mary Kissel. Mary Kissel took him from the lobby to Mike Pompeo’s office[1672]. 1427.D1 said he never had any direct communication with Mary Kissel but believed that Mary Kissel contacted him through his assistant Mark Simon[1673]. Christian Whiton (US lobbyist[1674]) 1428.D1 said he was introduced to Christian Whiton through Mark Simon in 2019. Christian Whiton was hired by D1 through Mark Simon as a consultant to introduce D1 to senators, congressman and US government officials. D1 paid him for his consultancy. Christian Whiton worked in the White House as a senior staff for a long time but D1 did not know his position. D1 said as Christian Whiton knew everybody therefore he was a good person to introduce D1 to meet congressman and senators. Christian Whiton introduced D1 to meet senators and congressman in July 2019 and in his subsequent trips[1675]. To D1’s understanding, when he went to Washington in July and October 2019, Christian Whiton did not hold a position in the White House[1676]. Rupert Hammond-Chambers (President of US-Taiwan Business Council[1677]) 1429.D1 said he did not remember this name. However, in evidence there were group emails in which D1 was a participant which contained the same name. D1 later referred to a “Rupert” who was somebody who went with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz in the Taiwan Consultancy as he was an expert for Taiwan affairs. D1 had paid him for that[1678]. Jack Keane (former US Army General[1679]) 1430.D1 said he knew Jack Keane was a former US General. He came to know Jack Keane from friends’ gatherings. D1 could not remember when he first met Jack Keane but it was about three years before D1 asked Jack Keane to help Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan in 2017[1680]. 1431.In cross-examination D1 said he knew that Jack Keane was a retired “four-star general with lots of medals”, a former Vice Chief of Staff of the US Army, the national security analyst and the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War[1681]. 1432.D1 was also told by Mark Simon in a WhatsApp message on 17 November 2016 that Jack Keane was offered the position of Secretary of Defence or Secretary of the Army by President Donald Trump after he was elected[1682]. In a WhatsApp message on 26 December 2016, D1 told Antonio Chiang that Jack Keane was offered the job of ‘Defence Minister’ by Trump and declined[1683]. In a WhatsApp message on 5 January 2017 to Antonio Chiang, D1 informed him that Jack Keane had become the personal adviser to President Donald Trump[1684]. 1433.In a further WhatsApp message Mark Simon told D1 on 6 September 2018 that Jack Keane was again considered for the position of Secretary of Defence. Mark Simon said “he is widely respected in Congress, inside the administration and by the president himself”[1685]. D1 said he knew Jack Keane was very close to the Administration[1686]. D1 paid Jack Keane for his advice in the Taiwan Consultancy. Paul Wolfowitz (former US Deputy Secretary of Defence[1687]) 1434.D1 said he met Paul Wolfowitz casually before D1 hired him in 2013 and 2014 to be his consultant in Myanmar when D1 was looking for an opportunity to invest. He paid Paul Wolfowitz for the Myanmar consultancy. D1 also paid him for his advice in the Taiwan Consultancy. D1 did not pay Paul Wolfowitz to influence US policy on China or Hong Kong, nor did he pay anyone to influence US policy on Hong Kong or China[1688]. 1435.In cross-examination D1 said he knew Paul Wolfowitz was the former US Deputy Secretary of Defence and a former US Ambassador in Indonesia. D1 knew that he had extensive experience in dealing with Asia policy in the US[1689]. D1 had direct WhatsApp communication with him between 2016 and 2019[1690]. Paul Wolfowitz was D1’s very close friend. D1 had met Paul Wolfowitz in Washington in 2016, January 2017 and May 2017, then in Paris in 2017 and Taipei in December 2017[1691]. Mark Clifford (Independent Non-executive Director of Next Digital Limited and co-host of live chat[1692]) 1436.D1 said he had known Mark Clifford for about 20 to 30 years. Mark Clifford was a senior journalist for a long time in Hong Kong for the US media. He was at one time the Chief Editor for the South China Morning Post. He was a former board member of Next Media and was co-host of most of the live chat interviews[1693]. Perry Link (guest of live chat on 18 August 2020[1694]) 1437.D1 said he had known Perry Link for about 30 years. They were good friends. D1 said he was a famous academic and he is a God-father to one of his two sons. Perry Link was a guest on live chat[1695]. Natan Sharansky (former Deputy Prime Minister of Israel and guest of live chat on 20 November 2020[1696]) 1438.D1 said he had known Sharansky for many years, long before the Occupy Central movement in 2014. He was the former Deputy Prime Minister of Israel. He had met him in Jerusalem but had not seen him again until Sharansky appeared in live chat in 2020[1697]. Raymond Burghardt (former Ambassador and Senior US official, guest of live chat on 30 July 2020, 3 September 2020 and 12 November 2020[1698]) 1439.D1 said he met Raymond Burghardt when he was the US Consul General in Taiwan. He said he met him a few years after he set up Apple Daily in 1995 in Hong Kong. It was about the time he went to develop Next Magazine in Taiwan[1699]. D1 said he knew that Raymond Burghardt was familiar with the situation in Taiwan, Vietnam, and China. Raymond Burghardt once worked in the Beijing consulate when he was younger[1700]. US Officials 1440.D1 said he met Rick Scott in the US in July 2019. He was one of the senators that Christian Whiton arranged for him to meet. D1 also met Rick Scott in Hong Kong again in September 2019[1702]. Ted Cruz (Senator in 2019[1703]) 1441.D1 said he met Ted Cruz in July 2019 in the US on the same visit as he met Rick Scott. D1 also met Ted Cruz in Hong Kong again when he came to observe the social unrest in October 2019[1704]. 1442.D1 said he came to meet Bill McGurn in Hong Kong many many years ago. He was a very close friend of his, they were fellow Catholics and when D1 converted to Catholicism, McGurn was his God-father[1705]. He was the editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal[1706]. James Cunningham (former US Consul General to Hong Kong[1707]) 1443.D1 said he met James Cunningham when he was the US Consul General in Hong Kong. They became very friendly and were personal friends. After James Cunningham left Hong Kong they kept in contact and remained very close. They had communication by WhatsApp, Signal and would see each other[1708]. D1 said James Cunningham was not his agent nor an agent of the US, in his interactions with D1[1709]. In cross-examination D1 said he knew James Cunningham was the Former Ambassador of the United States to Afghanistan. Between 2017 and 2020 he had met James Cunningham many times face-to-face. D1 maintained contact with him[1710]. D1 said he believed the rumour relayed to him from Mark Simon in a WhatsApp text on 27 June 2017 that James Cunningham would become one of the Under Secretaries of State if Hillary Clinton was elected[1711]:-
1444.D1 said he also believed that James Cunningham was close to the Trump administration because Mark Simon conveyed James Cunningham’s confidential message to D1 in a WhatsApp text on 2 September 2018 that James Cunningham had informed him that he had been approached by the State Department of the US about a position there[1712]:
1445.On 5 March 2020 in a WhatsApp message from Mark Simon, D1 learnt that James Cunningham was at that time advising President Biden’s team. James Cunningham was named on CNN as one of the senior advisers to the Biden team[1713].
1446.In a WhatsApp message from Mark Simon to D1 on 14 May 2020, he told D1[1714]:
Alleged Co-Conspirators Bill Browder (lobbyist for the Magnitsky Act) and Shiori Yamao (member of the House of Representatives of Japan[1715]) 1447.D1 said he did not know either Bill Browder or Shiori Yamao neither had he heard of them[1716]. D1 said he had never tried to communicate with these two persons indirectly. D1 said he never agreed indirectly with Andy, Bill Browder or Shiori Yamao to request a foreign state to impose sanctions on China or Hong Kong either before or after the NSL. Mark Simon (D1’s personal assistant[1717]) 1448.D1 said he met Mark Simon through church connections in Hong Kong. He only knew that Mark Simon had worked as a president in a shipping company in Taiwan but did not know what company it was. Mark Simon had been working for D1 for almost 20 – 30 years, he forgot for how long. Mark Simon was a person he trusted. Mark Simon took care of D1’s personal businesses and investment[1718]. Between 2013 and 2020 D1 had transferred a total of HK$118 million by way of 86 transactions to Mark Simon. D1 said he transferred this money to Mark Simon because Mark Simon was responsible for D1’s stock portfolio and for his private business needs[1719]. 1449.From 2013 to 2015 Mark Simon was the Commercial Director of Next Animation, D1’s personal company. Mark Simon then became Managing Director from 2015 to 2019 of Next Animation. 1450.D1 agreed with the Admitted Facts that Mark Simon left Hong Kong on 18 April 2020. D1 said after Mark Simon left Hong Kong he continued to assist D1 in his personal finances thereafter[1720]. 1451.D1 said that Mark Simon was a Republican[1721]. D1 knew that Mark Simon was once “the Chairman of the US Republican Charter in Hong Kong.” D1 said he and Mark Simon seldom talked about politics[1722]. 1452.D1 said that Mark Simon was his agent. As far as D1 knew Mark Simon was not the agent of the US. Mark Simon was not the agent for the Republican party in his interactions with D1. He never dealt with Mark Simon about any matter relating to the Republicans[1723]. D1 said he knew that Mark Simon did not have any connection with the US administration[1724]. 1453.D1’s testimony was that:
Donations to Political Parties in Hong Kong 1454.D1 said he donated to political parties in Hong Kong. As an example donations were made to the Democratic Party and the Civic Party. These donations were not made directly by him but through Mark Simon. The sum of HK$118 million transferred to Mark Simon included donations to these political parties[1727]. Donation to US Think Tanks in the US 1455.D1 said he made donations to the US think tanks in the US to show a token of support because he resonated with what they supported, such as free market and freedom. D1 donated a sum of between US$20,000 to about US$50,000 a year. He considered these small donations. The donations were not conditional and were not intended to influence US policy on China or Hong Kong[1728]. 1456.D1 considered himself a businessman and a social activist. D1 explained his definition of a social activist as someone who supports social events[1729]. D1’s knowledge and belief that the US administration was aware and was listening to him 1457.D1 said he believed Jack Keane had the ear of President Trump and was widely respected in Congress and the Administration. D1 knew that Mark Simon had close contact with Jack Keane[1730]. In a WhatsApp exchange Mark Simon had with D1 on 31 May 2020, Mark Simon told D1[1731]:
1458.Following that message, D1 acknowledged Trump’s tweet by replying in a tweet on 21 August 2020 and attaching an Apple Daily article about Trump praising D1 as a brave man. D1’s tweet said[1732]:
1459.On 13 June 2020, Mark Simon also reported to D1 in a WhatsApp message that he had fielded calls expressing disappointment from people on Capitol Hill and “everyone from the NSC staff[1733]:
1460.On D1’s live chat on 26 November 2020 when Jack Keane appeared as a guest, Jack Keane acknowledged D1 as a good friend. Jack Keane applauded D1 for the efforts he had made in the US and that D1 was given special status to speak to the leaders of the US. Jack Keane said[1734]:
1461.D1 was cross-examined about Jack Keane’s comments. We have no doubt that D1 knew that he was the only person from Asia to have such a unique relationship with leaders of the US and they acknowledged him[1735]. 1462.It is clear from these messages that D1 believed Jack Keane had the ear of President Trump, was widely respected in Congress and the US administration. D1 knew that Mark Simon had close contact with Jack Keane. 1463.On 26 May 2020 after D1 was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo, she informed D1 in a WhatsApp message that she would send D1’s interview with Fox News to President Donald Trump. She said[1736]:
1464.The next day after the Fox News interview, D1 tweeted a two part post. The first part thanked Maria Bartiromo for being so caring to him and Hongkongers. He said[1737]:
1465.On 19 June 2020 after D1’s AFP interview where D1 mentioned the possibility of his imprisonment, Mark Simon conveyed another message from Mary Kissel that her boss (Mike Pompeo) was concerned for his safety. The message stated:
D1 replied if he went to jail, it would be a morale boost for people in the movement:
After the NSL was enacted 1466.On 2 July 2020 D1 told Mark Simon[1740] that he should continue to accept interviews from the media and Mark Simon told D1 they had got very good feedback from D1’s appearance on Fox with Maria (Bartiromo)[1741].
1467.After the NSL was enacted, Mark Simon continued to convey messages which D1 believed were from Mary Kissel. 1468.On 2 July 2020 Mark Simon also relayed to D1 the concern of Mary Kissel and her boss (Mike Pompeo) after watching his interview with Maria Bartiromo[1742]:
1469.D1 said in cross-examination that he believed Bill Barr was the US Attorney General at the time and Mary was Mary Kissel and Mary Kissel’s boss was Mike Pompeo. D1 agreed that he believed they were watching his interview[1743]. 1470.On 16 July 2020 in a text message Paul Wolfowitz complimented D1’s performance on an Australian television “60 minutes” interview as a “great job.”[1744] 1471.Mark Simon also conveyed a message from Mary Kissel to D1 on 15 July 2020 on a Signal message which will be dealt with below. Email conveyed to D1 by Christian Whiton 1472.D1 believed that the speech given by Mike Pompeo at the Nixon Library was written by Mary Kissel. In the draft transcript received by D1 from Christian Whiton there was a reference to him. 1473.On 24 July 2020 in an email from Christian Whiton he forwarded an email from [email protected] attaching the speech of Mike Pompeo at the Nixon Library to D1, Mark Simon, Paul Wolfowitz and General Jack Keane. It said, “These remarks are as prepared, and should be checked against the final transcript”. The subject of the email is as follows[1745]:
1474.The attachment of the draft transcript was titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future”. In the transcript it said “SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED”[1746]. Amongst the draft transcript of many pages there was a reference to Jimmy Lai (D1). Part of the draft transcript stated[1747]:
1475.D1 said he did not contribute to the preparation of the draft speech directly or indirectly nor was he involved in it. He did not contribute indirectly to the draft speech through Mary Kissel. However, D1 said Mike Pompeo might have used his article in the New York Times but no one asked for his consent to do so. 1476.On 24 July 2020, D1 instructed Simon Lee in a WhatsApp communication to use Pompeo’s speech in his Twitter account. 1477.The video of Mike Pompeo’s speech was played in Court and D1 said this was the same video that he watched on Bloomberg which was about 5.5 minutes[1748]. Apple Daily published the speech by Pompeo[1749]. 1478.D1 agreed that Mike Pompeo referred to sanctions already in place and later in the speech Mike Pompeo was advocating hostile activities against China when Mike Pompeo said[1750]:
1479.D1 however did not tweet the part of the speech advocating hostile activities, he only took the part that Pompeo said was about tyranny. In his tweet he stated[1751]:
1480.On 28 July 2020, Yeung Wai-hong the ex-publisher of Next Magazine sent D1 the full speech of Mike Pompeo saying “this is a major policy speech on disengagement”[1753]. D1 replied:
Yeung Wai-hong replied:
1481.This exchange was after the enactment of the NSL, D1 was plainly supporting Mike Pompeo and the USA’s intention to take hostile action against the PRC, and congratulated Mike Pompeo on his speech. 1482.In D1’s reply to Yeung Wai-hong, he believed that Mary Kissel had a hand in the speech. As can be seen later in this Reasons for Verdict, Mark Simon conveyed to D1 in a Signal message on the same day that Mary Kissel wrote the speech[1756]. 1483.On the evidence before us, we are satisfied that D1 believed that the US administration was listening to him. D1 was well aware his media presence was closely tracked by the US administration both before and after the NSL. We have no doubt that D1 was mindful of the fact that he was a focal point of the US and international attention. D1’s intent to solicit foreign intervention and or the imposition of SBHA against China PRC and HKSAR as far back as 2017 1484.The NSL has no retrospective effect, however it is significant to refer to earlier periods before the NSL to show D1’s intention to pursue his requests for SBHA and his agreement with his external connections, the accomplice witnesses and the co-conspirators. 1485.D1’s intent to request for SBHA against both the PRC and the HKSAR commenced in about March or April 2019 and persisted and continued after the promulgation of the NSL. Our finding is based primarily on the direct evidence of the accomplice witnesses as well as other documentary evidence particularly WhatsApp evidence between D1 and other persons. 1486.On the evidence before this court we are however satisfied that D1’s intent to solicit foreign intervention in requesting for hostile activities against the PRC began in 2017 in the Taiwan Consultancy with his foreign connections. It is pertinent to refer to this period as background to, D1’s hostility to the PRC and his intent to solicit foreign intervention against the PRC. 1487.The Taiwan Consultancy involved D1’s collaboration with Mark Simon, John Bolton, Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, James Cunningham and Antonio Chiang to advise Tsai Ing-wen of the importance of using Taiwan in securing US military presence in Taiwan which could utilise Taiwan as a leverage point to counterbalance the PRC’s influence in the Asian region. 1488.In December 2016, D1 informed Tsai Ing-wen’s right hand man Antonio Chiang about having greater US military presence in Taiwan as a leverage against China. D1 claimed that the request was made by Tsai Ing-wen to D1 for the purpose of Tsai Ing-wen to understand Trump’s administration sentiments and attitude to Taiwan at the time. D1 explained Tsai Ing-wen wanted to know how the US felt about the Taiwan issue and whether they considered it an important issue. 1489.We reject D1’s claim and find it was D1’s idea to promote for greater military presence in Taiwan and for US troops in Japan to move to Taiwan. 1490.On 12 December 2016 in WhatsApp message from Antonio Chiang to D1, he told D1[1757]:
1491.In D1’s WhatsApp reply to Antonio Chiang on 12 December 2016, D1 told Antonio Chiang that now is the time for a China breakthrough, for the US to use Taiwan as a leverage against China’s “belligerence”. Moving the US troops out of Japan to Taiwan. D1 said[1758]:
1492.As can be seen from the WhatsApp messages exchanged thereafter, Antonio Chiang and D1 made arrangements for dinner with Tsai Ing-wen on 16 December 2016. D1 denied that he wanted to meet with Tsai Ing-wen as he wanted to convey his idea to her, it was his case that Tsai Ing-wen wanted to understand through D1, the US administration’s sentiment and attitude to Taiwan at the time[1759]. 1493.In early January 2017, D1 asked Mark Simon in WhatsApp to arrange a meeting for him with John Bolton in private when D1 was in the US. Mark Simon arranged the meeting for D1 at Bolton’s private office in Washington DC on 5 January 2017[1760]:
1494.In the meantime whilst coordinating with Tsai through Antonio Chiang, D1 was actively collaborating with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz in finalising a consultancy agreement for them to offer advice to Tsai Ing-wen. D1’s WhatsApp message to Mark Simon on 5 January 2017 said[1761]:
1495.D1 confirmed in his testimony that the project he referred to was the Taiwan Consultancy to Tsai Ing-wen and by the “liaison to Trump” he meant Taiwan’s relationship with President Trump’s administration[1762]. 1496.On the same day, 5 January 2017 D1 sent a similar message to Antonio Chiang as he did to Mark Simon about his dinner with General Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz while he was in Washington. He told Antonio Chiang that Jack Keane had become the personal adviser to Trump and was willing to help. He informed Antonio Chiang that Jack Keane had confirmed the appointment in Taipei on 19 January 2017. He told Antonio Chiang that he would have to meet Tsai Ing-wen before she went abroad. He asked if he could have a word with Tsai Ing-wen which would take just 15 minutes saying[1763]:
1497.Antonio Chiang informed D1 Tsai Ing-wen was leaving at the coming weekend and would only return to Taipei on the 15 January 2017[1764]. D1 replied ‘oh too late’ and went on to say how promising his meeting was and told Antonio Chiang he would be meeting with John Bolton and he had prepared a note for the meeting which he wanted Antonio Chiang to destroy the note after he had read it. D1 confirmed in his testimony that ‘Done show it to anyone’ in the message was ‘Don’t show it to anyone’. The message said[1765]:
1498.D1 then sent his note to Chiang. It was headed “strictly confidential.” D1’s note read[1766]:
1499.This note outlined a concept which involved advocating for an increased military presence in Taiwan by the US, highlighting Taiwan as a significant leverage point in the US’s pivot in Asia. The note also suggested that “Taiwan must take this window of opportunity to secure certain presence of American military in its land”. It strategically appealed for actions that would efficiently “hurt” China “most”, i.e. leveraging Taiwan to counterbalance China’s dominance and contain its “belligerence” in the “south sea and North Korea”. 1500.D1 agreed in evidence that using Taiwan as a leverage was the most efficient way to hurt China most. Taiwan being the leverage benefits from two things, one being America’s Asian pivot secures America’s tutelage therefore Taiwan’s security, so this would benefit the US. On 6 January 2017 after D1’s meeting with John Bolton in Washington DC, D1 sent a WhatsApp message to Antonio Chiang saying[1767]:
On the same day D1 also sent a WhatsApp message to Mark Simon telling him[1768]:
1501.About two weeks later, John Bolton wrote an article in the WSJ. On 16 January 2017, D1 forwarded a WhatsApp message to Antonio Chiang from John Bolton informing D1 that the WSJ would run his op-ed ‘this week[1769]’. On 17 January 2017, Mark Simon sent D1 a WhatsApp containing the content of an article written by John Bolton similar to the topic and themes mentioned by D1 in his note[1770]. 1502.The attached article was dated 16 January 2017 as a “commentary”. The title was “Revisit the ‘One-China Policy’ A closer US military relationship with Taiwan would help counter Beijing’s belligerence.” The end of the article stated John Bolton was a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. It read:
1503.On the same day D1 received the contents of the article from Mark Simon, D1 sent a link of John Bolton’s article in the WSJ and separately sent the contents of the article to Antonio Chiang[1771]. 1504.In cross–examination, initially D1 said the idea about the US military presence was already in the media and under further cross-examination D1 altered his evidence and said the idea was from a think tank talk. D1 said he agreed to and supported Bolton’s idea. However, it was not his idea all along[1772]. He denied that when John Bolton used the word “belligerence” it was his word said but that Beijing’s belligerence in the “South Sea” was known[1773]. 1505.In the meantime, D1 and Mark Simon were applying for approval from the US Department of Justice for Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to advise Tsai Ing-wen in this consultancy. After approval was obtained in June 2017, D1 confirmed that the meeting with Tsai Ing-wen, Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz, which was arranged by Mark Simon, took place on 16 August 2017 in Taiwan.[1774] Post-Trip Discussions between D1, Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz 1506.After Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz’s meeting with Tsai Ing-wen, which D1 was absent from, D1 personally followed up with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz regarding their thoughts after their discussions with Tsai Ing-wen[1775]. D1’s far-fetched case was that he only followed up with them in Taiwan to see if they should return to Taiwan again. It was for him to arrange the logistics of their visit[1776]. On 19 August 2017, three days after Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz had met with Tsai Ing-wen, D1 conveyed the ideas of Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to Antonio Chiang personally by WhatsApp for Antonio Chiang to relate to his ‘Boss’ Tsai Ing-wen. D1 told Antonio Chiang the ideas resulted from his meeting with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz and D1 wanted Antonio Chiang to relate them to Tsai Ing-wen. The message stated[1777]:
1507.A few days later D1 sent a photo screen shot of the profile of James Cunningham to Antonio Chiang describing him as an American diplomat and former US ambassador to Afghanistan[1778]. About a week later on 28 August 2017 D1 sent Antonio Chiang a message suggesting recruitment of retired American generals and to hire a “top notch” diplomat to reset the diplomatic ties in Washington. D1 said[1779]:
1508.D1’s message referred to a ten-year contract which would upgrade Taiwan’s military and suggested Taiwan hiring retired military generals to train their army and in the use of modern technology.[1780] 1509.In evidence D1 said “the Boss” referred to Tsai Ing-wen, the “top notch” diplomat was James Cunningham[1781] and the suggestion for Tsai Ing-wen to talk to John Kelly, who D1 forgot was the Chief of Staff of the US administration, was because Tsai Ing-wen could not talk directly to Trump as it would be offensive to China and not in accordance with diplomatic protocol[1782]. 1510.D1 said he sent the profile of James Cunningham to Antonio Chiang as Taiwan needed help in Washington to deal with the US administration because their own people were not efficient nor effective enough in dealing with the US administration. D1 admitted he introduced James Cunningham to assist Taiwan in making the diplomatic channel more efficient[1783]. 1511.As can be seen in the WhatsApp communication between D1 and Mark Simon, D1 repeatedly urged Antonio Chiang and Mark Simon to arrange face-to-face meetings for James Cunningham and Tsai Ing-wen stating he would cover Cunningham’s travel expenses[1784]. On 26 June 2017 in a WhatsApp message D1 told Mark Simon that he believed that it was rumoured James Cunningham would become one of the Under Secretaries of State if Hillary was elected[1785]. 1512.D1 shared his thoughts on the importance of diplomatic ties and being active in showing Taiwan was eager to form a new relationship with the US. D1 in a WhatsApp text to Antonio Chiang on 18 October 2017 stated[1786]:
1513.The meeting between Tsai Ing-wen and James Cunningham was finally arranged by [1787]Antonio Chiang on 15 March 2018, which D1 attended at Tsai Ing-wen’s request. D1 said in evidence this meeting was so that James Cunningham could help Taiwan establish a more efficient diplomatic channel in DC[1788]. D1 agreed that in late March 2018 after his meeting with Tsai Ing-wen in his WhatsApp exchange with Antonio Chiang[1789] that he was eager to have Taiwan engage James Cunningham and he was urging Antonio Chiang to engage James Cunningham to re-establish the diplomatic channel for Taiwan[1790]. 1514.Near to the end of March 2018 D1, in a WhatsApp message to Antonio Chiang, informed him that John Bolton had the job as National Security Adviser in the White House and again urged Antonio Chiang to use James Cunningham to facilitate diplomatic movements. In the WhatsApp exchange with Chiang D1 said[1791]:
1515.In May 2018, in a WhatsApp message to Antonio Chiang, D1 related Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz’s thoughts telling him that the current Trump administration was the best time for Taiwan to deepen diplomatic relations with the US. D1 told Antonio Chiang[1792]:
1516.D1 in a WhatsApp in June 2018 urged Antonio Chiang to take advantage of James Cunningham’s ability and relationship as it was difficult “to find a talent of the same high calibre to assist us if Jim has a regular job.” D1 offered to fly to Taiwan to persuade Mayor Chen Chu of Taiwan to hire James Cunningham to give advice to Tsai Ing-wen[1793]. On 2 September 2018 Mark Simon informed D1 in a WhatsApp message which appeared to be a forwarded message originating from James Cunningham saying he had been approached by the State Department of the US Government and if he got the job he would not be able to advise Taipei. It read[1794]:
1517.D1 said eventually there was no consensus on James Cunningham advising Tsai Ing-wen as Tsai Ing-wen could not make a decision on this[1795]. 1518.Mark Simon arranged 8 trips in total for Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to Taiwan and other Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore and Vietnam over the period from 2017-2019 under a two year contract. Mark Simon and Antonio Chiang kept D1 informed on travel and meeting logistics[1796]. 1519.Despite being challenged with the WhatsApp messages, D1 was emphatic in denying that he was promoting the idea of greater military support in Taiwan by the US. He stated that the idea of putting US troops in Taiwan was already in the media. By saying ‘accomplished what I want from John. He’s going to write in the WSJ of a good idea’ it demonstrates D1’s satisfaction in achieving his mission of aligning John Bolton with his idea of using Taiwan as a leverage against China and to reflect D1’s good idea in the WSJ. We are satisfied that D1 was keen to promote that idea. 1520.D1’s confidential note to Antonio Chiang is revealing of D1’s intentions and ideas. D1 was promoting the idea of greater military presence in Taiwan and moving US troops in Japan to Taiwan. D1’s confidential note, his request to have a private conversation with Tsai Ing-wen, his request for confidentiality to Mark Simon and Antonio Chiang, for Antonio Chiang to destroy his note after reading it, was proof that this was a very sensitive and provocative topic. Plainly D1’s intention was to have John Bolton’s assurance and support. By having John Bolton write an article in the WSJ it would surreptitiously conceal the fact that he was promoting the idea. 1521.John Bolton’s article used similar language and ideas as D1 used in his note. The article referred to the same word that D1 used regularly when describing the PRC. The word ‘belligerence’ although not uncommon it was the same word used in D1’s confidential note. We are satisfied the article although written by John Bolton was expressing D1’s ideas and Bolton’s use of the word “belligerence” was giving clandestine recognition to D1 and his idea. 1522.We find D1’s efforts were designed to align John Bolton with his ideas and to align Tsai Ing-wen’s interests with that of Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz. D1’s obvious intention was to strengthen US support in the Asian region, seeking US intervention in Taiwan and to use Taiwan as a leverage against China. 1523.The WhatsApp text from Paul Wolfowitz to D1 on 3 February 2018 was shown to D1 in cross-examination[1797]:
1524.When confronted with this message, D1 altered his evidence and said the idea of “the project” which was the Taiwan Consultancy was his. We find this message discredits D1’s denial that the promotion of the idea was not his. The context of the text shows that Paul Wolfowitz was praising D1 as a visionary and hoped his vision for containing China would succeed. 1525.We find D1 was eager for Taiwan to establish a diplomatic channel in the US for Taiwan and was urging Taiwan to engage his friend James Cunningham a “top-notch” diplomat. By using the word ‘Us and we can only accomplish’ in his text to Antonio Chiang above he considered himself as part of Taiwan and was on Taiwan’s side[1798]. It was apparent that D1 considered diplomatic ties were as important as military ties. D1 intended to broker a stronger relationship between the Taiwan government and the US administration. Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz conveyed their thoughts through D1 who then conveyed them to Antonio Chiang who was to ultimately convey them to Tsai. D1 played a crucial role and it was clear his intention was to establish a closer relationship between the US and Taiwan. 1526.We find D1 was not credible in his account about the idea of the Taiwan Consultancy. Regarding the confidentiality and sensitivity, D1 said in his testimony it was because:
We find D1 knew it was sensitive and provocative to talk about US and Taiwan relations. This demonstrates, as long ago as 2017, D1 was instrumental in coordinating and soliciting foreign intervention, by the US using Taiwan as a leverage against China. After the promulgation of the NSL 1527.D1 agreed after the NSL took effect he repeatedly emphasized the idea of using Taiwan as a leverage against China. 1528.[1800]In an email thread with D1, Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, Rupert Hammond – Chambers on 9 July 2020 titled, “ Foreign Policy: Hong Kongers Say Taiwan Is Their First Choice as Exile Looms” Jack Keane attached the article published on 8 July 2020 of the same name. D1 replied to the group saying[1801]:
1529.Out of the blue D1 raised the US greater military support when there was no mention whatsoever of US greater military support in the article. 1530.In the same email group with the thread title “Taiwan Shows How to Carefully Snip Chinese Economic Ties”, D1 replied to Jack Keane and again mentioned Taiwan needed greater military support.
1531.In D1’s live chat on 3 September 2020 with Raymond Burghardt[1803], D1 mentioned and D1 agreed in evidence that he was advocating the idea of using Taiwan as a leverage against China[1804]. D1 said in the episode:
1532.D1 mentioned the same idea in his live chat when Michael Austin appeared as the guest speaker on 1 October 2020[1806].
The words “the pivot to Asia” were similar words D1 used in his confidential note before he met John Bolton. Where D1 wrote “A small Taiwan can be a big leverage for America’s pivot in Asia”. 1533.We are satisfied and find that D1’s intention never abated after the NSL, he continued to request particularly, the US to engage in hostile activities that is to use Taiwan as a leverage against China. We reject D1’s evidence that he discontinued or did not call for hostile activities after the NSL. So far as Taiwan is concerned his request for hostile activities commenced as far back as 2017 and continued after the promulgation of the NSL. The involvement of Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz 1534.D1 said Mark Simon, Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz were involved with the Taiwan Consultancy[1807]. Mark Simon was the middle man who co-ordinated and arranged the meetings between Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz with Tsai and Antonio Chiang[1808]. D1 invited Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to be the advisers to Tsai Ing-wen because they were both his friends and they knew about the US administration’s sentiment and thinking about Taiwan[1809]. 1535.We find D1 hired Jack Keane as one of the retired American generals for the reasons stated in his WhatsApp to Antonio Chiang on 19 and 28 August 2017. D1 did so because he believed that Jack Keane had the ear of Trump as he believed Jack Keane had infrequent meetings with Trump sometimes and as a result of that close relationship, D1’s idea would run more efficiently and therefore he initiated the Taiwan Consultancy[1810]. These thoughts were expressed by D1 in his WhatsApp messages to Mark Simon and Antonio Chiang on 5 January 2017[1811]. D1’s denial of payment to others to influence foreign policy. 1536.D1 in examination in chief stated that he never paid anyone to influence foreign policy on Hong Kong or China[1812]. 1537.In the Taiwan Consultancy agreement it was not in dispute that D1 hired and paid the former government officials Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to advise Tsai Ing-wen. It was for a two year contract[1813]. 1538.Prior to hiring them D1 knew the consultancy required US government’s direct approval[1814] and President Trump’s support[1815], as it was classified as lobbying under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (“FARA”) .[1816] 1539.Mark Simon closely monitored the progress of gaining approval from the US Department of Justice to finalise the agreement which was successfully approved in June 2017. On 4 June 2017 Mark Simon told D1 that delay in approving the consultancy for Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz was that[1817]:
1540.On 24 June 2017 Mark Simon notified D1 in a WhatsApp that the consultancy agreement was approved by the US Department of Justice and Mark Simon told D1 that he ‘will get started on the final contract in DC this week.’ Mark Simon told D1:[1818]
D1 stated he believed he had the support of President Trump as the consultancy was approved.[1819] D1 admitted that he paid the lawyers fees for Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to get their approval from the Department of Justice[1820]. These fees were not inexpensive as remarked by Mark Simon in a WhatsApp message to D1 where he said[1821]:
1541.D1 said he was never informed of a contract, with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz. D1 said he only knew of a contract or an agreement with the Department of Justice. The first time he had heard of a contract with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz was in Court whilst he was giving evidence[1822]. 1542.D1 was shown Mark Simon’s WhatsApp message of 24 June 2017 referring to a contract with Paul and Jack[1823]. On 19 July 2019 Mark Simon told D1 there was a two year contract with Paul and Jack[1824]. D1 maintained that there was no formal contract with them but it was a contract prepared for the Department of Justice’s approval. D1 was shown further WhatsApp messages from Mark Simon which referred to the contract[1825] where it specifically referred to a two year contract with Paul and Jack, “Jack was paid as per contract.” [1826]D1 replied he forgot about this and maybe he was confused and then later again repeated he did not have a contract with them and changed his evidence to say he had an oral agreement with them. 1543.D1 confirmed the WhatsApp message via Mark Simon that Paul Wolfowitz suggested they can do Taiwan more good by seeing Vietnam, Japan and other allies. It stated[1827]:-
1544.Ultimately when D1 was confronted with all the WhatsApp messages that Mark Simon sent to him referring to the contract, D1 said the word contract did not register in his mind, it was his negligence or that he forgot or he was confused. Ultimately he altered his evidence to say that there was an oral agreement between him, Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz but there was no written contract. 1545.We find D1’s evidence to be evasive, contradictory and unreliable. We reject his evidence that he was ‘negligent’, confused or that he forgot. D1’s eventual admission that there was an agreement but no written contract was a failed attempt to salvage his falsehood. We are sure and it is not denied by D1, that he paid Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to be in the Taiwan Consultancy under a contract he had with them for two years. Payments to Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz for the Taiwan Consultancy by Mark Simon using D1’s personal funds and amount decided by Mark Simon 1546.Regarding payments to Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz, D1 knew they were to be paid and he left the amount to be paid to them by Mark Simon. Payment was made from D1’s personal funds. No approval was needed by Mark Simon from D1 as to the amounts and he did not give a limit as to the payment. Mark Simon decided on the amount[1828]. 1547.Despite leaving Mark Simon to decide the amount to be paid, D1 kept an eye on his expenses. In a WhatsApp message on 19 July 2018 to Mark Simon, D1 enquired about a payment in Royston’s statement which stated “Remittance to Canada for special projects in US$14.90 Million.” D1 said this was HK dollars and was reflected in a monthly statement of his money. Mark Simon told D1 that they were payments for Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz[1829]:
1548.After receiving this message D1 came to know the amounts of his payments to Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz. D1 paid Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz US$750,000 per year each and therefore a total of US$1.5 million a year for both of them. D1 agreed he paid the two of them about HK$11.67 million for both per year, and a gift of US$250,000 to Jack Keane. D1 said Rupert was someone who went with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz to Taiwan to help them because he was an expert on Taiwan affairs[1830]. Rupert was paid HK$1.4 million. So the total payment was HK$14.9 million. 1549.D1 agreed in evidence that for the two year contract, the payment to Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz would add up to US$3 million and including the Jack Keane gift, it would total US$3.25 million. D1 agreed that the sum was more than HK$25 million. 1550.D1 said in a WhatsApp to Mark Simon on 23 July 2018[1831]:
1551.D1 did not know whether Jack Keane had paid him back but said Mark Simon should know. D1 was also referred to a WhatsApp Mark Simon sent to D1 on 17 January 2017 expressing that Jack Keane was moved and appreciated D1’s generosity. D1 confirmed he had also lent Jack Keane US$1 million to pay off a loan although he did not know if this had anything to do with the US$250,000 loan referred to separately and these loans had nothing to do with the Taiwan Consultancy agreement[1832]. 1552.We find D1 gave Mark Simon carte blanche to his personal funds, no approval or limit was required from D1. He left Mark Simon to make the arrangements for travel and meetings with Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz, which also included Rupert. He left Mark Simon to pay the lawyers fees and remuneration to Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz and Rupert. This demonstrates the trust and reliance that D1 placed and had in Mark Simon. Moreover, Mark Simon played a central part in the Taiwan consultancy. 1553.We find that the vast loans D1 gave to Jack Keane show that they were very good friends which in turn may influence Jack Keane to be predisposed to D1. The Taiwan Consultancy payments were large sums paid by D1 to Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz. It was D1’s intention and eagerness to establish a covert relationship between Taiwan and the US administration. He knew it was sensitive as he was advocating for the US, a foreign power to interfere with Taiwan as a leverage against China. Payment to Antonio Chiang despite not working for Apple Daily or Next Magazine but as the right hand man of Tsai Ing-wen 1554.Despite the fact that Antonio Chiang had ceased working for Next Magazine Taiwan as an editorial writer and was at the time Tsai Ing-wen’s right hand man, Apple Daily Taiwan continued to pay him a monthly salary. Between 27 November 2017 and 29 February 2020 Apple Daily paid Antonio Chiang NT209,000 every month. The total amount for just over two year period amounted to NT5.8 million equivalent to more than HK$1 million[1833]. 1555.Why the payments to Antonio Chiang were eventually stopped are revealed in an email dated 25 March 2020 from Chen Chuan-chin Johnny, the Publisher of Next Media Taiwan, to Hung Chi-keung Dennis and copied to Royston. According to the email Johnny Chen stated that[1834]:
1556.D1’s evidence was that Apple Daily paid Antonio Chiang after he had stopped writing for them because there was a misunderstanding. D1 said he never instructed nor did he remember instructing anyone to pay Antonio Chiang despite the fact Antonio Chiang was no longer employed by Apple Daily Taiwan[1835]. 1557.D1 said in 2020 he was shocked to hear from the CEO Cheung Kim-hung that payments were still being made to Antonio Chiang even though he was no longer employed by Apple Daily Taiwan[1836]. In cross examination he was asked about para (b) in the email dated 25 March 2020 above, D1 agreed there was no reason for any payment to Antonio Chiang to be paid by Apple Daily Taiwan[1837] he said it was just negligence that Antonio Chiang was paid[1838]. D1 said when he received the WhatsApp[1839] from Cheung Kim-hung on 24 March 2020 asking for his direction on whether to continue to pay Antonio Chiang NT200,000 a month he replied to Cheung Kim-hung to stop paying Antonio Chiang. 1558.D1 said he had no reason to doubt what Chen said in the email and Chen was not a liar. D1 explained that this was not the way he conducted things. It was very unlike the way D1 did things, but Chen could have spoken to him about it and D1 explained it could have been his own negligence[1840]. 1559.We wholly reject D1’s account that the payment to Antonio Chiang was paid out of negligence or mistake and that it was not related to the Taiwan Consultancy. Despite saying he was shocked that Antonio Chiang had been paid for no reason, D1 did not ask him for a refund because he thought it was embarrassing and it was Apple Daily Taiwan’s mistake. Although D1 stated Antonio Chiang was not Tsai Ing-wen’s right-hand man for the whole period of payment, we find that is immaterial. We find the reason why there was no request for refund and Antonio Chiang was paid whilst he was not working for Apple Daily Taiwan was because he was Tsai Ing-wen’s right-hand man and these payments were to keep Antonio Chiang “sweetened” so that he would be favourably disposed to D1 as a conduit for D1 to have access to Tsai Ing Wen and as a reward for his connection to Tsai Ing-wen. 1560.D1’s allegiance to Taiwan and intention to assist Taiwan is reflected in his evidence. D1 said that he paid for the advice on behalf of the Taiwanese government because he wanted to serve them. He had big business there, D1 said in his testimony:
and he wanted to do something for it. He identified himself as somebody who benefited from the Taiwanese administration[1841]. The amendment to the Fugitives Offenders Ordinance 1561.In February 2019 the HKSAR government proposed to introduce an amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance known colloquially as the “Extradition Law Amendment Bill” (“ELAB”) which was followed by the ELAB submission into the legislative process in March 2019. Arising from a murder case that took place in Taiwan by a suspect who had since returned to Hong Kong, the ELAB’s main purpose was to address the limitations in handling cases involving jurisdictions with which the HKSAR did not have formal surrender of fugitive agreements and mutual legal assistance agreements, including other parts of the PRC (including Taiwan and Macau). 1562.Starting from March 2019 D1 was against the enactment of ELAB and was instrumental in the “resistance movement” against the ELAB which has been referred to in this trial as the “anti-ELAB” movement. In achieving his goal to stop the ELAB being enacted he collaborated closely with his foreign external connections, the pan-democrats and Anson Chan. His intention was amongst others to lobby against the enactment of ELAB in the US and mobilise international opposition against the PRC and HKSAR. From about April 2019 D1 used Apple Daily as a platform, he also mobilized the people in Hong Kong to go out onto the streets to demonstrate against the ELAB. 1563.D1’s belief was that the PRC had intentionally encroached onto Hong Kong when the HKSAR government introduced the ELAB. D1 said in an interview he attended at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (“FDD”) in the US on 10 July 2020[1842] he did not believe it was about murderers who find their way to Hong Kong and being sent back to Taiwan or the Mainland for trial, but was deliberately designed to basically send opponents of the CCP regime (like himself) and the pan-democrats back to the Mainland[1843]. D1 believed that it was a vicious conspiracy by the CCP and the Hong Kong government to undermine Hong Kong’s rule of law and human rights and freedom[1844]. 1564.We find that under the guise of fighting for freedom and democracy, D1 collaborated with his foreign connections and had on multiple occasions engaged in making requests for foreign countries in particular the US to impose sanctions, blockade or engage in other hostile activities (“SBHA”) against the PRC and/or HKSAR. D1’s collaboration with James Cunningham for Anson Chan Fan On-sang and pan-democrats lobbying trip to US in 2019 1565.On 19 March 2019 D1 knowing that James Cunningham was having dinner with Anson Chan, reached out to James Cunningham in a WhatsApp group message which included Mark Simon to help in Hong Kong’s struggle with Beijing regarding the ELAB. He said[1845]:
1566.On 23 March 2019 D1 forwarded a photo of Anson Chan meeting Vice President Mike Pence in the US to Lee Wing-tat and a link from Apple Daily[1846]. D1 informed Lee Wing-tat by coping and pasting a WhatsApp from James Cunningham of what James Cunningham had advised Anson Chan before her trip to meet with Vice President Pence. James Cunningham had advised Anson Chan to make it a core element in her discussion with Vice President Mike Pence to fully defeat the ELAB as it was a danger to all in Hong Kong. James Cunningham also informed D1 that there was little or no “democratic” cohesion or coherence plan. Stating that Anson Chan, Dennis Kwok and Charles Mok were searching for a rationale for international opposition to Beijing in general and extradition in particular. The message D1 sent stated[1847]:
1567.D1 understood from James Cunningham that there was little or no democratic cohesion or coherence on the topic of the ELAB, he therefore sent James Cunningham’s report to other members of the pan-democrats, such as to Albert Ho Chun-yan, Lee Cheuk-yan, Lee Wing-tat, Martin Lee and Apple Daily’s senior management including Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man. 1568.D1 also sent an Apple Daily link to Lee Wing-tat after Anson Chan’s visit to the US. It said:
The article with a photograph of Anson Chan meeting Vice President Mike Pence stated that Vice President Mike Pence was very concerned about the situation of human rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. Matthew Pottinger Senior Director of the US National Security Council of the United States also met with Anson Chan and fellow accompanying Legislative council members Kwok Wing-hang and Mok Nai-kwong.[1849] 1569.Lee Wing-tat replied in a WhatsApp message to D1 saying:
D1 responded urging an urgent meeting with the pan-democrats to seriously talk about the ELAB[1851]. Since that date D1 had actively planned lobbying trips to the US. 1570.[1852]D1 admitted that when he sent the photograph of Anson Chan and Mike Pence in a WhatsApp[1853] on 23 March 2019 to Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man, it was an editorial direction to use the meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Anson Chan to the maximum effect in Apple Daily[1854]. 1571.D1 jumped at the opportunity to rally against the ELAB by lobbying and uniting the pan-democrats, on 24 March 2019 D1 said to Martin Lee[1855]:
D1 was referring to the same type of lobbying that Anson Chan was doing. That is to arouse the US to the dangers of the ELAB. 1572.D1 forwarded a WhatsApp message to Martin Lee from Mark Simon who had given feedback on Anson Chan and others meeting with Vice President Mike Pence. It said they saw her message of Hong Kong being a bulwark against CCP. The suggestion was Anson Chan staying on the message of Hong Kong democracy versus Chinese communism[1856]:
1573.On 26 March 2019 D1 sent a WhatsApp message to Martin Lee informing him he wanted to get James Cunningham involved to assist the pan-democrats to do the lobbying since Congress was controlled by the Democrats and James Cunningham was a Democrat[1857].
D1 wanted James Cunningham to help with Martin Lee and the pan-democrats trip to the US to do lobbying in May 2019. D1 denied one of the objectives for the US trip in May for the pan-democrats was to raise the idea of sanctions against HKSAR and officials rising from the ELAB[1858]. 1574.On 27 March 2019 D1 informed Mark Simon in a WhatsApp that James Cunningham was someone they should retain in DC for Hong Kong lobbying considering the next two years to be turbulent for Hong Kong/China relationship and also considering getting James Cunningham involved in Hong Kong affairs in DC once having the support of Martin Lee and Albert Ho. D1 suggested that James Cunningham raise the ELAB in Senate or Congress[1859]. 1575.Mark Simon replied to D1 telling him he spoke with James Cunningham that he was in agreement with James Cunningham’s advice, of framing the anti-ELAB as a human rights issue as it would be easier to gain support. D1 responded he wanted to get James Cunningham involved in Hong Kong affairs in DC but he must have the support of Martin Lee and Albert Ho who were not keen at the moment, but he would fix that[1860]. In the following WhatsApp messages on the same day, D1 told Mark Simon that Martin Lee did not want James Cunningham involved in the project now because Minky had taken up the lead and they did not want to undermine Minky’s role. D1 explained in evidence that Minky was Martin Lee’s former secretary who was working in the US. The role Minky was to play was to introduce them to people in the US. 1576.On 29 March 2019 D1 tasked Mark Simon to engage James Cunningham but asked him to tell Martin Lee that James Cunningham had volunteered and not to tell Martin Lee that they had hired him. D1 said that would be good for Martin Lee’s trip to DC. D1 went on to say[1861]:
1577.On 1 April 2019 Mark Simon reported to D1 in a WhatsApp that he spoke with Jim that congressional action in terms of legislation would be introduced. It said[1862]:
D1 replied[1863]:
D1 denied that he had paid James Cunningham despite the plain language of the text[1864]. We reject D1’s evidence. We find D1 was instructing Mark Simon to lie to Martin Lee about paying James Cunningham so that he could assist Martin Lee. D1 paid James Cunningham to influence foreign policy on Hong Kong and PRC 1578.It is clear starting from March 2019 D1 retained James Cunningham for D1’s lobbying effort given anticipated turbulence in the Hong Kong/China relationship in the near future. James Cunningham was to be paid to influence foreign policy against the HKSAR and PRC governments. 1579.On 2 April 2019 Mark Simon forwarded a text from Lee Cheuk-yan to inform D1 about two proposals for the May trip. They were to ask for an amendment to US law to punish HKSAR officials for acts compromising One Country Two Systems including the amendment to the Fugitive Ordinance and also future acts; to issue a travel warning to American citizens once the fugitive amendments were passed; and to think about the ways to link the issue with the US trade negotiation[1865]:
This message shows that D1 was untruthful when he said that he did not know one of the objectives of the trip was to amend the US law to punish HKSAR officials. 1580.We have no doubt that by March/April 2019 D1 had the intention to lobby for international support for punishing the HKSAR officials in D1’s hostility towards the HKSAR government and PRC in order to prevent them from acting wantonly. 1581.It is significant to note that the timing of the US lobbying trips by the pan-democrats and D1’s instructions to Apple Daily management to use Apple Daily as a platform to draw the attention of the international community against the HKSAR and the PRC aligned. The utilisation of the news of Anson Chan’s meeting with the US Vice President Mike Pence by Apple Daily’s management on 23 March 2019 was shown by the publication of the news article in Apple Daily on 1 April 2019[1866] with the tagline:
1582.On 17April 2019 Mark Simon reported to D1 in a WhatsApp that James Cunningham started moving ahead in seeing about the strategy for the HK Dems and DC folks were starting to pay attention to the extradition treaty and how it affected US business[1867]:
1583.James Cunningham gave specific advice to Martin Lee copied to Mark Simon before Martin Lee met the then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in May 2019. Mark Simon kept D1 informed and forwarded the message to him. James Cunningham’s advice was[1868]:
1584.D1 confirmed in cross examination after Martin Lee’s meeting with Mike Pompeo in May 2019, Pompeo’s public speech raised concern of the Extradition Bill akin to James Cunningham’s advice to Martin Lee. This article was published in Apple Daily on 9 July 2019[1869]. It stated:
1585.The US administration was palpably listening to the pan-democrats lobbying to support Hong Kong. 1586.James Cunningham advised the pan-democrats, Mark Simon and D1 as early as March 2019 to lobby for US support. Since March 2019 D1 and the pan-democrats actively planned their trips to the US with the assistance and advice from James Cunningham and Mark Simon. Mark Simon endorsed James Cunningham’s idea of framing the opposition to ELAB as a human rights issue for easier international support. D1 knew the objectives of the lobbying trip to the US were to ask for an amendment to US law to punish HKSAR officials for acts of compromising One Country Two Systems including the amendment to the Fugitives Amendment Ordinance and future acts[1870]. D1 knew the congressional legislation was expected in the US by the end of 2019 when Mark Simon told him on 1 April 2019[1871].
“Martin, Jimmy and Mark” WhatsApp group 1587.On 11 June 2019, James Cunningham created a WhatsApp group named “Martin, Jimmy, and Mark”[1872]. The others in the group were Martin Lee, Mark Simon and D1. From the date of its formation until 9 July 2020, D1 continued to discuss lobbying strategies with James Cunningham and the others in the group. 1588.In the first message of the WhatsApp exchange on 11 June 2019, James Cunningham provided information that Senator Rubio and others had written to Carrie Lam (the then Chief Executive) and they would submit legislation to amend the Hong Kong Policy Act to put more focus on certifying compliance with ‘One Country Two Systems’. James Cunningham stated that they should send a message to the Hong Kong business community that they should not take for granted Hong Kong’s special status. James Cunningham stated that this was about “US and China” saying[1873]:
1589.Later on 13 November 2019 James Cunningham expressed his concern that the situation in Hong Kong was close to spinning out of control. He stressed the importance of retaining the movements “moral high ground” warning that further violence “would be a huge mistake”. This message links the[1874] “LegCo Elections with a path to getting inside the CE process.” He said that the Chinese government would cancel the elections if violence continues. On 25 November 2019 James Cunningham said that[1875]:
1590.D1 agreed with James Cunningham’s advice. He agreed with forming a leadership group, to moderate violence and prevent “out of hand” actions. Significantly, D1 highlighted that they had the balance of two fronts to resist the government. It is to be noted that D1 was not advocating no violence but suggesting controlled violence that is to keep violence within certain bounds but not a complete stop to violence.
1592.Upon James Cunningham’s advice, D1 advocated for managing the protesters’ violence to secure continued US support for the anti-ELAB movement. D1 wanted to control their violence so as not to lose the US support. 1593.On 12 November 2019[1877] D1 had expressed to Wayland that seeing a man who had been hurled oil and set on fire “dreaded him”. D1 arranged to meet Wayland at his residence to discuss the issue on violence. After the NSL 1594.After the enactment of the NSL on 9 July 2020, James Cunningham suggested to the group ways to limit the PRC. D1 responded by saying that there was a danger of them committing an offence under the NSL as it was collusion with foreign influence. Martin Lee told the group that they must not do anything that was caught by it and promptly left the group. D1, Mark Simon and James Cunningham remained in the group but there were no more communications after that. The exchange was as follows[1878]:
1595.As can be seen in the WhatsApp, Martin Lee’s mobile number left the group. 1596.D1 said in his testimony that he believed Martin Lee left the group because it was dangerous to remain in the group. D1 explained that he remained in the group despite seeing Martin Lee leave because he was not as cautious as Martin Lee and he was a good friend of James Cunningham and he could not be rude. He remained in the group because he treasured James Cunningham’s advice to pick his brain. We find that D1 wanted to continue to receive James Cunningham’s advice in order to contain the PRC. 1597.The following day after Martin Lee left the WhatsApp group on 10 July, D1 told Mark Simon in a WhatsApp[1879] exchange that he found some unusual things on his WhatsApp, so he had decided to delete all his communication with Jim (Cunningham) on WhatsApp. Mark Simon replied that he would remove all and D1 told Mark Simon that he would communicate exclusively with Mark Simon on Signal and have James Cunningham join in the Signal group with them and set the messages to disappear within 1 hour. D1 in his testimony said it was imperative for him to delete these messages with Jim Cunningham just to be cautious but they did not delete. He did this as the red line was blurred and he would just get rid of it[1880]. 1598.A “Jim/Jimmy/Mark Group” was created on Signal on 10 July 2020[1881] with Mark Simon setting the disappearing message time to 1 hour. There were no messages that could be seen on the Signal group after that. D1 said in his testimony that he did not recall whether further conversations took place in the group, but he said he did not discuss SBHA with James Cunningham after 9 July 2020. He said this was a subject he avoided[1882]. We note that, if there was nothing to hide or there were no discussions in relation to SBHA, there was no reason for messages to disappear. D1’s US Trip to meet US officials in July 2019 1599.D1 actively sought direct engagement with senior US officials and senators. During 2019 and 2020, D1’s efforts intensified significantly focusing on lobbying for SBHA against the PRC and HKSAR in the anti-ELAB movement. 1600.On 15 June 2019 the Chief Executive of HKSAR declared to suspend the Extradition Bill. Despite the declaration of the suspension of ELAB, D1 in July 2019 undertook a lobbying trip to the US soliciting US support for SBHA. D1’s belief that Mary Kissel sent her advice via Mark Simon to D1 before he met Mike Pompeo in July 2019 1601.Before D1 met Mike Pompeo, Mark Simon conveyed Mary Kissel’s message to D1 in a WhatsApp advising D1 what to speak to Pompeo about. D1 believed this was the advice Mary Kissel gave to him[1883]. 1602.Mary Kissel suggested that D1 keep the questions more specific and action orientated concerning Hong Kong as Pompeo’s desire was to learn how the US could help the movement “by actions”. Mary Kissel suggested the concept of sanctioning the children of CCP and Hong Kong leaders who cracked down on the protesters could be merged into the same actions as were proposed for the CCP officials cracking down on the Muslims. She also advised him to frame Hong Kong and Taiwan situation akin to Berlin during the Cold War. The WhatsApp stated[1884]:
1603.We find D1 believed he was receiving advice from Pompeo’s assistant, Mary Kissel for his lobbying strategy which he acted upon when he asked Pompeo to take actions to sanction the HKSAR officials who were involved in repressing the movement. Berlin Analogy of Mary Kissel repeatedly adopted by D1 1604.Upon receiving Mary Kissel’s advice and before meeting US officials, D1 contacted Mark Simon stating[1885]:
D1 requested Paul Wolfowitz be asked about this specific topic before his meeting with Pompeo. D1 did seek assistance and advice from Paul Wolfowitz and James Cunningham in preparation of and for his meeting with Mike Pompeo and the lobbying strategy as evidenced in their group WhatsApp[1886]. 1605.D1 adopted this exact analogy of the Berlin Wall just two days after meeting Mike Pompeo during his interview on 10 July 2019 at the FDD. He openly referred to Kennedy’s visit to Berlin and his speech as an example of the kind of support and encouragement he sought from the US for Hong Kong[1887]. Under cross examination, D1 confirmed that his reference to Berlin in the FDD interview was indeed following the advice given to him by Mary Kissel to Pompeo and Mike Pence[1888]. He emphasised that Hong Kong was fighting the same war against China as US and urged US to use its moral authority, which was “as powerful as a nuclear weapon that could finish China in a minute”. 1606.On 15 July 2019[1889], D1 repeated what he had said about Berlin in an interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox News and acknowledged using the analogy on several occasions, including later after the NSL in live chat on 3 September 2020 with Raymond Burghardt[1890] and on 24 September 2020 with Thomas Shattuck[1891]. In D1’s interview with Maria Bartiromo in July 2019, he also informed her that he had requested Pence, Pompeo and Bolton to support Hong Kong using US “moral authority” as Hong Kong people were “fighting your war in your enemy camp[1892].” D1 denied in his testimony that China was his enemy but said that he was referring to CCP as his enemy. Mark Simon arranged for D1 to meet the US senior officials 1607.[1893]On 20 June 2019 in a WhatsApp message Mark Simon updated D1 that Mary Kissel and Paul were helping to secure the schedule in DC for meeting the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 1608.On 28 June 2019 Mark Simon informed D1 in WhatsApp he had two meetings at the White House including meeting National Security Advisor John Bolton but was asked to keep these confidential. Mark Simon said[1894]:
1609.Whilst in the US, D1 met Pence, Pompeo, and Bolton. He also met US senators, including Rick Scott, Ted Cruz and Cory Gardner. 1610.In cross examination D1 said he knew the function of the NSC (National Security Council) was to give advice to the US president on national security, military and foreign policy, then he changed his evidence to say that he did not care and he said “to be honest not so aware”[1895]. D1 said he did not know in terms of foreign policy matters, NSC also served the function of recommending sanction measures to the US president. He also did not know that it was fundamentally linked to the sanction policy of the US. We find D1’s evidence implausible. 1611.We find that D1 was familiar with the US administration and knew that his good friend John Bolton was working as the National Security Advisor. His intention was to ask for sanctions which were precisely what the NSC function was linked to. D1 knew that John Bolton became the National Security Advisor on 23 March 2018 as Mark Simon had sent him a WhatsApp to inform him.[1896]
1612.After D1’s meeting with John Bolton on 11 July 2019, he gave an editorial direction to Nick Cheung, head of Instant News Online Apple Daily to publish news regarding his meeting with John Bolton. D1 agreed in cross-examination that he wanted the news about his meeting to be published as soon as possible and instantly[1897]. D1 told Nick Cheung after telling him to publish it[1898]:
1613.Nick Cheung then published a photo of D1 and John Bolton in the Apple Daily Instant News and sent D1 the image and the article[1899]. It read:
1614.We find that from D1’s direction to Nick Cheung to specifically publish his meeting with John Bolton, he was amplifying the importance of meeting with the National Security Advisor. D1 had specifically told Nick Cheung that he had asked Bolton to support Hongkongers “with actions”. D1’s denial that he had asked for sanctions when he went on the US trip in July 2019 1615.In D1’s testimony, he said in his US trip in July 2019 he asked for and lobbied for support by way of encouraging Hong Kong young people by action. D1 denied that he had asked for sanctions to be imposed[1900]. Later in cross examination he conceded that he did request Mike Pompeo to take action to sanction the HKSAR officials who were involved in repressing the movement. D1’s request for sanctions was reported in an [1901]Apple Daily article on 25 July 2019 titled “ ‘Adversarial Power Movement’ Jimmy Lai Calls for Peace and standing up to Show Contempt for the Triad. Urges International support on Anti-Extradition Movement in Hong Kong. D1 accepted that what was quoted in the article was correct. It said:
He openly requested for the US to sanction the current leaders in Hong Kong and the mainland. 1616.In the subsequent FDD interview on 10 July 2019[1902], D1 stressed the need for tangible US ‘actions’ beyond words. He stated:
1617.On 5 August 2019 D1 posed a few questions for Mark Simon and asked for his input and thoughts. The questions were “What in the long term does success for Hong Kong look like? Will the HK people continue to stand up in the face of confrontation and pressure? How will outside support matter, and what support?[1903] In reply to “How will outside support the matter and what support”, Mark Simon replied[1904]:
D1 said in his testimony that he could not remember why he asked Mark Simon these questions but D1 believed this advice was conveyed by Mark Simon from Bill McGurn. 1618.After meeting with Pompeo, in a WhatsApp to Mark Simon on 7 August 2019, D1 told him that he had written an op-ed as advised by Bill McGurn for publication after the Hoover talk. He asked Mark Simon to read it and edit it before sending it to Bill McGurn for rewriting. After sending a number of drafts to Mark Simon, the final version was sent by Mark Simon to D1 on 8 August 2019[1905]. D1 in aligning with and following the advice from Bill McGurn which he intended for publication in WSJ, D1 articulated his definition of US moral authority, by imposing sanctions. D1 argued that it was a strategic moment for the US to confront China. D1 wrote:
1619.We find that in August 2019 D1’s intentions were that America should display its “moral authority” by way of punishing the CCP and Hong Kong officials by linking human rights with trade, finance and other dealings with China and to impose SBHA. D1 advocated for more severe sanctions against the children of CCP officials in August 2019 1620.In D1’s testimony he denied he requested sanctioning the children of CCP officials after meeting Pompeo[1906] in July 2019. 1621.In the above article intended for publication following the advice from Bill McGurn, D1 urged the Americans to write to their senators and “use sanctions to stop China”, “deny student visas for children of leaders from Hong Kong and the CCP”. D1’s testimony was that he did not consider denying visas was a sanction[1907]. We reject D1’s evidence. Fact finding Trip for US Senators and Congressman to come to Hong Kong 1622.After D1’s July 2019 trip to the US, D1 proposed a “fact finding trip” for US senators to come to Hong Kong so as to gain support for the passage of HKHRDA in the US. D1 knew that the Act would empower the US Government to impose SBHA against the PRC and HKSAR government. 1623.D1 instructed Mark Simon to arrange the senators to come to Hong Kong. In a WhatsApp to Mark Simon on 21 July 2019[1908] D1 further instructed Mark Simon that the fact finding trip must be achieved using all available resources. D1 was eager for the US congressman / senators to visit Hong Kong viewing the trip as a critical opportunity to showcase US human rights concerns to locals. 1624.D1 said this trip “may be a subject to bounce off with Matt and Mary” and we will have Bill and Christian. D1 in cross examination said he was referring to Mary Kissel, Christian Whiton and Bill McGurn at that time when he was asked about the following WhatsApp he could not remember who was Matt[1909]:
1625.When the Yuen Long incident of 21 July 2019 occurred, D1 decided to ask the US senators and congressman to expedite their fact finding trip to Hong Kong. D1 highlighted that their visits would bolster the Hong Kong protestors’ morale by demonstrating immediate US attention. D1 told Mark Simon in a WhatsApp[1910]:
1626.Following D1’s instructions, Mark Simon informed D1 that he met Rubio and Pelosi’s staff and the NSC “folks” about the trip out to Hong Kong and would talk with Christian Whiton to arrange. Mark Simon said[1911]:
1627.D1 clarified in evidence that the China Commission was the Congressional Executive Commission on China. “Jim” was James Cunningham and “Christian” was Christian Whiton. 1628.On 23 July 2019, Mark reported to D1 that he and Christian Whiton were trying to divert any delegation heading to Asia including that of Senator Ted Cruz. Additionally, James Cunningham would make contact in the US senate. Mark Simon told D1 that some delegations were going to Taiwan. D1 replied[1912]:
D1 said in evidence that he meant Hong Kong and Taiwan were to act together to oppose China[1913]. 1629.Later in cross-examination, D1 said he knew Matt Pottinger. He was the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor[1914]. D1 and Mark Simon knew Matt Pottinger from a long time ago when Matt Pottinger was the editorial writer of the Wall Street Journal. D1 said Mark Simon knew Matt Pottinger well. D1 said he was very close to the Wall Street Journal people[1915]. 1630.D1 met Senators Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, and Josh Hawley, when they came to Hong Kong in September and October 2019. Before these meetings, D1 sought advice from his foreign network. He asked Mark Simon about the content of HKHRDA before meeting with Rick Scott. 1631.Prior to the senators fact finding trip to Hong Kong, D1 was disappointed to hear that Trump called the Hong Kong protests, riots attaching a Bloomberg article. On 2 August 2019 D1 in a WhatsApp exchange with Mark Simon stated the following[1916]:
1632.In cross-examination, D1 gave inconsistent and contradictory answers as to whether he was disappointed that Trump referred to the protests as riots. D1 first said he could not remember what the content was, then D1 said he did not agree with Trump calling the protests riots as they were demonstrations. He then changed his evidence to say it could be called a riot but was not a total riot. It was only a riot by a few young people. The demonstrations were mostly peaceful. He then said he agreed part of the demonstrations were a riot. It was suggested to him if he agreed that part of it was a riot why did he say it was very disappointing. D1 answered that he did not remember the content and he was reacting to the content[1917]. We find from his answer in the WhatsApp, D1 was clearly disappointed to hear Trump calling the demonstrations a riot. Moreover the WhatsApp exchanges between Mark Simon and D1 on 8 August 2019 show that D1 was anxious for Trump to retract calling the demonstrations riots. 1633.On 8 August 2019 Mark Simon informed D1 that[1918]:
1634.D1 said in cross-examination that Christian Whiton had connections to the White House because he used to work at the White House but at that time he was a lobbyist[1919]. Mark Simon informed D1 that Matt Pottinger was promoted 1635.On 21 September 2019 in the WhatsApp group ‘Martin, Jimmy and Mark’ (of which James Cunningham was a member), Mark Simon told D1 that their friend Matt Pottinger was promoted to National Security Advisor[1920]:
D1’s meeting with Rick Scott in September 2019 in Hong Kong 1636.In WhatsApp messages on 21 September 2019, Mark Simon told the WhatsApp group ‘Martin, Jimmy and Mark’ confidentially that he had made arrangements for Rick Scott and Ted Cruz to come to Hong Kong[1921]. 1637.Under D1’s instruction, Mark Simon arranged US Senator Rick Scott (and described him as “China hawk”) to visit Hong Kong and met with D1, Martin Lee, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, Anson Chan and Albert Ho on 28 September 2019[1922]. That meeting was followed by D1’s meeting with Rick Scott and Consul General Hanscom-Smith on 29 September 2019. Mark Simon told D1[1923]:
1638.Before the meeting D1 was conscious that Rick Scott would seek his opinion on what Hong Kong people desired from the US during their discussion. He therefore on 29 September 2019 asked Mark Simon what the HK Bill that had just been passed in Congress and Senate was called.[1924] Mark Simon told him it was the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (HKHRDA). 1639.D1 knew this Act empowered the US Government to impose SBHA against the PRC and HKSAR. [1925]Martin Lee told D1 in the WhatsApp group[1926]:
1640.On 29 September 2019 D1 tasked Mark Simon to arrange “frontliners” to meet Rick Scott after D1 had finished his meeting with Rick Scott. D1 also delivered copies of the Apple Daily publication Freedom Summer 2019 to Rick Scott via Mark Simon. 1641.Mark Simon coordinated the meeting with “frontliners” to meet Rick Scott through Wayland, who facilitated communication via a TG group named “Coffee on Sunday”. Andy and a female frontliner were among those who met with Rick Scott. Prior to Ted Cruz’s trip to Hong Kong in October 2019 1642.On 8 October 2019, Mark Simon sent D1 a WhatsApp message containing advice from someone who wrote to Mark Simon[1927]:-
D1 believed it originated from James Cunningham[1928]. D1 received recommendations on topics for his upcoming meeting with Ted Cruz. One suggestion included “cutting down on student visas from China”. D1’s meeting with Ted Cruz on 12 October 2019 in Hong Kong 1643.Under D1’s instruction, Mark Simon arranged for Senator Ted Cruz to visit HK. Ted Cruz met with D1, Anson Chan, Dennis Kwok and Charles Mok at the Hong Kong Club as can be seen in the photograph[1929] on 12 October 2019[1930]. 1644.Ted Cruz’s visit was reported in the Apple Daily[1931]. The report was titled “Visiting Hong Kong to Express Strong Support.” It reported that he had met with the above persons. Ted Cruz cautioned them to be mindful of escalating violence, as it could erode international support for the anti-ELAB movement but praised the Hong Kong protestors for their bravery in the fight against the CPC. It was reported that Ted Cruz said, “We must target the regime (and) show the international community the high civic quality of Hong Kong people.” Specifically in the interview Ted Cruz said he was confident that President Donald Trump would sign the HKHRDA into law after it was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. D1 meeting with Senator Josh Hawley on 14 October 2019 in Hong Kong 1645.D1 also met with another senator Josh Hawley on 14 October 2019 in Hong Kong. D1 said he could not remember what he discussed with Senator Hawley. 1646.On 10 October 2019 Mark Simon updated D1 regarding his US trip in October 2019. Originally planned for September 2019, the trip schedule was postponed to October 2019 to align with the timing of the “HK bill” and the availability of the administration officials. This Bill was the HKHRDA as can be seen in the WhatsApp of Mark Simon to D1[1932]:
1647.In a WhatsApp exchange with D1 on 11 September 2019 Mark Simon told D1[1933]:
1648.D1 confirmed that Mark Simon informed him that John Bolton had left as National Security Adviser. D1 said after this message he did not meet John Bolton any more as far as he could recall. D1 said he believed that Mark Simon had information about the US administration from Matt Pottinger[1934]. 1649.Mark Simon planned the itinerary and the persons D1 was going to meet in October 2019. On 17 September 2019, in the WhatsApp group “Martin Jimmy and Mark”, Mark Simon proposed visiting Washington from 21 October 2019 to 24 October 2019, aiming to meet with individuals previously encountered during the July trip. Mark Simon’s WhatsApp stated[1935]:
The plan included efforts to meet Nancy Pelosi and her team, additional senators, and prominent editorial boards, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post in Washington to work the Senate and House “quite heavily”[1936]. 1650.Again on 17 September 2019 Mark Simon updated the group that their young friends who went through New York and DC had not been effective and the Wall Street Journal and New York Times found them to be somewhat unserious. He was asked when the “Democracy stalwarts were coming”. D1 agreed in cross examination that the “democracy stalwarts” were persons like himself and Martin Lee and they were being asked to show up in DC[1937]. Mark Simon’s WhatsApp stated[1938]:
1651.On the following day i.e. 18 September 2019 Mark Simon told the group that it was a big day concerning Hong Kong on Capitol Hill[1939]:
1652.On 23 September 2019 Mark Simon told the WhatsApp group they were “going to work the Senate and House quite heavily”[1940]:
1653.Mark Simon on 23 September 2019 informed D1 in a WhatsApp that the White House NSC staff were seeing the Hong Kong College leaders who were in Washington[1941]:-
1654.It is of relevance to note that D1 said in evidence that Sunny Cheung was a Hong Kong University student leader who had written good articles. D1 had met him in Hong Kong when Sunny Cheung was a valiant in the front line of the protests. D1 also said he had dinner with Sunny Cheung and his friends who were all in the frontier and were all university students[1942]. 1655.Mark Simon explicitly informed D1 that the White House NSC would be happy to see D1, Martin Lee and whoever they brought during their planned US trip in October 2019 and they were planning to see the President of the US[1943]:
1656.Martin Lee suggested bringing Anson and Wayland. D1 asked who Wayland was. Martin Lee informed D1 that Mark knew him well but he had not asked him yet. Mark Simon told D1 that Wayland would not be comfortable and that he was the young man leading the international newspaper campaigns[1944]. 1657.Under Mark Simon’s arrangement, D1 and Martin Lee went to the US in late October 2019 and met with the then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and US congressmen and senators including Steve Daines, Todd Young, David Perdue, Ben Sasse, and Rick Scott. 1658.The meeting was reported in Apple Daily news on 23 October 2019[1945]. In the article it was said that D1 went with Samuel Chu, director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC) and Sunny Cheung, spokesman for the International Affairs Delegation of the University of Hong Kong to meet the senators. D1 said in cross-examination that he had never met with Sunny Cheung in the US, he said the Apple Daily report may have been wrong[1946]. D1 said in cross-examination however he met with Samuel Chu in Washington to meet senators together[1947]. D1 said he knew Samuel Chu was Pastor Chu Yiu-ming’s son who was one of the three leaders of ‘Occupy Central’ and was stationed in Washington[1948]. In cross-examination, D1 initially said he knew Samuel Chu was of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, then altered his evidence to say he did not know it was the Hong Kong Democracy Council but the founder of an organization supporting Hong Kong doing lobbying in the US. He did not ask Samuel Chu the name of the organization as the name was not important to him[1949]. This is yet another example of D1’s alteration of his evidence. 1659.We find implausible that D1 travelled with Samuel Chu and did not know nor was he concerned about the name of the US organization in support of Hong Kong. 1660.Long before D1 went on his US trip, he knew he was going to the US to lobby for support from senior US officials. Mark Simon said he may even see President Trump. D1 was repeatedly asked in cross- examination what was the support he was seeking for when he went to the US. D1 gave numerous answers such as “support like sounding for Hong Kong; saying something in support of Hong Kong or even have themselves come to Hong Kong to say something because at that time Hong Kong was in a crisis because of the Extradition Bill.” He said he could not remember what support he asked for. Eventually he said he was seeking support for Hong Kong’s freedom[1950]. 1661.Despite much searching questioning D1 was evasive as to what support he was requesting for. It is to be noted on 4 September 2019 the ELAB was officially promised to be withdrawn and on 23 October 2019 the HKSAR government announced its formal withdrawal. 1662.We find D1 to be deliberately evasive and his evidence implausible regarding the support he was seeking. This was an important US trip lobbying for support from senior US officials. D1 was well aware of the advice by Mary Kissel on his previous trip to the US in July 2019 on being specific as to the help US could give by ‘actions’. 1663.We find that the ‘support’ D1 sought for was actions by way of SBHA. D1 confirmed this was so when later in his evidence he was shown his Sink or Swim, Smile article published on 27 October 2019[1951] with the title “Words that American’s want to say to us.” In the article D1 confirmed he went to the US to have greater support and D1 wrote in a part of his column[1952]:
He also mentioned that he believed that US sanctions against China could effectively exert pressure on China and stated even unnamed individuals in rights violations would be “blacklisted.” 1664.D1 admitted in cross-examination that he did speak to McConnell about the HKHRDA[1953]. We find that D1 did request for SBHA to be imposed in his US lobbying trip in October 2019. From July 2019 until after the promulgation of the NSL D1 sought actions and not words when requesting for foreign support 1665.From July 2019, D1 advocated that “actions” were better than words. From May 2020, D1 was stringently opposed to the enactment of the NSL. He advocated for international support and action against the PRC and HKSAR. He expressed support by actions such as sanctions in his tweet on 27 May 2020. 1666.In D1’s Tweet on 27 May 2020, there was a link to an article in Bloomberg and tagged to President Trump which was divided into two parts D1 tweeted[1954]:
D1 had received the link to the Bloomberg article in an email from Jack Keane[1955]. D1 testified that this may have been the source for his tweet about Donald Trump[1956]. D1 replied in the email “all the top officials will be scared that they may try to delay the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law”. D1 said that he honestly believed in that.[1957] 1667.In D1’s article “Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security?” published in The New York Times on 29 May 2020[1958], D1 continued to advocate to sanction the children of the CCP officials and Hong Kong officials:
Not only did D1 advocate for sanctioning of the children of both CCP and Hong Kong officials, it went further than his original proposal when he met Mike Pompeo suggesting revoking the children’s visas who were already in the US. By May 2020, D1’s suggestions as retaliation against the PRC and HKSAR were getting more and more aggressive. It is to be noted here in this article D1 did not suggest or agree to the idea of revoking Hong Kong’s special status as it would make Hong Kong more dependent on China. He wrote:
1668.About a week after D1’s article in The New York Times, D1 had an interview with the Hoover Institute on 9 June 2020. During the interview D1 was asked to elaborate on his New York Times article. D1 was asked to explain “there are other ways to retaliate against China” D1 said[1959]:
1669.After the NSL, D1 was once again requesting for actions beyond words. On 23 July 2020 in a WhatsApp message Simon Lee informed D1 that US demanded China close its embassy in Houston. D1 replied[1960]:
1670.In a tweet on 15 July 2020, D1 attached a statement and picture of Mike Pompeo on the outcome of the primary elections. It said[1961]:
1671.On 23 July 2020 D1 tweeted[1962]:
1672.In a tweet on 2 November 2020 before the presidential elections in the US, D1 attached an Apple Daily article which read Chinese supporters back Trump for different reasons. D1 tweeted[1963]:
After the US presidential elections, D1 said he hoped the new administration would follow Trump’s policy. On 26 November 2020, in his live chat featuring Jack Keane [1964] D1 said[1965]:
D1 testified that he supported President Trump and that walk the walk meant taking action[1966]. 1673.On 19 November 2020, there was an episode of live chat featuring Glenn Harlan Reynolds[1967]. D1 said[1968]:
1674.We find that D1’s intentions were clear, he was asking for ‘actions’ in the form of SBHA against the CCP. His intention was also for the international world to support Hong Kong and to voice out to the politicians and organisations of their countries for them to take ‘action’ in the form of SBHA. D1’s evidence that when he received a message from Mary Kissel conveyed by Mark Simon he did not respond or reply through Mark Simon 1675.D1’s evidence was that from January 2020 to sometime in July 2020, he had no direct communication with Mary Kissel. All communication to him was conveyed by Mark Simon. D1 said when he received a message from Mary Kissel he did not respond either by action or by reply through Mark Simon. When he received the message he just acknowledged it by a thank you and made no response at all[1969]. D1’s evidence was completely discredited by his message in reply below. 1676.On 15 July 2020, Mark Simon relayed the question from Mary Kissel to D1 regarding US Hong Kong relations. Mary Kissel “was a bit confused”; she sought clarification on D1’s stance and wished to know whether D1 did not want the US to break all ties with Hong Kong. It read[1970]:
1677.D1 responded making it clear that he no longer opposed revoking Hong Kong’s special status. He said the US was right to revoke Hong Kong’s special status. Instead D1 directly requested the US administration after NSL, via Mark Simon, to sanction China. Mark Simon replied he would relay D1’s message to Mary Kissel. In cross-examination, D1 admitted that he knew his message would be conveyed back to Mary Kissel[1971]. In D1’s reply to Mary Kissel he said[1972]:
1678.We find that D1’s message intended for Mary Kissel and conveyed by Mark Simon was an agreement for Hong Kong’s special status not to remain and to be taken away. He believed by doing so Hong Kong could not be used once China decoupled from the US. D1 was agreeing with this hostile activity. He was in effect making a request for SBHA on China from the US administration. From the message D1 knew that the US administration continued to pay attention to what D1 was saying and even went so far as to brazenly seek to clarify his views on the US policies on Hong Kong. D1’s intended visit to the US in July 2020 after the promulgation of the NSL 1679.The plan for D1’s US visit commenced in February 2020 when Mark Simon informed D1 that Vice President Pence and senior staff were anxious to see D1 when he spoke to them. Mark Simon informed D1 in a WhatsApp message on 25 February 2020[1973]:
D1 agreed that it was an article he wrote in the WSJ and published on 19 February 2020 titled “China’s Façade of Stability[1974].” D1 believed from Mark Simon that Vice President Pence and senior staff paid attention to what he wrote[1975]. 1680.On 5 May 2020, D1 told Mark Simon that he would not be able to go to the US because he was subject to a bail condition prohibiting him from leaving Hong Kong. Mark Simon informed D1 that the folks in DC such as Ted Cruz and Pence’s staff asked about D1’s trip to the US[1976]. D1 agreed that the prohibition was imposed by a magistrate for other offences in separate proceedings for a charge of criminal intimidation D1 was facing at the time, which he got acquitted of. 1681.On 22 May 2020, D1 informed Mark Simon that he would apply to the Court to lift the travel restriction stating that he would rely on his granddaughter’s birth certificate to make his “application legitimate”[1977]:
1682.On 27 May 2020, D1 informed Mark Simon that his daughter had given birth, that it was a “good protection” and estimated that he could be in the US around 20 June. D1 expressed his desire to meet the “big boss.” In D1’s testimony he denied that the “big boss” was Trump but said he was referring to Pence[1978].
1683.On 30 May 2020, D1 instructed Mark Simon to expedite the arrangements for the US trip. When asked about specific dates, D1 replied[1979]:
1684.Mark Simon in reply to D1 informed him that there were no members of Congress in town at that time but only the senior staff, the NSC people and the State Department. He informed D1 that once they got approximate dates they would go to see Vice President Mike Pence if he was taking meetings[1980]. D1 admitted in his testimony the purpose of the meetings was lobbying support for Hong Kong[1981]. 1685.Notwithstanding D1’s travel restriction D1 booked his flight to the US. By 8 June 2020 D1’s trip to the US had been booked and arranged by Mark Simon[1982]. He was due to meet members of the US administration including Vice President Mike Pence between 4 July 2020 and 11 July 2020. It is significant to note the meetings were to have taken place after the promulgation of the NSL. 1686.On 12 June 2020, D1 informed Mark Simon that his application to the Court to lift the travel restriction had been refused. In response, Mark Simon told D1 that he would write a report after meeting Mary Kissel, as well as individuals from NSC and Capitol Hill[1983]:
1687.On 13 June 2020, Mark Simon apprised D1 of the phone calls he had fielded from the people in the US administration and journalist friends who were disappointed he would not be going to the US. 1688.We find that D1 was fully aware of the imminent promulgation of the NSL, however despite his knowledge of it, D1 nevertheless planned another US visit in July 2020, showing his unwavering and continuing intent for international lobbying. D1’s deliberate concealment of planned meeting with US officials in July 2020 in his bail application to the Court to uplift his travel restriction 1689.At D1’s bail application before the Court on 12 June 2020, D1 submitted four specific purposes for uplifting his travel restrictions. One of the purposes was to visit his daughter in New York because she just gave birth to a newborn baby. The other was to go to Buffalo City in New York State to meet members of the staff from Canada to discuss business plans. The third one was to go to Washington DC to meet a service provider of his newspaper Apple Daily. The last one was to discuss a possible acquisition of a hotel in Little Washington, VA. Notably there was no mention of his planned meetings with US officials or US administration including Vice President Pence. D1 said in evidence that his main reason of going to the US was to see his granddaughter[1984]. 1690.We find the main reason for this trip, which he had planned for some time was to meet with the US officials. This US trip intended for July 2020 was planned by D1 and Mark Simon since February 2020. At no time was there any mention of D1’s granddaughter until late May 2020 ‘as a protection’. D1 still booked the trip after he knew that the NSL was going to be promulgated. In D1’s reply to Mark Simon it was clear that D1’s eagerness of seeing his granddaughter was secondary to meeting the US officials. In re-examination, D1 changed his evidence and said that he deliberately did not disclose the planned meetings because he thought it was too politically sensitive and disclosing it to the Court would reduce his chance of having his travel restrictions lifted. 1691.During cross-examination on his variation of bail application to the Court, D1 was evasive and contradictory[1985]. When cross-examined as to why he still arranged the trip to the US to meet US officials knowing that NSL was about to be enacted, D1 explained that he was “carefree” about it and did not think that meeting US officials was a big deal. He then changed his version and said he was negligent about meeting with US officials and that he overlooked the fact that the NSL was coming[1986]. 1692.On all the evidence presented, we do not accept D1’s evidence when he said he overlooked the fact that the NSL was coming. The decision of the NPCSC was made on 28 May 2020 that the NSL was to be enacted. D1 was well aware of that. Knowing the NSL was to be implemented, D1’s intention was to travel to the US to engage with US officials lobbying for foreign interference to influence foreign policy against the imposition of the NSL. The planned meeting sharply contradicts D1’s evidence that he was very cautious when he knew about the coming of the NSL. 1693.We are satisfied that D1’s intent on seeing and seeking support from the US officials continued despite his knowledge that the NSL would be promulgated. His concealment from the Court was to deliberately deceive and mislead the Court so that he could advance his lobbying to the US administration. D1’s denial of knowledge or belief that Mark Simon was closely connected to the US administration and the National Security Council (NSC) 1694.D1 said in cross-examination that he did not believe that Mark Simon was closely connected to the US administration or the National Security Council (NSC). D1 said he knew that Mark Simon had connections to Matt Pottinger and Mary Kissel as Mark Simon had known them for a long time. 1695.D1 went on to say that he did not believe Mark Simon knew John Bolton and D1 forgot he ever mentioned John Bolton to Mark Simon[1987]. We reject D1’s evidence that he “forgot” if he mentioned John Bolton to Mark Simon. As can be seen in the WhatsApp messages (above) concerning the “Taiwan Consultancy” in 2017, D1 had asked Mark Simon to contact John Bolton and arrange D1’s meeting with him in privacy. Mark Simon told D1 that John Bolton responded to Mark Simon’s message. D1 was being deliberately evasive and trying to distance Mark Simon from any connections with John Bolton and the NSC. 1696.The evidence before the Court reveals that D1 believed Mark Simon had access to the NSC and US administration. The evidence consists of the following:-
1697.D1 said in cross-examination that no member of the public could walk into the NSC. He said that he did not believe the meetings were so “strict.” He said Mark Simon could have been at the meeting with a NSC staff such as Matt Pottinger. D1 said he thought Mark Simon had been invited or asked to go in for the meeting. D1 agreed that Mark Simon was not part of the US government, nor part of the NSC. D1 said he never thought it was a big deal that Mark Simon was invited to attend a meeting in the NSC. As D1 knew Mark Simon was closely connected to Matt Pottinger he did not ask[1991]. It is clear D1 believed that Mark Simon had attended a meeting with the NSC, if this does not show Mark Simon had a connection to the NSC what does? 1698.Mark Simon’s apparent insider knowledge was demonstrated in a WhatsApp he sent to D1 on 25 February 2020 in which he informed D1 about what the “NSC staff told me”[1992]:
1699.Most significantly it appears that Mark Simon was actively participating in discussions about Hong Kong officials as targets for sanctions for the NSC consideration. On 24 April 2020 in an email thread discussion with D1, Christian Whiton, Jack Keane, Rupert Hamond-Chambers, Mark Simon under the subject “Re Magnitsky Act”, Mark Simon related information he had with the senate staff and his awareness of the NSC’s sanction planning in reply to a question from Paul Wolfowitz[1993]:
1700.In an email thread with D1, Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, Rupert Hammond – Chambers and D1 on 27 May 2020 with the subject of the email: “US weighs Sanctions on Chinese Officials, Firms over Hong Kong”, an article by Jenny Leonard, Jennifer Jacobs, Saleha Mohsin and Nick Wadhams was attached, which referred to sanctions. It stated amongst others[1994]:
1701.In reply D1 said that the HKHRDA was of little effect and the most effective was to freeze bank accounts[1995]:
1702.D1 explained in cross-examination that he said it was of little effect as once the Acts were passed nobody followed them up and therefore he asked for sanctions[1996]. 1703.Mark Simon reported and replied to the group upon communicating with NSC staff the previous day noting they were considering various responses. The email shows Mark Simon’s apparent active engagement with the NSC keeping D1 informed of the sanction development[1997]:
1704.In the same email thread the same day Jack Keane suggested that the WhatsApp communication may be compromised and suggested to use Signal based on the recommendation of another general. Jack Keane said[1998]:
1705.As stated in the email from Paul Wolfowitz attaching the email from Wilson Leung WS, D1 replied agreeing that “talk is cheap.” He adopted his stance analogous to his actions meaning sanctions as against words by saying the following[1999]:
D1 agreed that subsequently they agreed with Jack Keane and switched to use Signal for communication. 1706.Mark Simon apparently provided a list of Hong Kong officials to be sanctioned to the NSC, as is shown on 23 June 2020 in a WhatsApp exchange with D1[2000]:
1707.D1 agreed in cross-examination that Mark Simon’s contact and communication with the NSC staff or senate staff was done on his behalf and for his benefit as Mark Simon was his assistant[2001]. 1708.After D1’s bail variation to the High Court was refused in June 2020, on 12 June Mark Simon reported to D1, that he had just seen the guys at the NSC[2002]:
1709.The following WhatsApp conversation followed between D1 and Mark Simon[2003]:
It is an admitted fact that Mark Simon left Hong Kong on 18 April 2020, that is about two months before the enactment of the NSL and has not returned. 1710.On 13 June 2020 Mark Simon also reported to D1 that he had fielded calls expressing disappointment from[2004] “everyone from the NSC staff:
Request by Senior US official to Apple Daily to publish 1711.On 4 May 2020, Mark Simon informed D1 that Matt Pottinger specifically asked for Apple Daily to share his big speech directly attacking China. He told D1 it was embargoed before the speech started. D1 agreed to broadcast the speech. The following exchange took place between Mark Simon and D1[2005].
1712.The aforesaid evidence contained in the communication between D1 and Mark Simon shows D1 believed that Mark Simon had a clear connection to the NSC and US administration. D1 was aware of Mark Simon’s apparent significant connection with the NSC as part of their agreement to engage in requesting for SBHA. There clearly was a division of duties between Mark Simon and D1. Mark Simon was to lobby in the US while D1 would continue his efforts in Hong Kong. 1713.On 4 June 2020 Mark Simon relayed a WhatsApp message to D1 which D1 believed were messages from Mary Kissel. Mary Kissel was asking Apple Daily to give publicity in relation to a meeting Mike Pompeo had with Tiananmen survivors. It was a request for Apple Daily to give coverage to the meeting and for Mike Pompeo to know of Apple Daily’s coverage. Mark Simon told D1 this was from ‘our friend’ in Pompeo’s team and hoped Apple can give it some publicity that could be shown to Pompeo. D1 informed Mark Simon that it was put prominently in the newspaper and they will do more on-line. The messages conveyed to D1 via Mark Simon from Mary Kissel stated[2006]:
1714.Mark Simon relayed to D1 that Mary Kissel was thrilled about the coverage in Apple Daily on 4 June 2020. The message stated[2007]:
1715.On 28 May 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) announced the decision that the NSL would be enacted in Hong Kong. D1 said in evidence that he knew of the decision on the same date. 1716.On 29 May 2020, Mark Simon created a WhatsApp group called “DC Dems”[2008]. Within the group, its members were D1, Mark Simon, James Cunningham and Paul Wolfowitz. The messages in the group were up to 6 June 2020. D1 explained the name of the group was because it was related to the Democrats[2009]. In the first message Mark Simon stated that he had forwarded a message from Feith. D1 admitted that he knew that David Feith was working for the State Department and previously was working for the Wall Street Journal[2010]. Mark Simon’s message updated the group with the following information which D1 believed was from David Feith. The WhatsApp messages stated[2011]:
1717.D1 said in cross examination he believed that the messages from Mark Simon were the response from the US administration to the NPCSC decision to enact the NSL[2012]. James Cunningham had referred to the decision. D1 agreed that the ‘Bible’ campaign should be the ‘Biden’ campaign. The message stated how China had violated Hong Kong’s autonomy and forced its hand. At that time Mark Simon was thinking of approaching the democratic leaning think tanks who were the key movers as they were influential in the democratic foreign policy campaign for D1 to reach out to. James Cunningham suggested lobbying in private and not public. 1718.Mark Simon also reported to the group on 29 May 2020 that Capitol Hill let him into a video conference call to discuss sanctions, visa issues and access arrangements[2013]. Mark Simon wrote that the sanction list was to “make it hurt”:
D1 agreed in evidence that he had read Mark Simon’s message about making it hurt. 1719.James Cunningham was also keeping D1 updated in the group and replied[2014]:
1720.On 30 May 2020 Mark Simon told the group he had just got off the phone with the Hill group and updated the group about sanctions on senior officials who dealt with HK[2015].
1721.Mark Simon continued to update the group and on 4 June 2020 told the group he was going to DC[2016]:
1722.D1 said in cross examination he did not know what Mark Simon meant when he said he would “keep trying”. He said he did not know if it was to keep trying for lobbying the Democratic Party to support Hong Kong. After D1 was shown his message in reply to Mark Simon he agreed it was for lobbying for support for Hong Kong[2017]”. We find D1 was being evasive as his message stated[2018]:
It is plain that D1 believed from these messages this was the US administration’s reaction to the decision to pass the NSL and D1 agreed to punishing China with SBHA. After the NSL 1723.On 2 July 2020 in a WhatsApp, Mark Simon relayed to D1 there was a request from the “top” of the US administration seeking Cardinal Zen’s availability to visit Washington as they needed “someone with gravitas” since D1 could not travel. D1 told Mark Simon in the exchange that the Cardinal would not travel to the US as it was too dangerous for him to come back as he was the backbone of opposition for the Church if he got arrested. Mark Simon told D1 that he would see Feith. The exchanges were as follows[2019]:
1724.Based on the above we find that Mark Simon was in agreement with D1 to continue to try and lobby the US officials to punish China. 1725.On 28 July 2020, Mark Simon in a Signal message to D1 relayed a message from Peter Berkowitz of the State Department of the US[2020]. In the interview Berkowitz said Mary Kissel wrote the Mike Pompeo speech at the Nixon Center saying[2021]:
1726.The message went on to say :
1727.D1 told Mark Simon to thank them for their support saying:
1728.D1 confirmed in his testimony that the New York Times piece that referred to was an article he had written in the New York Times published on 1 July 2019 titled “What the Hong Kong Protests Are Really About”. And in it he mentioned “war values”[2022]. 1729.In view of all of the above we are satisfied that D1 believed that Mark Simon was acting on his behalf when Mark Simon had contact and communications with NSC personnel. The evidence shows that Mark Simon acted as D1’s conduit, relaying communications and information from his US connections to D1[2023]. D1 admitted Mark Simon worked on his behalf, arranging meetings, talking to people on his behalf including foreign officials. D1 gave him carte blanche to say whatever he wished and he would accept the result of it. He accepted Mark Simon was speaking on his behalf when suggesting the Hong Kong officials to be put on the sanction list. 1730.On the totality of the evidence before this Court, we find that Mark Simon was centrally involved in facilitating D1’s collaboration with external forces commencing as far back as 2017 in the Taiwan Consultancy to after the enactment of NSL. 1731.It is pertinent to note that on the totality of the evidence before us, we find D1’s evidence farcical when he said he and Mark Simon seldom talked about politics[2024]. D1’s ongoing pursuit of his appeals for SBHA after the NSL 1732.On the totality evidence, we are satisfied that after the NSL, D1 persisted in seeking international support by way of appeals for SBHA by and through his communications and collaboration with his foreign connections. 1733.As can be plainly seen D1’s call for international support in the form of actions rather than words showed his continued support and advocacy for sanctions by applauding their effectiveness. D1 continued to call for imposition of sanctions against the PRC or HKSAR officials, embargoes on technology, cancellation of HK’s special status to close China’s windows to the outside world and linking non-trade issues when negotiating trade deals with China as can be seen in his live chat programme. 1734.D1 made repeated public statements to show his determination to hold on and keep fighting after the NSL. In his interview with Maria Bartiromo on 1 July 2020 when asked about the risks under the NSL, D1 told the public he was not worried and otherwise he could not do or say anything and he would “just meet up to it”[2025]. D1 was informed by Mark Simon that Mary Kissel and her boss Mike Pompeo as well as Bill Barr watched his interview[2026]. D1 clearly believed that the US administration was paying attention to him and was interested in what he was saying. 1735.In D1’s live chat with Perry Link on 18 August 2020 (while D1 was on bail but after his arrest on 10 August 2020) in response to a question from Mark Clifford about what D1’s experience in custody was like, D1 stated that even if he knew what was going to happen at the time he would still have done the same thing because this was his character his destiny. In the same interview D1 said if people saw he was standing up it would appease people’s worry. He said he would stand up and “keep going and keep fighting”[2027]. 1736.In D1’s interview with Napa Institute on 6 October 2020, D1 said he would do the same thing because that was the way he was and that was his character[2028]. 1737.We find that D1 was resolute to continue to keep fighting and persist despite the introduction of the NSL and eagerly sought international support for SBHA against the PRC and the HKSAR. Chapter 29 – Factual findings and verdicts 1738.We have already given reasons as to why we find that the accomplice witnesses (namely Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee, Andy, Wayland and Royston) are credible and reliable witnesses and why we find that D1 is neither credible nor reliable. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, we accept what the accomplice witnesses said in evidence as true. On the other hand, we reject the exculpatory parts of D1’s evidence. 1739.We are fully alive to the general rule that a witness may not express opinions while giving his or her testimony[2029]. We note, however, that during the course of their evidence, the prosecution witnesses had inevitably expressed their personal opinions on certain matters. For the avoidance of doubt, when we say that we accept their evidence as true, we are referring to their evidence on facts, not their opinions. 1740.Based on the evidence which we accept, we have come to the following findings of fact, all of which we are sure about. D1 as the helmsman of Apple Daily 1741.We accept the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee and Royston, who spoke in one voice, that D1 was a very hands-on boss who was deeply involved in the operation of Apple Daily. We find that D1 would from time to time give editorial directions and he expected those directions to be followed. Cheung Kim-hung was the main person who was tasked to see that D1’s instructions were followed. To borrow the description of Cheung Kim-hung, D1 was the “helmsman” of Apple Daily. 1742.We accept that the senior management of Apple Daily shared the same or similar political perspectives as D1’s. One notable example is Chan Pui-man who, based on her WhatsApp exchanges with D1 and D1’s admission, was not only a trusted employee but considered a friend. Nevertheless, in our assessment the fact that the senior management of Apple Daily consisted of like-minded people did not in any way weaken the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee and Royston that D1 was setting the editorial policies of the newspaper and giving editorial instructions. The “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign, which was the brainchild of D1, serves as an obvious example. We have also referred to the other examples which we are not going to repeat here. 1743.Based on the evidence before us, we find that D1’s political views bore heavily on the editorial policy of Apple Daily and the selection criteria of writers and articles of the Editorial and Apple Forum that they could be regarded as, to borrow the words of Yeung Ching-kee, the “guiding principles”. 1744.In reaching our findings, we have not lost sight of the fact that the “Slack” records produced by the defence do not show that D1 was giving editorial directions. We bear in mind that the defence application to recall Cheung Kim-hung for further cross-examination on the Slack records was refused. However, having considered all the relevant evidence as a whole, we accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that those “Slack” records were just summaries of the key points and were not complete records of what had been discussed at the lunchbox meetings. We place no weight on the Slack records as they have been shown to be incomplete. In our assessment, the “Slack” records do not cast any doubt on the prosecution witnesses regarding lunchbox meetings. 1745.We accept the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man that the fact that Apple Daily had a charter did not mean its senior editorial staff could say “no” to D1 who was the boss of the newspaper. We accept their evidence that the Charter was prepared so as to meet the corporate auditing requirement of Apple Daily’s parent company which was publicly listed and that the so-called “editorial independence” provided for in the Charter in practice meant only that there should be a separation between news reporting and advertisement. We also accept Yeung Ching-kee’s vivid analogy of “independence in a birdcage” as an accurate and realistic description of the situation in Apple Daily. Apple Daily as D1’s platform 1746.Based on the evidence before us, we find that, both before and after the promulgation of the NSL, D1 had been using Apple Daily as a platform for spreading his political ideas and implementing his political agenda. Examples include (but not limited to):
That is not to mention D1’s articles published in his column “Sink or Swim, Smile” in both the Print Form and the Digital Form of Apple Daily and his live chat shows which were advertised and posted on various online platforms of Apple Daily. 1747.Furthermore, given our findings as to D1 being a dominating and controlling media boss, D1 was using Apple Daily as a platform to spread and implement his political agenda; and his obvious interests in engaging suitable writers for Apple Daily. We draw the following further inferences, each of which we consider to be the only reasonable one, that ever since the onset of the anti-ELAB movement in early 2019:
Impugned articles 1748.The prosecution in their written opening referred to a total of 161 articles which they say were samples of the products of the conspiracy charged in Count 1[2030]. Those articles came from: (1) D1’s column “Sink or Swim, Smile”; (2) the Editorial; (3) Apple Forum; and (4) live broadcasts of D1. At our request, the prosecution prepared a schedule listing out summaries of the impugned articles and the limbs of seditious intention[2031] upon which they relied. The legal team for D1 also prepared a schedule in response. We note that in respect of each and every one of the samples, D1’s legal team simply relied on all four limbs of section 9(2) of the Crimes Ordinance to say why the articles were not seditious. 1749.It is not viable for us to recount all of the 161 samples provided by the prosecution. It suffices for us to say that we have carefully and fully considered every one of them. Having considered the samples in their proper literary and social context, we observe that they manifested a general and constant pattern of showing serious hostility and bias against the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”), the Central People’s Government and the HKSAR Government. Moreover, we also have the following general observations:
1750.By way of illustration, it suffices for us to refer to the following written works which have already been referred to in our previous chapters on “D1’s articles” and “The Editorial and Apple Forum”:
1751.We bear in mind the judgment of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi[2049] as to the meaning of the words like “hatred”, “contempt” and “disaffection” used in section 9(1) of the Crimes Ordinance. In our judgment, the above 17 written articles were all objectively seditious and written with a view to bring into hatred and contempt and to excite disaffection against the Government of the HKSAR. Was there an agreement to publish, etc, “seditious” articles 1752.Given the sheer amount of impugned articles under consideration and the duration of time they spanned, we find that during the charge period of Count 1 D1, and the senior management of Apple Daily were aware that there were articles published in Apple Daily which would bring into hatred and contempt and excite disaffection against the Central People’s Government and the Government of the HKSAR. In fact, significantly some of those articles were written by D1 himself: see generally the chapter on “D1’s articles”. 1753.Indeed, it is our finding that D1 was fully aware of the aforesaid impugned articles that were published by Apple Daily in the Editorial and Apple Forum. Given his position as the hands-on boss of Apple Daily and the degree of his involvement in its operation, we are satisfied that he agreed with those articles which were consistent with his own political stance. As we have found, D1 had been using his newspaper to spread and implement his political agenda. We find also that D1 allowed the impugned articles in question to be published in his newspaper because he wanted to keep the resistance movement alive against the HKSAR Government. This can be illustrated by his own article: “Keep going together with peaceful and valiant spirit in 2020” (「2020 和勇繼續一起撐下去」)[2050] published in his column “Sink or Swim, Smile” on 5 January 2020 which was after the withdrawal of the ELAB. In that article, he asked that amnesty be granted to the valiant protestors:
1754.Given our finding on the extent of D1’s influence on the editorial policy and stance of Apple Daily and our finding that D1 was using Apple Daily as a platform for his political agenda, we consider that the impugned articles have to be read in the perspective of D1’s political stance. We find further that D1 was using Apple Daily to implement his general anti-PRC agenda. In this regard, as we have said, D1 affiliated himself with Western values and he viewed the rise of China under the rule of the CCP as a threat to the world order based on the US dominance. He considered that the Western world should be united to confront China. 1755.In short, D1’s end game was to change the regime of the CCP. D1 had an obsession to change CCP’s values to those of the Western worlds and counter balance China’s influence in the Asian region and the rest of the world. He hoped for a regime in China so that the CCP would no longer be the ruling party or at least the stepping down or removal of President Xi. His main aim was to gather support from the US and the Western World to destabilise the CCP. He tried to influence foreign policy on Hong Kong or the PRC through his relations with foreign figures. D1 desired to assimilate China into the “western world’s values system” to what he said would avoid future conflicts and secure peace because he believed that China was a dictatorship. He wanted the countries in the world to gang up and confront China against the “CCP Culture”[2051]. 1756.The impugned articles in our assessment in general were supportive of D1’s said agenda. We find that D1 was consciously using Apple Daily and his personal influence to carry out a consistent campaign with a view to undermining the legitimacy or authority of the Central People’s Government, the HKSAR Government and their institutions and harming the relation between the Central People’s Government and the Hong Kong Government with the people in Hong Kong. That went far beyond what would be permissible under section 9(2) of the Crimes Ordinance. We find that D1 had made known his political views to the senior management of Apple Daily in lunchbox meetings. 1757.We find that the aforesaid campaign of D1 would not be possible without the full and knowing co-operation of the senior management of Apple Daily including at least Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee and Royston. In this regard, we accept Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence that the views expressed in the Editorial represented the stance of the Apple Daily which was based on D1’s editorial directions and political stance. Notably, Yeung Ching-kee was also the author of some of the editorials which we find to be seditious. 1758.We have not forgotten the evidence of the accomplice witnesses of Apple Daily who said that the impugned reports and articles were published with a view to changing government policies which they considered to be wrong. For example:
Nevertheless, it is our finding that the senior management was also fully aware of D1’s anti-China stance and his aforesaid campaign to undermine the legitimacy or authority of the Central People’s Government, the HKSAR Government and their institutions and to harm the relation between the Central People’s Government and the Hong Kong Government with the people in Hong Kong. However, they willingly went along with what D1 was doing and became parties to his aforesaid campaign. In so doing, they too stepped beyond the boundaries of section 9(2) of the Crimes Ordinance. 1759.To conclude, we are satisfied so that we are sure that during the charge period of Count 1, there was in existence the conspiracy as charged, of which D1 was the mastermind and the other parties including Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Law Wai-kwong, Lam Man-chung, Fung Wai-kong, Yeung Ching-kee and Royston, all of whom knowingly and willingly implemented D1’s seditious campaign against the Government of the HKSAR and its officials. 1760.As regards the roles of the Corporate Defendants (D2-D4) in the conspiracy which we will come to shortly, we can say at this juncture that there can be no doubt that D2 as Apple Daily’s publisher, D3 as the company responsible for the printing of the Print Form of Apple Daily and D4 as the holder of the domain name of Apple Daily, all of them would have had a part to play in the publication of the impugned articles in the Print Form or in the Digital Form. We will deal with their criminal liability in due course when we address the issue of corporate lability. D1’s campaign for sanctions before the NSL 1761.There can be no doubt that prior to the promulgation of the NSL, D1 had been carrying out a campaign, through the platform of Apple Daily[2052], his personal Twitter account[2053], his articles published in foreign media[2054] and his interviews with foreign media[2055], openly calling for SBHA against the PRC and several senior officials of the HKSAR Government. In fact, that much was admitted by D1 in his evidence. 1762.Based on the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee and Royston, we have no doubt that the senior management of Apple Daily knowingly and willingly took part in that campaign by causing the publication of editorials and forum articles (both in the Print Form and the Digital Form) which openly called for sanctions against the Government of the HKSAR or the PRC, plain examples of which included the editorials of Yeung Ching-kee and the writings of Lee Yee. In short, we are satisfied and we find that prior to the promulgation of the NSL, there was in existence an agreement to request foreign countries (the US in particular) to impose SBHA against the Government of the HKSAR or the PRC and D1 was the mastermind of that agreement. The real question for this Court to decide is whether the aforesaid agreement continued to exist and whether D1 continued to be a party to that agreement after the promulgation of the NSL. D1’s intention and conduct after the NSL D1 aware of the provisions of the NSL 1763.We have already covered the evidence of Chan Pui-man that in May 2020, there had already been news about the NSL. We have also covered the evidence of D1’s anti-NSL stance and his WhatsApp message on 1 July 2020 saying that he was “shocked by the details of the NSL which he described as “outrageously stringent”. He told Cheung Kim-hung that they needed to figure out a good strategy to deal with it and that they should not be “reckless”[2056]. Similarly, D1 told Simon Lee, who was responsible for managing D1’s tweets, that “advocating sanctions may be too dangerous” as it would be treated by the authorities as “subversion or collusion”[2057]. Based on the evidence before us, we have no doubts that D1 must at least have been aware of the offence of “collusion” created by the NSL. D1’s character 1764.We note that from 1 July 2020 onwards, D1 personally ceased to make any direct or explicit requests for sanctions. There were also attempts by the senior management (under the leadership of Cheung Kim-hung) to reduce the risk of the editorial staff of Apple Daily breaching the NSL. 1765.On the other hand, based on D1’s own account of his personal history and his open statements made on various occasions before and after the promulgation of the NSL, he projected himself as someone having strong views on things which he would not easily give up[2058]. In Episode 6 of live chat (18 August 2020), which was shortly after his release on police bail for his first arrest, he said that this was his character and his destiny[2059]:
1766.The image he portrayed was that, despite his relatively senior age, he remained resolved, audacious and defiant. He was a fighter for his course and he would persist till the end. This image conforms squarely with our observation of him during his 52 days in the witness box. After the NSL 1767.As regards Count 2, there is ample evidence before us that after the NSL, D1 continued to express an anti-China stance and carried out the campaign for requesting SBHA but he did so by adopting a more indirect and subtle strategy and by toning down his rhetoric. We refer to our findings made in the previous chapters on the assessments of D1’s evidence[2060]. There is also ample evidence before us that the senior management of Apple Daily knowingly and willingly did the same. The relevant evidence includes but is not limited to the following. 1768.Firstly, we note that on 1 July 2020, the front page of Apple Daily carried the headline:「惡法生效 兩制蓋棺」 (“Evil Law Enacted, One Country Two Systems Died”) [2061]. There was a 2-page report spreading over pages A12 and A13 of the Newspaper with a top bar with the words 「歷史紀錄」 (“Historical Record”)[2062]. The report contained caricatures of government officials, photographs of former Chief Executives, members of the Executive Council and Legislative Council, heads of disciplinary forces and so forth. According to Chan Pui-man (whose evidence we accept), the purpose of putting all these pictures, portraits and names there was to keep a record of the members of various institutions and their roles and the impact they exerted before and after the promulgation of the NSL. Chan Pui-man said that the aforesaid headline was based on the views of D1. 1769.Secondly, the feature articles of “Hong Kong on the international chessboard” (「國際棋盤上的香港」)[2063] which was the “Weekly Hot Topics” on 4 July 2020 which we have already mentioned[2064]. Within this section there were three articles published in Apple Forum which, taken as a whole, bore the same theme which was supportive of sanctions. Given the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man on the “Planning Meeting” and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we are sure that the other senior editorial staff members of Apple Daily including Chan Pui-man, Lam Man-chung, Law Wai-kwong and the heads of various departments were aware in advance of the “Hot Topic” of that week. 1770.Thirdly, there was the publication by Apple Daily after the promulgation of the NSL of two of D1’s articles, namely “Time is a weapon” (「時間就是武器」)[2065] and “The great era is coming soon” （「大時代快將來臨」）[2066], both of which we have already mentioned earlier[2067]. Having carefully examined these two articles written by D1, we accept Yeung Ching-kee’s evidence that they truthfully and genuinely reflected D1’s views and stance. In these two articles, D1 considered that sanctions imposed by the United States and the Western countries on China and Hong Kong would not abate. We have no doubt that the views expressed in the two articles were treated by the editorial staff of Apple Daily (including Yeung Ching-kee) as the guiding principle in their work. This was reflected by the contents of the following which we have already referred to[2068], both of which were published on 14 July 2020:
1771.Fourthly, there was the series of D1’s live chat programmes. The fact that the programme commenced on 9 July 2020, which was just a bit over a week after the promulgation of the NSL, is telling. According to Cheung Kim-hung, whose evidence we accept, the programme was a means by which D1 sought to influence public opinion and hoped that foreign countries would offer assistance to the resistance movement in Hong Kong. We have no doubt that even in the face of the NSL, D1 was still determined to pursue the resistance. The only adaptation was the strategy. This was shown by what he said in Episode 1 (9 July 2020)[2071]:
1772.We observe that D1’s anti-China stance permeated each and every episode of the programme. In the previous chapter on live chat we have already referred to the relevant extracts from the episodes. For the present purpose, it suffices for us to quote again the following from Episode 6 (on 18 August 2020) which capsulated his keys ideas:
1773.We find that the above was in fact an implicit request for other foreign countries to join hands with the US in taking action against the PRC. This request of D1 should be put in the context of the HKAA and the EO which were respectively passed and issued on 14 July 2020 which resulted in, among other things, the revocation of the special status of Hong Kong by the US, of which D1 was fully aware of at the time: see his WhatsApp message to Chan Pui-man on 15 July 2020[2075]. 1774.In our judgment, D1 in his various episodes of live chat, described China as the enemy to the western world, made an implicit request for the US and its allies to act together to impose or to continue to impose technology embargo against China. The more obvious examples of this include Episode 11 (24 September 2020)[2076] and Episode 12 (1 October 2020)[2077] and Episode 21 (20 November 2020)[2078], the relevant extracts of which we have already quoted in the chapter on live chat. 1775.Although live chat was D1’s programme, it was promoted and posted on various platforms of Apple Daily which also provided technical support for its shooting. We have already referred to Cheung Kim-hung’s evidence (which we accept) and the content of the WhatsApp exchanges in the group “English News” on the heavy involvement of Nick Cheung (Platform Director of Animation News) in this regard. We are sure and we find that the live chat could not have been made available as it had been to local and overseas without the agreement and co-operation of the senior management of Apple Daily as well as the Corporate Defendants. We have not ignored the evidence that the senior management had taken measures to avoid violating the NSL. However, that did not mean that they did not have the intention to do what they did. Having considered all the evidence as a whole, we come to the only reasonable inference that members of the senior management of Apple Daily named in Count 2 were, at the material times, all well aware of D1’s intention and campaign to seek foreign support which, they knew, would include SBHA. Yet, they still went along with D1 and assisted him intentionally. 1776.Fifthly, as against D1, there was his reply (through Mark Simon) to “Mary” whom, he believed was Mary Kissel, the assistant of Mike Pompeo, on 15 July 2020 at 8:47 pm (HKT) about the revocation of Hong Kong’s special status[2079],
D1 subsequently expressed the same view in Episode 2 of his live chat broadcast on 17 July 2020[2080]. 1777.Sixthly, we have referred to D1’s change of strategy concerning his personal tweets after the promulgation of the NSL. We find that D1 was plainly aware of the legal risks involved in openly soliciting foreign countries to impose sanctions on the PRC or Hong Kong. He sought to reduce his legal risks by attempting to operate in the “grey area” and adopting an implicitly disguised and subtle approach. 1778.However, in our judgement D1’s change of strategy was only in its form, but not its substance. That is illustrated by various tweets suggested by D1 to Simon Lee which we have already referred to[2081]. For the present purpose, it suffices for us to refer to D1’s tweets posted on 8 August 2020, the backdrop of which was the sanction imposed on 7 August 2020 by the US Department of the Treasury against 11 officials of the PRC and the HKSAR pursuant to the EO. Commenting on that piece of news published in Apple Daily, D1 posed the following rhetorical questions to Simon Lee which the latter adopted with just a few stylistic changes:
We find that D1 was in fact making an implicit but clear request for sanctions against the election officers. 1779.Seventhly, there were D1’s interviews with Fox News after the promulgation NSL. After the interview on 1 July 2020, D1 texted Maria Bartiromo and said:
During the interview with Maria Bartiromo on 1 December 2020, D1 said[2085],
1780.It is clear that from the above that even after the promulgation of the NSL, D1 persisted in seeking imposition of blockades and interference from foreign countries with a view to facilitating his cause. Conclusion 1781.Based on all of the above, we are sure and we find that D1’s pre-NSL campaign for requesting foreign countries (and the US in particular) to impose sanctions on the PRC and the HKSAR had not ceased after the NSL. D1 was aware of the legal risk for what he was doing after the NSL but he continued with what he did. The only adaptation he made after the NSL was in form rather than in substance. Before the NSL, the request for SBHA was open and direct. After the NSL, even though the request became implicit and subtle, D1’s intention to carry out his campaign remained the same as before and he continued to act in furtherance of that campaign. 1782.To conclude, we find that the pre-NSL agreement to request SBHA continued to exist after the NSL with D1 remaining as the mastermind. The other knowing and willing parties to that agreement included at least the members of the senior management of Apple Daily named in Count 2 as well as Royston and Nick. Liability of the Corporate Defendants on Counts 1 and 2 1783.We now turn to the criminal liability of the Corporate Defendants. We have not ignored D4’s clear record and we give ourselves the appropriate directions for its “good character”. Roles of the Corporate Defendants 1784.We find that the conspiracies which are the subject matters of Count 1 and Count 2 had the co-operation of the Corporate Defendants. In so doing, we agree with the following submissions of the prosecution[2086]:
“Directing mind and will” of the Corporate Defendants 1785.As regards the issue about who formed the “directing mind and will” of the Corporate Defendants respectively, based on the evidence before us, we have no doubt that D1 by virtue of his majority shareholding in the holding company NDL, was in de facto control of the Corporate Defendants even though he was not a director in any of them during the charge periods. We also accept the prosecution submission that D1’s substantial shareholder loan to NDL gave him a significant leverage and control over the Corporate Defendants. 1786.Secondly, we also accept the prosecution submission that:
were all responsible for implementing the editorial policy set by D1 and overseeing the day-to-day management and operations of the Group. 1787.We have already found that D1, Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Royston, Law Wai-kwong and Nick Cheung were parties to the conspiracies in Count 1 and Count 2. We find also that all of them acted together as a living embodiment and the “directing mind and will” of the companies of which they were directors, so that their intention relating to Count 1 and Count 2 also became the intention of the companies concerned by the doctrine of attribution. 1788.In this regard, we reject the submissions made on behalf of the Corporate Defendants, based on Serious Fraud Office v Barclays Plc[2088], that Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Royston, Law Wai-kwong and Nick Cheung were merely acting on D1’s instruction and not having “full discretion to act independently” without being subject to instructions from the board or others and therefore they were not qualified as the directing mind and will of the Corporate Defendants. Our reasons are as follows:
1789.In any event, the present case is not about the situation similar to R v McDonnell[2090] where the only other co-conspirator was the person who was the company’s directing mind and will. It is our finding that there were parties to the conspiracies in Count 1 and Count 2 apart from D1 and the directors of the Corporate Defendants. Conclusion 1790.We conclude therefore that the Corporate Defendants were also knowing and willing parties to the conspiracies in Count 1 and Count 2. 1791.The evidence and our findings of D1’s intention to request SBHA on Count 2 are also relevant to Count 3. We refer to our findings made in the previous chapter on the assessment of D1’s evidence[2091]. 1792.Given the evidence before the Court, we have no doubt that before the promulgation of the NSL, there was in existence an agreement between Mark Simon, Andy, Wayland, Finn Lau and others (including Luke de Pulford) to engage in “international lobbying” with a view to soliciting international support for the resistance movement in Hong Kong. We also have no doubt that the aforesaid parties knew and intended that their campaign would include the request of SBHA by foreign countries against the PRC and the Government of the HKSAR. Furthermore, we are sure that the said campaign had continued in spite of the promulgation of the NSL. 1793.Given our finding that, both before and after the promulgation of the NSL, it had all along been D1’s intention to request foreign countries (the US in particular) to impose sanctions on the PRC and the Government of the HKSAR, the major issue of Count 3 is whether D1 was also a party to the aforesaid “international lobbying” campaign. The evidence against D1 on this point relies mainly on the testimony of Wayland and D1’s WhatsApp and Signal text messages. Wayland’s evidence 1794.We have already found Wayland to be an honest and reliable witness. Subject to his inaccuracies concerning the dates on which certain events took place which we have already discussed, we accept his evidence about his communications and dealings with D1 and Mark Simon respectively. In particular, we accept his evidence as to what D1 had said during their six meetings and in their telephone conversations. For the present purpose, we would like to highlight the following findings:
1795.As we have said, we are surprised by the Prosecution’s stance not to make use of the co-conspirators’ rule. In our assessment, there is ample evidential basis to justify applying that rule. Nevertheless, even without resorting to the co-conspirators’ rule, taking all of the evidence as a whole, we find that after the sixth meeting in Taipei, there was an agreement between D1, Andy, Wayland, Finn Lau and Mark Simon for Andy, Wayland and Finn Lau to engage in “international lobbying” which all the parties to the agreement knew would involve requesting foreign countries to impose SBHA on the PRC and HKSAR. 1796.Furthermore, we find, that the said agreement continued to exist after the promulgation of the NSL and each of the aforesaid parties to the agreement still had the intention to carry out their part of the agreement. 1797.In this regard, we have already referred to the post-NSL activities of IPAC and SWHK pushing for sanctions and also the involvement of Andy, Wayland and Finn Lau in those organisations. We also refer to the evidence of Wayland of what D1 said in their sixth meeting on 16 June 2020 at the Next Digital Building. On that occasion, the two of them talked about the NSL. Wayland was worried and he expressed the view that all people should cease to push for sanctions. However, D1 said that the NSL was “more bark than bite”. D1 said he would set a good example, appeal for sanction in different media and ask for attention. He said that Wayland should do the same. Wayland was also asked to continue to ask other people, including members of the SWHK, to continue with their publicity literature and international lobbying and also to support the primary. D1 and Wayland then talked about the “Rise from the Ashes Hong Kong” campaign run by the Mutual Destruction Team. D1 said it was great to apply resources to international lobbying. Then he asked about IPAC, and whether IPAC would also use the fund raised in the crowdfunding campaign. He asked Wayland why he did not participate in it. D1 was of the view that IPAC was very important in that such kind of international support was definitely needed. The above evidence of Wayland should be viewed in the light of the fact that the news about Finn Lau’s joining IPAC was reported in Apple Daily the day before and our finding that D1 had knowledge of the news. We agree with the Prosecution that the evidence of the sixth meeting shows D1’s unwavering commitment to go on with the agreement to request for SBHA in spite of the NSL. 1798.It is very clear to us from the above analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that their evidence is supported by the WhatsApp messages, many of which emanated from D1 himself. It is also clear to us from the evidence that D1 had from an early stage, long before the NSL, been applying his mind as to what leverage the US could use against the PRC and one of the leverages was to hire the former US senior officials (Jack Keane and Paul Wolfowitz) to advise Tsai Ing-wen through Antonio Chiang, the trusted assistant of Tsai. 1799.There is no doubt that D1 had harbored his resentment and hatred of the PRC for many of his adult years and this is apparent from his articles in Sink or Swim, Smile, his live chat and interviews on Fox News. His constant invitation to the US to help bring down the Government of the PRC with the excuse of helping the people of HK would be analogous to the situation where an American national asks for help from Russia to bring down the US Government under the guise of helping the State of California. 1800.D1’s evidence was at times contradictory, inconsistent, evasive and unreliable, as demonstrated in our reasons for verdict. 1801.We are satisfied that the evidence plainly shows that D1 clearly conspired with the senior management in Apple Daily and the Corporate Defendants as charged in Count 1 and Count 2. We are also satisfied that there is indisputable evidence that D1 conspired with the named conspirators in Count 3 including Andy, Wayland and others to request foreign countries to impose sanctions or blockade or to engage in other hostile activities against the PRC, the HKSAR or both. 1802.In analysing the evidence of each of the co-conspirators, we were conscious of the fact that they may have a motive to lie in order to hopefully get a lighter sentence so we were alert to looking at whether there was documentary evidence in support of their testimony, particularly in the more sensitive areas of their evidence. It is clear from our analysis above that there was ample supporting evidence. Their evidence was tested by extensive cross-examination by defence counsel and their testimony remained solid and irrefutable. 1803.It was also evident from the WhatsApp messages received by D1 that Mark Simon was working hard for him behind the scenes to arrange for D1 to meet government officials in Washington. The following served as examples:
1804.When the HKHRDA was signed by President Trump in November 2019, D1 said in his WhatsApp message with Nick Cheung, “Very good! Everyone can breathe a sigh of relief… ...”[2102]. And later in the WhatsApp chat group with Martin Lee and Mark Simon, D1 said, “Trump knows how powerful HK is as a leverage for his trade deal and beyond… The new Cold War has just unfolded officially. HK has gathered more wherewithal for its resistance…”[2103]. 1805.In May 2020, as we have already noted, both Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man testified that the “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign was initiated by D1 because of the imminent promulgation of the NSL. According to Cheung Kim-hung D1 had told him that he wanted the President and the Vice-President of the US to impose sanctions on China for this. 1806.In June 2020, in D1’s application to lift his travel restriction, he concealed from the Court that one of the purposes of his proposed trip to the US was to meet with US officials there. Before the application was heard, D1 had drafted an article for The New York Times arranged by Mark Simon where D1 wrote “Xi’s clampdown on HK’s rule of law and freedom with the new National Security Law is just the beginning of his aggression on Taiwan and its neighbours in South China Sea … ... Now is not the time of rhetoric but take actions to sanction and exact punishment to China… …This may even be the best time for America to create a ‘perfect storm’ to wrought the demise of the CCP … ...”[2104]. 1807.Of interest to demonstrate the reach and influence which D1 believed Mark Simon had within the US Government was Mark Simon’s arrangements of D1 meeting with senior officials and congressmen of the US during his trips to the US in July and October 2019. There was also Mark Simon’s arrangement of the visits of Rick Scott and Ted Cruz to Hong Kong and D1’s meeting with Rick Scott. Also of interest as to demonstrate the reach and influence of D1 within the US Government was the fact that D1 received the draft speech of Pompeo in the Nixon Library which was an embargoed document. 1808.It is pertinent to note that after D1’s Taipei meeting with Finn Lau and Wayland, on the following day Wayland and Finn Lau had a video conference with Andy to relate to Andy the key points of their meeting with D1. This was confirmed by Andy in his evidence. It is clear to us that D1 was aware of the setting up of IPAC and its purpose and that he had been receiving updates of its activities from Luke de Pulford. The news about Finn Lau joining IPAC was widely reported in Apple Daily and we are sure that D1 knew about it. Wayland also said that D1’s arrest in August 2020 was a heavy blow to the international front of SWHK as it would be difficult to obtain any further information of the US Government. 1809.It is also material to note that when Wayland forwarded to D1 a link to the statement: “PRC National People’s Congress Proposal on Hong Kong National Security Legislation – United States Department of State” on 28 May 2020, D1’s reply was, “Just saw it. More draconian sanctions are coming from Trump hopefully this weekend….”[2105] in an almost gleeful manner. 1810.There is no doubt in our minds that D1 had never wavered in his intention to destabilize the governance of the CCP and despite the enactment of the NSL he was intent on continuing though in a less explicit way, as evident in his live chats, Fox News interviews and his tweets; it is also the evidence of Cheung Kim-hung that after D1’s second arrest, when he visited D1 in prison, D1 told him to “continue to run” Apple Daily as usual. The only reasonable inference we can draw from the preponderance of the evidence is that D1’s only intent whether pre or post NSL was to seek the downfall of the CCP even though the ultimate cost was the sacrifice of the interests of the people of the PRC and the HKSAR. This was the ultimate aim of the conspiracies and secessionist publications. We are satisfied that D1’s actions show his deliberate intent to pursue the conspiracies under Counts 1, 2 and 3 which constituted a threat and harm to the national security in the PRC and the HKSAR. 1811.We are satisfied that D1 was the mastermind of the conspiracies charged in Counts 1 to 3. We are also satisfied that in the course of carrying out the conspiracies charged in Counts 1 and 2, he made use of the various platforms of Apple Daily with the full agreement and knowing assistance of the Corporate Defendants which made them parties to those conspiracies. 1812.On the totality of the evidence, our verdicts are as follows:
Mr Anthony Chau, DDPP, Mr Ivan Cheung, ADPP, Ms Karen Ng, SPP, Ms Crystal Chan, SPP, Ms. Jennifer Tsui, SPP and Mr. Herbert Cheng, SPP (Ag.) of the Department of Justice, for the Prosecution/HKSAR Mr Robert Pang, SC leading Mr Steven Kwan, Mr Albert N.B. Wong, Mr Ernie Tung, Mr Marc Corlett and Mr Colman Li, instructed by Robertsons, for the 1st Defendant Mr Jon Wong, Ms Natalie Yeung and Ms Joanna Wong, instructed by Sit Fung Kwong & Shum, for the 2nd to 4th Defendants [1] L.N. 136 of 2020. [2] [2023] 3 HKLRD 534. [5] (2019) 22 HKCFAR 289. [6] Ibid, at [34]. [7] (1876) 2 QB 48, at 58-59. [8] [1973] AC 807. [9] (1986) AC 27, at 37E. [10] (2019) 22 HKCFAR 446. [11] (2013) 248 CLR 601. [13] (1992) 94 Cr App R 158. [14] (1990) 90 Cr App R 340, 349. [15] (1837) 8 C & P 297, at 311. [16] [1989] 1 HKLR 1, at 7I. [17] (1930) 21 Cr App R 94. [18] [1992] 1 All ER 189. [19] [1966] 1 QB 589. [20] (1803) 4 East 164, 171. [21] [1967] 1 All ER 497, 500B. [22] (1988) 165 CLR 87. [23] (2007) 10 HKCFAR 98. [24] (2015) 18 HKCFAR 62, §§13-15, 51. [25] See the table at §18, Chapter C of the Prosecution Closing Submissions. [26] (2021) 24 HKCFAR 33. [27] The Explanation on “the Draft Decision of the National People’s Congress on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Safeguard National Security”, presented by Mr Weng Chen, Vice Chairman of the NPCSC, addressing the Third Section of the Thirteenth NPC on 22 May 2020. [28] The Decision of the National People’s Congress on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Safeguard National Security on 28 May 2020. [29] (2023) 26 HKCFAR 332, at §§20-26, 45. [30] (2021) 24 HKCFAR 33. [31] (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211. [32] Presented by Mr Weng Chen, Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), addressing the Third Section of the Thirteenth NPC on 22 May 2020. [33] [2024] 2 HKLRD 565, at [129]. [34] [1969] 1 WLR 1266 at 1273. [35] [1980] 1 WLR 142, 157B. [36] At [16.7]. [37] Ibid. [38] (1993) 23 AAR 287, at [26]. [39] (2022) 25 HKCFAR 191. [40] (2025) 28 HKCFAR 122. [41] [2024] 2 HKLRD 565. [42] Ibid, §§157 to 160. [43] R v Gateway Foodmarkets Ltd[1997] 3 All ER 78. [44] R v JG Hammond & Co Ltd[1914] 2 KB 866. [45] R v ICR Haulage Ltd & Ors [1944] KB 551. [46] [1972] AC 153. [47] With Ma CJ, Ribeiro PJ and Bokhary NPJ agreeing, Tang PJ dissenting. [48] (2014) 17 HKCFAR 218. [49] Ibid, §63. [50] Ibid, §64. [51] [1994] 2 All ER 685. [52] [1995] 2 AC 500. [53] At 507E-F. [54] [2012] 1 Cr App R 14. [55] At §1-18. [56] At §3-17. [57] At p.79. [58] (1816) 4 M&S 532. [59] See, e.g., Leung Kwok Hung v SJ(No. 2) [2020] 2 HKLRD 771, at §§1 and 2. [60] [1981] 1 WLR 1039. [61] [2022] 5 HKLRD 886. [62] [1990] 1 HKC 1, at p12H. [63] P3000, [2(1)]. [64] Ibid, [2(2)]. [65] Ibid, [33]. [66] Ibid, [6]. [67] Ibid, [5]. [68] Ibid, [7]. [69] Ibid, [8]. [70] Ibid, [16]. [71] Ibid, [22]. [72] Ibid, [28]. [73] The first police search occurred on 11.8.2020. [74] P3045. [75] Under section 7 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268. [76] P3000, [1]. [77] Ibid, A.3. [78] The charge period for Count 1. [79] P3000, [35]. [80] Ibid, [40]. [81] Ibid, [39]. [82] Ibid, [44]. [83] Ibid, [41A]. [84] [TB6(2)/5329 to 5348 (5349 to 5382)]. [85] [TB6(2)/5343 (5360 to 5367)]. [86] See the WhatsApp between Cheung Kim-hung and D1 on 24 March 2020: [TB7A(1)/157 (716)/6267 to 6270]. [87] [TB7A(4)/14234/44]; [TB7A(4)/14288]. [88] See the WhatsApp between D1 and Antonio Chiang on 5.1.2017: [TB7A(4)/14239/72]; [TB7A(4)/14289]. [89] [TB7A(1)/2527/1566]. [90] [TB7A(4)/14405/10]. [91] [TB7A(4)/14405/13]. [92] [TB7A(1)/2717/4065]. [93] [TB7A(1)/2161/103 to 104]. [94] [TB7A(1)/2721 to 2722/4110 to 4111]. [95] [TB7A(1)/2722/4116 to 4117]. [96] [TB7A(1)/2722/4121 to 4123]. [97] [TB7A(4)/14267 (14349)/196]; [TB7A(4)/14395 to 14396]. [98] [TB7A(1)/2734/4286]. [99] [TB7A(1)/2734/4291]. [100] [TB7A(1)/2734/4292]. [101] [TB7A(1)/2735/4302 to 4307]. [102] [TB7A(1)/2765/4779 to 4780]. [103] [TB7A(1)/2766/4788]. [104] [TB7A(1)/2771/4834]. [105] [TB7A(1)/2772 to 2773/ 4855 to 4857]. [106] [TB7A(1)/2724/4143]. [107] [TB7A(1)/2724/4147]. [108] [TB7A(1)/2734/4283 to 4284]. [109] [TB7A(1)/2818/5332 to 5333]. [110] [TB7A(1)/2539/1735]; [TB7A(1)/3182]. [111] [TB7A(4)/14406/29 & 35]. [112] [TB7A(4)/14405/14]; [TB7A(4)/14412]. [113] [TB7A(4)/14405/15]. [114] P3018. [115] P3017. [116] Ibid, Counter 16. [117] Ibid, Counter 19. [118] Ibid, Counter 21. [119] [TB1/107 (118)]. [120] [TB1/126 (140)]. [121] [TB1/198 (200)]. [122] [TB4(1)/932 (996)]. [123] [TB4(1)/947 (1011)]. [124] D30. [125] [TB3(1)/26 (26-2)]. [126] [TB7A(1)/78/5505]. [127] Described in the report as a former State Department official who represented Next Digital: [TB7A(1)/297]. [128] [TB7A(1)/295]. [129] [TB3(1)/61-1 (61-2)]. [130] [TB7A(1)/1133/1176]; [TB7A(1)/1330]; [131] [TB3(1)/152 (152-1 to 152-2)]; [TB7A(2)/5364 to 5366 (7693 to 7695)]. [132] [TB7A(2)/5358 (8888)]. [133] [TB1/568 (572 to 574, 580)]. [134] [TB7A(1)/1069 (1085)/370]; [TB7A(1)/1080 (1085-54)]. [135] Ibid, 1083 (1085-60). [136] Ibid, 1084 (1085-61). [137] D-1004 (D-1004A). [138] See the Slack record of the meeting on 19.6.2019: [D-1004/221]; [D-1004A/644]. [139] On 25.5.2020. [140] Started on 24.5.2020. [141] The first Chinese version published on 20.9.2019; English version published on 9.10.2019. [142] [TB7C/545]. [143] [TB7C/601]. [144] D-1004 (D-1004A). [145] [2020] 1 HKLRD 1082. [146] [2023] 2 HKLRD 799. [147] [D-1004/151 to 296]; [D-1004A/417 to 891], created on 12.11.2018. [148] [D-1004/514 to 547]; [D-1004A/1534 to 1628], created on 8.2.2019. [149] [D-1004/218]; [D-1004A/630 to 631]. [150] [D-1004/246]; [D-1004A/719 to 720]. [151] [D-1004/252 to 253]; [D-1004A/745 to 746]. [152] [D-1004/270]; [D-1004A/805 to 806]. [153] [D-1004/281]; [D-1004A/843 to 844]. [154] [D-1004/295 to 296]; [D-1004A/887 to 888]. [155] [D-1004/296]; [D-1004A/890]. [156] [D-1004/530 to 531]; [D-1004A/1589 to 1590]. [157] [D-1004/546 to 547]; [D-1004A/1626 to 1628]. [158] [TB4(2)/1900 (1901)]. [159] See [D-1004/275]; [D-1004A/823 to 824].
[160] According to Yeung Ching-kee, subsequently Cheung Kim-hung introduced to him Takahashi, a Japanese writer, who could write on Sino-Japanese relationship and issues relating to Japan: [TB4(1)/941 (1005)]. [161] [D-1004/281]; [D-1004A/843]. [162] [D-1004/618 to 637]; [D-1004A/1870 to 1933], created on 2.12.2019. [163] [D-1004/626]; [D-1004A/1909]. [164] [TB4(1)/534 (551)]. [165] [TB4(1)/563 (574)]. [166] [TB4(1)/600 (620)]. [167] [TB4(1)/639 (651)]. [168] [TB5/166]. [169] D38. [170] [D26/971]. [171] [TB4(1)/551] [172] See e.g., [D-28 (D-28A), Counter 398 to 401]; [TB7A(1)/ 1093 (1458-29)/812]. [173] See certified translation in D-26A, Counter 1595. [174] [TB1/238 (244)]. [175] D-26 (D-26A), Counter 1688. [176] [TB4(1)/938 (1002)]. [177] [TB1/1290 (1292)]. [178] [TB1/1676 (1678)]. [179] [TB4(1)/933 (997)]; [TB4(2)/1556 (1597)]. [180] [TB4(1)/937 (1001)]. [181] [TB7A(1)/163 (727)/6318]. [182] Print Form: [TB1/79 (81)]. [183] Print Form: [TB1/655 (657)]; Digital Form: [TB1/664 (657)]. [184] Print Form: [TB1/736 (738)]; Digital Form: [TB1/744 (738)]. [185] Print Form: [TB1/824 (826)]; Digital Form: [TB1/832 (826)]. [186] Print Form: [TB1/1245 (1247 to 52)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1253 (1255)]; English News: [TB1/1260]. [187] Print Form: [TB1/2518 (2520)]; Digital Form: [TB1/2526]. [188] See, e.g. the head bar of P3014 and P3015. [189] See, e.g., Lam Wo-lap: [TB4(2)/1560 (1601)] @16:23. [190] D-41 (D-41A), Counter 165. [191] In February 2019 and onwards, D1’s column was in the Supplement (Section E) of Apple Daily. [192] [TB1/556 (558)], that article was one of the 161 samples which the prosecution relies upon for the charge of conspiracy to commit sedition (Charge 1). [193] [TB4(1)/780 (839)]. [194] [TB4(2)/1480 (1516)]. [195] [TB4(2)/1538 (1539)]. [196] This appears to be the name of Samuel Chu of the Hong Kong Democratic Council in the US. [197] [TB4(2)/1480 (1516)]. [198] [TB1/620 (622)]. [199] [TB4(1)/942 (1006)]. [200] [TB4(2)/1765 (1857)]. [201] [TB4(2)/1773 (1865)]. [202] [TB4(2)/1259 to 1264 (1421-58 to 1421-71)]. [203] [TB4(1)/1067 (1158)]. [204] [TB4(1)/779 (838)]. [205] [TB4(1)/779 (838)]. [206] The Executive Officer of Taiwan International Strategic Study Society. [207] D42. [208] [TB4(2)/1497 (1533)]. [209] [TB1/11 (13)]. [210] [TB1/1335 (1337)]. [211] Print Form: [TB1/949 (951)]; Digital Form: [TB1/958]; English News: [TB1/967]. [212] The original of “Hong Kong Popo” in Chinese is「黑警」(meaning “black cops” literally). [213] Print Form: [TB1/1470 (1472)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1478]; English News: [TB1/1486]. [214] Print Form: [TB1/667 (669)]; Digital Form: [TB1/673]. [215] That was also the date of the resolution of the National People's Congress for the NPCSC to enact the NSL. [216] Print Form: [TB1/771 (773)]; Digital Form: [TB1/779]. [217] [TB4(1)/809 (868)]. [218] [TB1/1062 (1067)]. [219] [TB1/1272 (1274)]; P3015. [220] [TB1/1056 (1058)]. [221] [TB4(1)/814 (877)]. [222] [TB4(2)/1897 (1898)]. [223] [TB4(2)/1561 (1602)]. [224] [TB1/2471 (2473)]. [225] [TB1/2479]. [226] [TB1/2608 (2610)]. [227] [TB1/2738 (2742)]. [228] [TB4(1)/487 to 489 (495 to 497)]. [229] [TB4(1)/487 to 494 (495 to 506)]. [230] P3016. [231] [TB4(1)/507 to 515 (516 to 522)]. [232] [TB4(1)/822 (889)]. [233] In cross-examination, it was clarified that the recording was not a conversation between D1 and Cai Xia. [234] [TB4(1)/895 (897)]. [235] [TB4(1)/824 (891)]. [236] [TB7A(1)/1175]. [237] [TB7A(1)/1088 (1458-6)/767-772]. [238] [TB7A(1)/1088 (1458-11)/769]. [239] [TB7A(1)/1088 (1458-11)/770]. [240] [TB7A(1)/1088 (1458-6)/767-772]. [241] [TB7A(4)/13053/1024]; [TB7A(4)/13403]. D1 received the photo from Dennis Kwok who was with Anson Chan: [TB7A(1)/2765/4761 to 4771]. [242] [TB7A(1)/2 (399)/4818]; [TB7A(1)/254]. [243] [TB7A(1)/1088/773]; [TB7A(1)/1178]. [244] [TB7A(4)/13055/1030]. [245] [TB7A(1)/2/4822, 4824]; [TB7A(1)/3/4826]; [TB7A(1)/255 to 256]. [246] [TB7A(1)/1089 (1458-13)/774-780]; [TB7A(1)/1179]. [247] [TB7A(1)/2/4820]; [TB7A(1)/1089/775]. [248] [TB7C/260 (260-1)]. [249] [TB7A(4)/13055/1031 to 1032]. [250] [TB7A(4)/13057 to 13058/1040 to 1043]. [251] [TB7A(1)/1091 (1458-22)/796 to 798]. [252] [TB7A(1)/24-25 (445 to 447)/5025-5035]; [TB7A(1)/258 (1002)]. [253] [TB1/30 to 33 (34 to 49)]. [254] [TB7A(1)/25(446)/5031]; [TB7A(1)/258 (1002)], dated 26.4.2019. [255] [TB7A(1)/1093 to 1099 (1458-31 to 1458-58)/819 to 881] [256] [TB7A(1)/27(450)/5052]. [257] [TB7A(1)/1100 (1458-60)/888]. [258] [TB1/18to 20 (21 to 29)]. [259] [TB7A(1)/29/5061]; [TB7A(1)/260]. [260] [TB7A(1)/1100 to 1102 (1458-61 to 1458-68)/890-904]; [TB7A(4)/13779 to 13780/322 to 339]; [TB4(2)/2467/76 to 77]. [261] [TB7A(1)/30 (455)/5069 to 5070]. [262] [TB3(1)/26 (26-1)]. [263] [TB7A(1)/1105 (1459)/920 to 923]. [264] [TB7A(4)/13782/378]. [265] [TB4(2)/2467/82]. [266] [TB7A(1)/1106 to 1107 (1460 to 1462)/924-932]; [TB7A(3)/12719/272]. [267] [TB7A(1)/1107/933 to 935]. [268] [TB7A(4)/13782/380]. [269] [TB7A(1)/1104 (1458-72)/913 to 915]. [270] [TB7A(1)/1104 (1458-73)/914]. [271] [TB7A(1)/1105 (1459)/916 to 919]. [272] [TB7A(1)/1108 to 1144/944 to 1017]. [273] [TB7A(1)/1116 to 1117/1029 to 1030]. [274] [TB7A(1)/1116/1028]. [275] [TB4(2)/2467/85]. [276] [TB7A(1)/1116/1031]. [277] [TB7A(1)/48 to 49 (491 to 493)/5230 to 5240]. [278] [TB7A(1)/269 (844)]. [279] [TB7A(1)/49 (493)/5239]. [280] [TB7A(1)/52 to 53 (499 to 501)/5270 to 5278]. [281] [TB7A(1)/74 (544)/5472]. [282] [TB7A(1)/1117 to 1118 (1483 to 1487)/1039 to 1051]. [283] [TB1/106 to 108 (109 to 119)]. [284] [TB1/125 to 130 (131 to 140)]. [285] [TB1/148 to 152 (153 to 156)]. [286] [TB7A(1)/1123 to 1126 (1497 to 1506)/1097 to 1132]. [287] [TB7A(2)/4436 to 4439 (6416 to 6421)/2806 to 2830]. [288] Ibid at Counter 2817. [289] [TB7A(1)/1126 (1504 to 1506)/1126 to 1132]; [TB7A(1)/1286 to 1292 (1704 to 1714)]. [290] [TB7A(1)/1289 to 1290 (1709 to 1710]. [291] [TB7A(1)/1126 (1505)/1127]. [292] [TB4(1)/1040 (1131)]. [293] [TB4(1)/1051 (1142)]. [294] [TB1/159-160 (165-166)]. [295] [TB7A(1)/67/5413]; [TB7A(1)/94(584)/5647]; [TB7A(1)/186(775)/6544-5]. [296] [TB1/281 (284)]. [297] [TB1/301 (304)]. [298] [TB1/337 (342)]. [299] [TB1/422 (426)]. [300] [TB1/366 (372)]. [301] Print Form: [TB1/506 (508)]; Digital Form: [TB1/516]. [302] [TB1/356/434 (436)]. [303] [TB7A(1)/190-193 (782-789)/6578-6612]. [304] [TB7A(1)/190 (782)/6578 to 6579]. [305] [TB7A(1)/190 (783)/6585]. [306] [TB1/675 (679)]. [307] [TB1/701 (705)]. [308] [TB1/746 (749)]. [309] [TB1/756]. [310] [TB1/700]. [311] [TB7A(1)/196 (795)/6636]. [312] [TB7A(1)/196 (797)/6640]. [313] [TB7A(1)/196 (797)/6642]. [314] [TB7A(1)/196 (797)/6642]. [315] [TB7A(1)/197 (798)/6646]. [316] [TB7A(1)/204 (814)/6707]. [317] [TB7A(1)/204 (814)/6708]. [318] [TB1/50 (52)]. [319] [TB3(1)/406 (410-1 to 410-8)]. [320] [TB1/520-523 (524-533)]. [321] Print Form: [TB1/534]; Digital Form: [TB1/535 (540)]. [322] [TB1/534 (535)]. [323] Print Form:[TB3(1)/450 (452); Digital Form: [TB3(1)/463]. [324] [TB3(1)/450(452)]. [325] Print Form: [TB1/627(630)]; Digital Form: [TB1/628]. [326] [TB7C/1560-3 (1560-5)], see also: [TB7A(1)/177 (757)/6463]; [TB7A(1)/359 (977)]. [327] Print Form: [TB1/643 (645)]; Digital Form: [TB1/653]. [328] Print Form: [TB1/ 1290(1292)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1300]. [329] Print Form: [TB1/1676 (1678)]; English News: [TB1/1685]. [330] [TB7A(3)/10812 to 10813/823 to 854]. [331] [TB7A(3)/10811 (11036-313)/798]. [332] [TB4(2)/1632 to 3 (1646 to 1647)]. [333] [TB4(2)/ 1634 to 5 (1648 to 1649]. [334] [TB4(2)/1630 (1643)]. [335] See the WhatsApp message from Julie Chan (D1’s secretary) to PW9 dated 1.5.2020: [TB4(2)/1630 (1644)]. [336] It appeared that Simon Lee also attended. See D1’s WhatsApp exchanges with Simon Lee on 4.6.2020 where D1 referred to “Our dinner with twitter contributors, Lo Fung, Sang Pu etc” on 20 May: [TB7A(3)/10831 (11036-485)/1222]. [337] See D1’s WhatsApp message with Mark Simon on 19.5.2020 where he said, “I’m having dinner tomorrow night with Simon Lee like young scholars who would contribute to my Twitter.”: [TB7A(1)/3018/6991]; and D1’s WhatsApp message to Simon Lee on 4.6.2020 where D1 talked about “Our dinner with “Twitter contributors, Lo Fung, SANG Pu, etc” on 20.5 and the arrangement for the next monthly dinner in June: [TB7A(3)/10831 (11036-485)/1222]. [338] [TB7A(3)/10811 (11036-315)/805]; [TB7A(3)/10813/855]; [TB7A(3)/10892]; [TB7A(3)/11036-821]. [339] [TB7A(3)/10813/855]; [TB7A(3)/10892 (11036-821)]. [340] [TB7A(3)/10815 (11036-350 to 11036-351)/899]. [341] See counters 836 to 1396. [342] See, e.g., [TB7A(3)/10821/1021]. [343] [TB7A(3)/10819/980]. [344] [TB7A(1)/2054 (2092)/70]. [345] [TB4(1)/805 (864)]. [346] [TB7A(1)/2057 (2101)/91 to 93]; [TB7A(1)/2084 (2146)]. [347] [TB7A(1)/1159 (1576)/1437]; [TB7A(1)/1416 (1861)]. [348] [TB7A(1)/1159(1576)/1438]. [349] [TB7A(1)/1159 to 1160 (1576 to 1577)/ 1439 to 1442]. [350] [TB3(1)/833]. [351] [TB7A(1)/3050/7248]. [352] [TB7A(3)/10837/1325]. [353] [TB7A(3)/10842/1419 to 1424]. [354] [TB7A(1)/3078/7464]. [355] T228: [TB7A(3)/10841/1412] & [TB3(1)/2089];
[356] T249: [TB7A(3)/10842/1425] & [TB3(1)/2144]. [357] T254: [TB7A(3)/10842/1426] & [TB3(2)/2160];
[358] T274: [TB7A(3)/10843/1434] & [TB3(2)/2252]. [359] T279: [TB7A(3)/10843/1437] & [TB3(2)/2257];
[360] T284: [TB7A(3)/10844/1442] & [TB3(2)/2267];
[361] T295: [TB7A(3)/10845/1462] & [TB3]2)/2298]. [362] T297: [TB7A(3)/10846/1468] & [TB3(2)/2300];
[363] T18: [TB3(1)/864]. [364] T45-T46: [TB7A(3)/10822/1042] & [TB3(1)/1109] & [TB3(1)/1110]. See also D1’ WhatsApp to Mark Simon at 08:28 on 27.5.2020: [TB7A(1)/3028/7082-7083]. [365] [TB7A(3)/10836/1314]; [TB7A(3)/10946] “The Police set up a national security department The law will be enforced on the first day it takes effect ”. [366] [TB7A(3)/10837/1315]. [367] T155: [TB3(1)/1639]. [368] [TB7A(3)/10837/1328]. [369] T158: [TB3(1)/1642]. [370] [TB7A(3)/10840 to 10841/1397 to 1398]. [371] [TB7A(3)/10841/1400]. [372] [TB7A(3)/10841/1401]. [373] [TB7A(3)/10841/1402]. [374] [TB7A(3)/10841/1403]. [375] T206: [TB3(1)/1935]. [376] [TB7A(3)]/10843/1430]. [377] [TB7A(3)]/10843/1431 to 1432]. [378] T257: [TB3(2)/2163]. [379] [TB7A(3)/18045/1459] [380] T288: [TB3(2)/2287]. [381] [TB7A(3)/10847/1487]. [382] [TB7A(3)/10847/1488]. [383] [TB7A(3)/10847/1487]. [384] [TB7A(3)/10847/1488]. [385] [TB7A(3)/10847/1489]. [386] T301: [TB3(2)/2304]. [387] T302: [TB3(2)/2305]; TB3(2)/2306 to 2308]. [388] [TB7A(3)/10846/1475]. [389] [TB7A(3)/10848/1510]. [390] [TB7A(3)/10846/1480]. [391] [TB7A(3)/10849 (11036-628)/1523]. [392] [TB7A(3)/10849 (11036-628)/1525]. [393] [TB7A(3)/10852 (11036-651)/1557]. [394] [TB7A(3)/10852/1558]. [395] [TB7A(3)/10852/1559]. [396] [TB7A(1)/3078/7469]. [397] [TB7A(1)/3079/7473]. [398] See, Tweet No 353 (T353): [TB7A(3)/10854/1581 to 1582] & [TB3(2)/2588];
[399] See e.g., T386: [TB3(2)/2759/]. [400] See, e.g., T355: [TB3(2)/2592];
[401] T311: [TB7A(3)/10848/1513] & [TB3(2)/2366]. [402] T318: [TB7A(3)/10849/1519] & [TB3(2)/2378];
[403] T324: [TB7A(3)/10850/1536] & [TB3(2)/2389];
[404] T329: [TB7A(3)/10851/1546] & [TB3(2)/2394];
[405] T335: [TB7A(3)/10851/1552] & [TB3(2)/2450];
[406] T339: [TB7A(3)/10852/1560] & [TB3(2)/2486];
[407] T346: [TB7A(3)/10853/1565] & [TB3(2)/2547];
[408] T350: [TB7A(3)/10853/1570] & [TB3(2)/2585]. [409] T353: [TB7A(3)/10854/1581 to 1582] & [TB3(2)/2588];
[410] T358: [TB7A(3)/10855/1587] & [TB3(2)/2627];
[411] T361: [TB7A(3)/10855/1588] & [TB3(2)/2645];
[412] T367: [TB7A(3)/10855/1593] & [TB3(2)/2668];
[413] T371: [TB7A(3)/10856/1604 to 1605] & [TB3(2)/2672];
[414] T380: [TB7A(3)/10857/1615] & [TB3(2)/2709];
[415] T388: [TB7A(3)/10857/1620] & [TB3(2)/2806];
[416] T397: [TB7A(3)/10858/1632] & [TB3(2)/2815];
[417] T402: [TB7A(3)/10859/1638 to 1641] & [TB3(2)/2824];
[418] T408 – T416: [TB7A(3)/10860/1648 to 1658] & [TB3(2)/2848, 2849, 2887 - 2888, 2894 - 2898];
[419] T423: [TB7A(3)/10861/1668] & [TB3(2)/2961];
[420] T426: [TB7A(3)/10861/1671] & [TB3(2)/2978];
[421] T432: [TB7A(3)/10862/1687] & [TB3(2)/3029];
[422] T440 – T441: [TB7A(3)/10863/1711, 1713, 1717] & [TB3(2)/3140 to 3141];
[423] T455: [TB7A(3)/10865/1729] & [TB3(2)/3230];
[424] T462: [TB7A(3)/10865/1733] & [TB3(2)/3246];
[425] T464: [TB7A(3)/10865/1736 to 1737] & [TB3(2)/3261]. [426] T469: [TB7A(3)/10865/1738 to 1741] & [TB3(2)/3276];
[427] T480: [TB7A(3)/10866/1755] & [TB3(2)/3374];
[428] T493: [TB7A(3)/10868/1778] & [TB3(2)/3395];
[429] [TB7A(1)/1158 (1572)/1427]. [430] [TB7A(1)/231 (824-74)/6951]. [431] [TB7A(3)/10856/1608]. [432] [TB7A(3)/10856/1609]. [433] [TB7A(3)/10858/1629]; [TB7A(3)/11027]. [434] T396: [TB3(2)/2814]. [435] “China slams Britain’s ‘colonial fantasy’ in halting Hong Kong extradition pact”: [TB7A(3)/10858/1632]. [436] T397: [TB3(2)/2815]. [437] [TB7A(3)/10859/1633]. [438] T401: [TB3(2)/2821]. [439] [TB7A(3)/10860/1648 to 1658]. [440] [TB3(2)/2848-2898]. [441] [TB7A(3)/10867/1756]. [442] T484: [TB3(2)/3378]. [443] [TB7A(3)/10867 to 10868/1772 to 1773]. [444] [TB7A(3)/10868/1774]. [445] [TB7A(3)/10868/1776]. [446] [TB7A(3)/10868/1777]. [447] T489: [TB3(2)/3383]. [448] T490: [TB3(2)/3392]. [449] [TB7A(3)/10868/1778]. [450] T493: [TB3(2)/3395]. [451] [TB7A(4)/14539 (15093)/363]. [452] [TB7A(4)/14538 (15090)/360]. [453] [TB7A(4)/14546 (15110)/384]. [454] See, e.g., [TB4(2)/1939 (2153)/218]; [TB4(2)/2073 to 2074] which was an advertisement for the episode on 20.11.2020. [455] See, e.g., [TB4(2)/1932 (2135)/162]; [TB4(2)/2142/182]. [456] [TB7A(4)/14546 (15110)/384]. [457] [TB7A(4)/14558 (15132)/420]. [458] [TB7A(4)/14563 (15142)/436]. [459] [TB4(2)/1916 (2098)/11]. [460] [TB4(2)/1924 (2117)/93]. [461] [TB4(2)/1927 (2124)/114]. [462] [TB4(2)/1932 (2135)/162]. [463] [TB4(2)/1936 (2145)/192]. [464] [TB4(2)/1938 (2149)/204]. [465] [TB4(2)/1940 (2155)/225]. [466] [TB4(2)/1917 (2101)/24]. [467] [TB3(2)/2561 to 2580]. [468] [TB3(2)/2564/5]. [469] [TB3(2)/2567/7]. [470] [TB3(2)/2737 to 2757]. [471] [TB3(2)/2753/43]. [472] [TB3(2)/2756/49]. [473] [TB3(2)/3060 to 3133]. [474] [TB3(2)/3109/247]. [475] [TB3(2)/3127/338]. [476] [TB3(2)/3129/340]. [477] [TB3(2)/3305 to 3338]. [478] [TB3(2)/3481 to 3528]. [479] Who was described as a Senior Fellow of Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy: [TB3(2)/3479]; and also Senior Fellow from the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC: [TB3(2)/3489/9]. [480] [TB3(2)/3568 to 3633]. [481] Who was described as an East Asian studies professor at the University of California, Riverside. [482] [TB3(2)/3575/23]. [483] [TB3(2)/3584 to 3585/36]. [484] [TB3(2)/3585/40]. [485] [TB3(2)/3586 to 3587/42]. [486] [TB3(3)/3802 to 3860]. [487] Who was described as a Political science professor at the University of Notre Dame: [TB3(3)/3801]. [488] [TB3(3)/3803 to 3804/1]. [489] [TB3(3)/3827 to 3828/13]. [490] [TB3(3)/4012 to 4089]. [491] Who was referred to as a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT): [TB3(3)/4011]. [492] [TB3(3)/4025 to 4026/45]. [493] [TB3(3)/4035/111]. [494] [TB3(3)/4040/138]. [495] [TB3(3)/4043/153]. [496] [TB3(3)/4062/281]. [497] [TB3(3)/4075/338]. [498] [TB3(3)/4206 to 4250]. [499] [TB3(3)/4243/47]. [500] [TB3(3)/4244/49]. [501] [TB3(3)/4247 to 4248/62]. [502] [TB3(3)/4347 to 4395]. [503] Who was referred to as American writer-cum-journalist: [TB3(3)/4346]. [504] [TB3(3)/4354 to 4356/5]. [505] [TB3(3)/4371 to 4372/14]. [506] [TB3(3)/4378 to 4381/19]. [507] [TB3(3)/4386/22]. [508] [TB3(3)/4513 to 4561]. [509] Who was referred to as Research Associate in the Asia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute: [TB3(3)/4512]. [510] [TB3(3)/4524 to 4525/6]. [511] [TB3(3)/4550 to 4551/30]. [512] [TB3(3)/4555 to 4556/33]. [513] [TB3(3)/4607-16 to 4607-74]. [514] Who was referred to as a Contemporary Asia research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution: [TB3(3)/4607-15]. [515] [TB3(3)/4607-22/6]. [516] [TB3(3)/4607-28/11]. [517] [TB3(3)/4607-29/11]. [518] [TB3(3)/4607-48/32]. [519] [TB3(3)/4607-49 to 4607-50/34]. [520] [TB3(3)/4693-4748]. [521] Who was referred to as Retired Bishop of the Catholic Church of Hong Kong. [522] [TB3(3)/4735 to 4736/60]. [523] [TB3(3)/4908-4959]. [524] [TB3(3)/4921/8]. [525] [TB3(3)/4923/10]. [526] [TB3(3)/4957/76]. [527] [TB3(3)/5030-5084]. [528] Who was referred to as an Editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal: [TB3(3)/5029]. [529] [TB3(3)/5073/43]. [530] [TB3(3)/5155-5198]. [531] Who was referred to as the President and co-founder of the Action Institute: [TB3(3)/5154]. [532] [TB3(3)/5157/7]. [533] [TB3(3)/5168 to 5169/22]. [534] [TB3(3)/5176 to 5177/32]. [535] [TB3(3)/5251-5315]. [536] [TB3(3)/5257/5]. [537] [TB3(3)/5271 to 5272/17]. [538] [TB3(3)/5290/35]. [539] [TB3(3)/5307 to 5308/52]. [540] [TB3(3)/5310/61]. [541] [TB3(3)/5340-5398]. [542] [TB3(3)/5347/3]. [543] [TB3(3)/5349/3]. [544] [TB3(3)/5353/8]. [545] [TB3(3)/5374 to 5375/23]. [546] [TB3(3)/5381/32]. [547] [TB3(3)/5385 to 5387/36]. [548] [TB3(3)/5389/40]. [549] [TB3(3)/5392 to 5394/54]. [550] [TB3(3)/5395/57]. [551] [TB3(3)/5415-5481]. [552] [TB3(3)/5416 to 5417/4]. [553] [TB3(3)/5448/13]. [554] [TB3(3)/5455 to 5456/18]. [555] [TB3(3)/5462/22]. [556] [TB3(3)/5472 to 5473/39]. [557] [TB3(3)/5475/44]. [558] [TB3(3)/5510-5568]. [559] Who was referred to as Professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law: [TB3(3)/5509]. [560] [TB3(3)/5554/38]. [561] [TB3(3)/5559 to 5560/46]. [562] [TB3(3)/5561 to 5562/51]. [563] [TB3(3)/5588 to 5674]. [564] [TB3(3)/5624 to 5625/47]. [565] [TB3(3)/5650 to 5651/91]. [566] [TB3(3)/5669/148]. [567] [TB3(3)/5669/150]. [568] [TB3(3)/5704 to5793]. [569] [TB3(3)/5723 to 5724/8]. [570] [TB3(3)/5747/22]. [571] [TB3(3)/5759/40]. [572] [TB3(3)/5839 to 5944]. [573] [TB3(3)/5852 to 5854/42]. [574] [TB3(3)/5860 to 5861/56]. [575] [TB3(3)/5864 to 5865/60]. [576] [TB3(3)/5940 to 5941/171]. [577] [TB3(3)/5941 to 5942/173]. [578] [TB3(3)/6009-6126]. [579] [TB3(3)/6026/28]. [580] [TB3(3)/6054/74 to 75]. [581] [TB3(3)/6073 to 6075/119]. [582] [TB3(3)/6120 to 6121/136]. [583] [TB3(3)/6122/142]. [584] [TB7A(1)/1172 (1604)/1542]. [585] See D-29 & D-29A, the WhatsApp messages between Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man. [586] P3011 (P3011A). [587] [TB7A(4)/14418 (14817)]. [588] Fung Wai-kong was added to the group on 2.6.2020: [TB7A(4)/14479/184] when he was about to re-join Apple Daily. [589] [TB7A(4)/14419 (14821)/5]. [590] [TB7A(4)/14438(14884)/62]. [591] [TB7A(4)/14437 (14880)/59]; [TB7A(4)/14586 (15180)]. [592] [TB7A(4)/14438 (14884)/61-62]. [593] [TB7A(2)/4834/6114]. [594] [TB7A(2)/6215 (8511, 10023)]. [595] [TB7A(4)/14433 (14865)/46]. [596] [TB7A(4)/14433 (14865)/46]. [597] [TB7A(4)/14436 (14874)/55]. [598] One example Cheung Kim-hung gave was D1’s article titled “The great era is coming soon” (「大時代快將來臨」) from D1’s column “Sink or Swim, Smile” (P499, [TB1/1676 (1678)]. [599] [TB7A(4)/14449 (14911)/95]. [600] [TB7A(4)/14430/38]. It is noted that “Mark” was not a member of the “English News” chat group. [601] [TB7A(4)/14430/39]. [602] [TB7A(4)/14430 (14857)/38]. [603] [TB7A(4)/14436 (14874)/55]. [604] [TB7A(1)/1156 (1568 to 1569)/1413 to 1414]. [605] [TB7A(4)/14449 (14911)/95]. [606] [TB7A(4)/14450(14913)/98). [607] [TB7A(4)/14453 (14919)/107]. [608] TB7A(1)/188 (778)/6558]. [609] [TB6(2)/6093/6883]; [TB6(2)/6745]. [610] [TB6(2)/6094/6887]. [611] [TB6(2)/6096/6901]. [612] [TB7A(3)/11354/26]. [613] [TB7A(4)/14468 (14948)/151]. [614] [TB7A(4)/13853/1113]. [615] [TB7A(4)/14096 to 14097/2 to 15]. [616] [TB7A(2)/10372 to 10373 (10629-341 to 10629-343)/899 to 906]. [617] [TB7A(3)/10826/1103]. [618] [TB7A(4)/14469 (14951)/156]. [619] There is no dispute that English News was launched on 25 May 2020. [620] [TB4(2)/1558 (1599)]. [621] [TB7A(2)/4834/6114]. [622] [TB7A(2)/6215 (8511, 10023)]. [623] Except for EU countries which had stricter privacy law: [TB7A(4)/14471 (14955)/161]. [624] [TB7A(4)/14671 (15271). [625] [TB7A(4)/14483(14980)/197]. [626] [TB7A(4)/14544 (15102)/377]. [627] [TB4(1)/808(867), at 2134 hours]. See also [TB4(1)/811(874)]. [628] [TB7A(1)/2057 (2102)/94]. [629] [TB7A(1)/2057 (2102)/95]. [630] [TB7A(4)/15536 (15550)]. [631] [TB7A(4)/15537/3]. [632] [TB7A(4)/15538 (15553)/9]. [633] [TB7A(4)/15545/37]. [634] [TB7A(4)/15546 (15565)/44]. [635] [TB7A(4)/15547 (15566)/45]. [636] [TB7A(4)/14574 to 14575 (15162 to 15164)/468 to471]. [637] [TB4(2)/1922 to 1923/76 to 82]. [638] Print Form: [TB2/25(27)]: Digital Form: [TB2/33(35)]; English News: [TB2/40]. [639] Print Form: [TB2/46 (48)]; Digital Form: [TB2/53 (55)]; English News: [TB2/61]. [640] English News: [TB2/432]. [641] English News: [TB2/989]. [642] [TB7A(4)/14443 (14899)/76]; [TB7A(4)/14449 (14911)/95]. [643] [TB7A(4)/14560 (15136)/426 to 427]. [644] P407 [TB2/989], which was one of the 31 examples of publications with Apple Daily as a platform to request external elements to impose sanctions or blockade, or engage in other hostile activities against the PRC and/or the HKSAR referred to in the Prosecution Opening. [645] [TB7A(4)/14407 to 14408 (14417-34 to 14417-37)/73-78]. [646] [TB7A(4)/14408 (14417-39)/83]. [647] [TB7A(4)/13779/327]. [648] [TB7A(4)/13780/333]. [649] [TB4(2)/2467/76]. [650] [TB3(1)/26 (26-2)]. [651] [TB7A(1)/2785/4995]. [652] [TB7A(1)/2842 to 2843, 2845/5531-5535, 5544]; [TB7A(1)/3494]. [653] [TB7A(1)/2843/5537]; [TB7A(1)/3499]. [654] [TB7A(1)/3495]. [655] [TB7A(1)/3497]. [656] [TB7A(1)/3498]. [657] [TB7A(4)/13790/513]. [658] [TB7A(4)/13791/528]. [659] [TB7A(2)/4467 (6472)/3060]; [TB7A(2)/5358]. [660] [TB7A(2)/4470 (7694)/3095]; [TB7A(2)/8900]. [661] [TB7A(1)/2789/5067]. [662] [TB7A(1)/2792/5099]. [663] [TB7A(1)/2803/5196]; [TB7A(1)/347]. [664] [TB7A(4)/13796/574]. [665] [TB7A(1)/2815/5308 to 5309]. [666] [TB7A(1)/2818/5335]. [667] [TB3(1)/61-1 (61-2)]. [668] [TB7A(1)/1133/1176]; [TB7A(1)/1330]; [TB7A(2)/5351 to 5352 (8880 to 8882)]. [669] [TB3(1)/152 (152-1 to 152-2)]; [TB7A(2)/5364 to 5366 (7693 to 7695)]. [670] [TB7A(2)/5358 (8888)]. [671] [TB3(1)/153 to 159]; [TB3(1)/159-1 to 159-15]. [672] [TB7A(2)/5410 (8953)]. [673] [TB3(1)/159-8]. [674] [TB3(1)/159-10 to 159-11]. [675] [TB6(2)/5911/5351]; [TB6(2)/6558]. [676] [TB6(2)/5912/5352]. [677] [TB6(2)/5912/5354]. [678] [TB6(2)/5914/5363]. [679] [TB6(2)/5923/5444]. [680] [TB6(2)/5924/5455]. [681] [TB6(2)/5980/5936]. [682] [TB6(2)/5981/5938]. [683] [TB6(2)/5981/5941]. [684] [TB7A(4)/16208/56 to 57]. [685] [TB6(2)/5982/5950]. [686] [TB6(2)/5987/5989]. [687] [TB6(2)/5987/5990]. [688] [TB6(2)/5988/5995 to 5996]. [689] [TB6(2)/5988/5998]. [690] [TB6(2)/6000 to 6001/6114 to 6119]; [TB7A(1)/3571]. [691] [TB6(2)/6001/6121]. [692] [TB6(2)/6001/6122]. [693] [TB6(2)/6003/6127 to 6130]. [694] TB6(2)/6004/6135 to 6139]. [695] [TB6(2)/6006/6158]; [TB6(2)/6645]. [696] [TB7A(4)/13620 (13703-89)/205]; [TB7A(4)/13683]. [697] [TB3(1)/277 (277-1 to 277-13)]. [698] [TB7A(4)/16205/44]. [699] [TB7A(4)/16206/45]; [TB7A(4)/16254]. [700] [TB7A(4)/16206/46]. [701] [TB7A(4)/16206/47]. [702] [TB7A(4)/16210/67]. [703] [TB7A(4)/16210/68]. [704] [TB7A(4)/16211/70]. [705] The Act was introduced on 13 June 2019 but was not yet passed in September 2019. [706] [TB3(1)/285 (291)]. [707] According to Wayland, in his third meeting with D1 (on 27.11.2019), D1 told him that he had recently met with Sunny Cheung. [708] [TB3(1)/285 (295)]. [709] Transcript: [TB3(1)/307 (312)]. [710] P3013. [711] [TB7A(1)/2922/6215]; [TB7A(1)/3581]. [712] [TB7A(3)/11615/1808]; [TB7A(3)/11983]. [713] [TB7A(3)/11615/1809]; [TB7A(3)/11984] The Chinese meant “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolutions of our time”. [714] [TB7A(3)/11615/1810]; [TB7A(3)/11985]. [715] [TB7A(4)/13805/659]. [716] [TB7A(4)/13806/664]. [717] [TB7A(4)/13806/665]. [718] [TB7A(1)/1360-1364]. [719] [TB7A(1)/1145 (1545)/1297]. [720] [TB7A(4)/13806/670]; [TB7A(4)/14006-1 (14006-2)]. [721] [TB7A(4)/13806 to 13811/667-669, 687, 689-691, 693, 696-710, 712, 717-725]. [722] [TB7A(4)/16225/150]. [723] [TB7A(4)/16225/151]. [724] See P3046, Supplemental Expert Opinion (redacted) dated 15.11.2023. [725] [TB7A(2)/4584 (6698)/4096]; [TB7A(2)/5615(9151)]. [726] TB7A(2)/4584 (6698)/4098]. [727] [TB7A(4)/16226/156]. [728] [TB7A(4)/16226/157]. [729] [TB7A(4)/16226/158]. [730] [TB7A(4)/13814/747]. [731] [TB1/438 (444)]. [732] [TB7B/331 to 464]. [733] [TB7B/1921]. [734] [TB7B/1922]. [735] [TB7B/1924]. [736] [TB7B/1926]. [737] [TB7B/1927]. [738] [TB7B/1931 to 1943]. [739] [TB7B/1944]. [740] [TB7B/1948]. [741] At 08:37 and 08:40: [TB7A(1)/190 (782)/6578 to 6579]. [742] At 08:43: [TB7A(1)/190 (782)/6580]. [743] At 08:44: [TB7A(1)/190 (783)/6581]. [744] At 08:49: [TB7A(1)/190 (783)/6585]. [745] At 09:18: [TB7A(1)/191 (784)/6589]. [746] [TB6(2)/7341 (7394-49)/707]. [747] TB6(2)/7341 (7394 -49)/708]. [748] [TB7A(1)/1161/1456]. [749] [TB7A(1)/1161/1457]. [750] [TB1/675 (679)]. [751] [TB1/701 (705)]. [752] [TB1/746 (749)]. [753] [TB7B/1009 to 1125]; [TB7B/2037 to 2039]. [754] [TB7B/1026]; [TB7B/2040]. [755] [TB7B/1042]; [TB7B/2043]. [756] [TB7A(1)/1164/1471]. [757] [TB7A(1)/1164 (1589)/1472]. [758] Which happened to be the day after the NPC’s 5.28 Decision. [759] [TB7A(4)/16179/1]. [760] [TB7A(4)/16180/5]. [761] [TB7A(4)/16180/4]. [762] [TB7A(4)/16182/11]. [763] [TB7A(4)/16182/12]. [764] [TB7A(4)/16182/13]. [765] [TB7A(4)/16183/14]. [766] [TB7A(4)/16183/16]; [TB7A(4)/16192]. [767] [TB7A(4)/16184/19]. [768] [TB7A(4)/16185/20]; [TB7A(4)/16193]. [769] [TB7A(4)/16185/21]. [770] [TB7A(4)/16190/34]. [771] [TB7A(4)/16190/35]. [772] [TB7A(4)/16191/36]. [773] [TB7A(3)/10830 to 10831/1201 to 1209]. [774] [TB7A(1)/206 to 207/6733 to 6737]. [775] [TB7A(1)/1166/1489 to 1493]. [776] [TB7A(1)/3048/7233]. [777] [TB7A(1)/3048/7230 to 7232]. [778] [TB7A(3)/10831/1206]. [779] T91: The tweet contained a photograph showing Pompeo meeting with Wang Dan, Su Xiaokang, Lee Lan-ko and Li Hengqing: [TB3(1)/1299]. The same photograph was used in Apple Daily on 5 June 2020: [TB7C/2078 (2078-12)]. [780] T92: The tweet contained a photograph of Pompeo having a video meeting with a representative of the “Tiananmen mothers”: [TB3(1)/1300] The same photograph was used in Apple Daily on 5 June 2020: [TB7C/2078 (2078-16)]. [781] T106: [TB3(1)/1331]. The tweet contained a retweet from @SenRubioPress on June 4. [782] [TB7A(1)/1166 (1592 to 1593)/1489 to 1494]. [783] [TB7A(1)/1166 (1594)/1496 to 1497]. [784] [TB7A(4)/14054/36]. [785] [TB7C/2078 (2078-1 to 2078-16)]. [786] [TB7A(1)/2966/6596]; [TB7A(1)/3622]. [787] [TB7A(1)/2996/6832]. [788] [TB7A(1)/2996/6833]. [789] [TB7A(1)/2997/6836]. [790] [2020] 3 HKLRD 320. [791] [TB7A(1)/3021/7016]. [792] [TB7A(1)/3033/7119]. [793] [TB7A(1)/3040 to 3041/7178 to 7185]. [794] [TB7A(1)/3040/7179]. [795] [TB7A(1)/3041/7180]; [TB7A(1)/3710-3711]. [796] [TB7A(1)/3051/7250]. [797] [2020] 3 HKLRD 320. [798] [TB7A(1)/3053/7271]. [799] [TB7A(1)/3053/7272]. [800] [TB7A(1)/3053/7274]. [801] [TB7A(1)/3054/7275]. [802] [TB7A(1)/3055/7282]. [803] [TB7A(1)/3027/7072]. [804] [TB7A(1)/3028/7079]; [TB7A(1)/3687]. [805] [TB7A(1)/3028/7082]. [806] [TB7A(1)/3030/7097]. [807] D-22 (D-22A). [808] [TB7A(1)/3062/7341]. [809] [TB7A(1)/3063/7343]. [810] [TB7A(1)/1172 (1604)/1542]. [811] [TB7A(4)/16243/250]. [812] [TB7A(4)/16243/254]. [813] [TB7A(4)/16243/256]. [814] [TB7A(4)/16243/257]. [815] [TB7A(4)/16243/258]. [816] [TB7A(4)/16244/259]. [817] [TB7A(4)/16244/260]. [818] [TB7A(4)/16244/263]. [819] [TB7A(4)/16244/264]. [820] [TB7A(4)/16244/266]. [821] [TB7A(4)/16244/267]. [822] See P3046, the redacted version of “Expert Opinion” dated 17.11.2022. [823] [TB7A(1)/4273-11 to 4273-12]. [824] [TB7A(1)/4273-12 to 4273-13]. [825] See P3046, Expert Opinion dated 17.11.2022, at C1.4: An overview of EO 13936. [826] Ibid, at para 78. [827] [TB7A(1)/1173/1553]; [TB7A(1)/1440-1453]. D1 also forwarded the same message to Law Wai-kwong: [TB7A(2)/10424/1129]; [TB7A(2)/10608 to 10621]. [828] [TB1/1263 (1263-1 to 1263-4)]. [829] [TB1/1269 (1269-1 to 1269-40)]. [830] [D-1004 (D-1004A)/280 (844)]. [831] [TB1/1268]. [832] [TB7C/2413 (2413-1)]. [833] [TB7B/1733]. [834] [TB7B/2166 to 2174]. [835] [TB3(2)/2899 to 2906]. [836] T408 to T416: [TB3(2)/2848 to 2906]. [837] [TB3(2)/2907 (2907-1 to 2007-5)]. [838] [TB3(2)/2907 (2907-1 to 2907-2)]. [839] [TB3(2)/3396 (3396-1)]. [840] T493: [TB3(2)/3395]. [841] [TB7A(1)/1174/1558 to 1560]. [842] [TB7A(1)/1455]. [843] [TB7C/2418 (2418-1)]. [844] [TB7A(4)/13728 to 13729]. [845] [TB1/785 to 788]. [846] [TB1/797]. [847] [TB7A(4)/13729/18]. [848] [TB7A(4)/13730/19]. [849] [TB7A(1)/1138(1528)/1223]. [850] [TB3(1)/170]. [851] [TB3(1)/185 to 192]. [852] [TB3(1)/190]. [853] [TB3(1)/191 to 192]. [854] [TB7A(2)/5473 (7799)]. [855] [TB3(1)/1006 to 1028]. [856] Ibid, at p1020. [857] [TB7B/2035]. [858] [TB7B/2036]. [859] [TB3(2)/2310]. [860] [TB7A(4)/14217]. [861] [TB7A(1)/3073/7426 to 7427]. On 18 July 2020, Mark Simon also informed D1 that there was an interview request from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: [TB7A(1)/4273-15]. [862] [TB7A(1)/3074/7434]. [863] [TB7A(1)/3074 to 3075/7435 to 7442]. [864] [TB3(3)/6135 to 6150]. [865] [TB3(3)/6142 to 6143/14]. [866] [TB7A(1)/1158 (1572)/1427]. [867] [TB7A(1)/1158 (1572)/1428]. [868] [TB7A(1)/1158 (1572)/1429]. [869] [TB4(2)/1653-1655 (1680-1682)]. [870] [TB4(2)/1675 (1703)]; P345(2) [TB4(2)/1908-1910 (1911-1915)]. [871] [TB4(2)/1669 to 1674 (1698 to 1702)]. [872] On 14 July 2021, a seminar was arranged for an experienced criminal barrister to brief staff members of Apple Daily on the NSL: D-2 (D-2A), Counters 3531 to 3534. [873] [TB7A(1)/231 (824-74)/6951]. [874] See e.g., the exchanges between Cheung Kim-hung and Yeung Ching-kee: [TB4(1)/948-950 (1012-1014)]. [875] D-2 (D-2A), Counters 3513 to 3519. [876] [TB4(1)/938 (1002)]. [877] D-2(D-2A), Counters 4453 to 4457. [878] [TB1/2707 (2712)]. [879] D-4 (D-4A). [880] D-4 (D-4A), Counter 46. [881] [TB4(1)/947 (1011)]. [882] [TB4(1)/1120 - 1121 (1211)]. [883] [TB4(1)/764 (765-766)]. [884] D-4 (D-4A), Counters 7 to19 and 74. [885] Ibid, at Counter 79. [886] [TB4(1)/948 (1012-1014)]. [887] [TB4(2)/1418 (1464)]. [888] [TB4(1)/1122 (1213)]. [889] D-21 (D-21A). [890] [TB1/2791 (2798)]. [891] [TB1/2906-2907 (2908-2918)]. [892] [TB6(1)/997]; [TB6(1)/1024]; [TB6(1)/1028]; [TB6(2)/5096]. [893] [TB6(1)/1002]; [TB6(1)/1030]. [894] [TB6(1)/985]; [TB6(1)/1042]; [TB6(1)/2621]. [895] [TB6(1)/986]; [TB6(1)/1036]; [TB6(2)/4948]. [896] [TB6(1)/ 987]; [TB6(1)/1034]; [TB6(2)/ 4948]. [897] [TB6(1)/983 (1100)]; [TB6(1)/1044 (1234 to 1238)]; [TB6(1)/ 1045 to 1047]. [898] [TB6(1)/990 (1113)]; [TB6(1)/1048 (1243)]. [899] [TB6(1)/1011 (1175 to 1176)]; [TB6(1)/1055]; [TB6(2)/ 4948]. [900] [TB6(1)/1012]; [TB6(1)/1053]. [901] [TB6(1)/1021]; [TB6(1)/1058 to 1561]. [902] [TB6(1)/1013 (1180 to 1184)]; [TB6(1)/1062 (1277 to 1280)]; [TB6(1)/1064]. [903] [TB6(1)/1014 (1180 to 1184)]. [904] [TB6(1)/984 (1102)]; [TB6(1)/1065]; [TB6(2)/ 4948]. [905] [TB6(1)/1069]. [906] [TB6(1)/998 (1141 to 1144)]; [TB6(1)/1073]; [TB6(2)/4948]. [907] [TB6(1)/1000 (1148)]; [TB6(1)/1079]. [908] [TB6(1)/1016]; [TB6(1)/1077]. [909] [TB6(1)/1015 (1188)]; [TB6(1)/ 1087 (1365)]. [910] [TB6(1)/1019]; [TB6(1)/1089]. [911] [TB6(1)/1022 to 1023]. Andy used the pseudonym “Tony Lo” in the accounts. [912] D-64. [913] D-64A. [914] [TB6(2)/5882/5096]. [915] [TB6(2)/5882/5097]. [916] [TB6(2)/5301 to 5302]. [917] Wayland used the email address “[email protected].” [918] Andy used the email address “[email protected]”. [919] [TB6(1)/1042]; [TB6(1)/2621 to 2623] (payment made by “Lais Hotel Properties Limited”). [920] [TB6(1)/1031]; [TB6(1)/1032 to 1033] (payment made by “Lais Hotel Properties Limited”). [921] [TB6(1)/1077 (1304 to 1308)]; [TB6(1)/1309]. [922] [TB6(1)/1079 to 1080 (1310 to 1318)]; [TB6(1)/1086]. [923] [TB6(1)/1087 (1365 to 1370)]; [TB6(1)/1088] (payment by Dico Consultants Limited). [924] [TB6(2)/4887]. [925] [TB6(1)/1048 (1243)]. [926] [TB6(2)/5281 to 5287 (5288 to 5293). [927] [TB6(2)/5281]. [928] [TB6(2)/5287]. [929] [TB6(1)/1050 (1254)]. [930] [TB6(1)/1263]. [931] See: [TB6(1)/1031 to 1032] (sender: Lais Hotel Properties Ltd);
[932] [TB6(1)/2621], “T” using the email account “[email protected]” and Andy using the email account “[email protected]”. [933] [TB6(1)/2622] (sender: Lais Hotel Properties Ltd). [934] [TB6(2)/4952]. [935] [TB6(1)/1022]. [936] [TB6(2)/7564]. [937] P3080. [938] [TB6(2)/5103]. [939] [TB6(2)/4957]. [940] D-52, at point 10. [941] P3029, P3030 and P3031. [942] [TB6(2)/4952]; [TB6(2)/4957]. [943] [TB6(2)/4970]; [TB6(2)/5036]; & [TB6(2)/5042]. [944] [TB6(1)/687]. [945] [TB6(1)/688]; [TB6(1)/2695]. [946] [TB6(1)/689 (691 to 694)]. [947] [TB6(1)/2693]. [948] [TB6(1)/2690 (2724 to 2732)]. [949] [TB6(1)/2698 to 2699]. [950] [TB6(1)/2701 (2745-2755)]. [951] [TB6(1)/2704 (2757 to 2758)]. [952] [TB6(1)/2705 (2758)]. [953] [TB6(1)/2707 (2761)]. [954] [TB6(1)/2709 to 2712 (2769 to 2779)]. [955] [TB6(1)/2714]. [956] [TB6(1)/2717 (2785 to 2789)]. [957] [TB6(1)/2720 (2793 to 2798)]. [958] Who was referred to as “Wealthy American No. 1” at the trial. [959] D-52. [960] [TB6(1)/2629 to 2643]. [961] Who was referred to as “Wealthy Person No. 2” during the trial. [962] [TB6(1)/2643]. [963] See generally, the series of email exchanges between 7.9.2019 and 17.9.2019 among Kelsey Mathis and Lauren Trani (ofGoFundMe.com), Andy (Freedom HKer), “T” ([email protected]) and T’s side ([email protected]): P209 to P750 which were retrieved from Andy’s computer. [964] [TB6(1)/2720]. [965] The amount was settled by Lais: [TB6(1)/2628]. [966] [TB6(1)/696]; [TB6(1)/707]. [967] [TB6(1)/2074]; [TB6(1)/2759]. [968] [TB6(1)/2709 to 2712 (2769 to 2779)]; [TB6(1)/2780]. [969] [TB6(1)/2781]; [TB6(1)/2783]. [970] [TB6(1)/2717 (2785 to 2789)]; [TB6(1)/2790]. [971] [TB10/539 to 553]. [972] The total expenditure of the whole campaign was said to be around HK$7.34 million: [TB10/553]. [973] Referred to as552] “Funder 2”. [974] Referred to as “Funder 1”. [975] [TB6(1)/22]; see also [TB10/552]. [976] [TB6(1)/2500]. [977] [TB6(1)/2501]. [978] [TB6(1)/2503]. [979] [TB6(1)/2504]. [980] [TB6(1)/2506]; D-45. [981] [TB6(2)/5941/5586]. [982] [TB6(2)/5941/5588]; [TB6(2)/6582]. [983] [TB6(2)/5941/5589]. [984] [TB6(2)/5946/5632]. [985] [TB6(2)/5946/5633]. [986] [TB6(2)/6016/6250]. [987] [TB6(2)/6017/6251]. [988] An astrophysicist in US. [989] [TB6(1)/1 to 257]. [990] Using the display name of “RIP@?”. [991] [TB6(1)/1527]. [992] [TB6(1)/11]. [993] [TB6(1)/11]. [994] [TB6(1)/4 to 10]. [995] [TB6(1)/14]. [996] [TB6(1)/15]. [997] [TB6(1)17 to 18 (19)]. [998] [TB6(1)20 to 21 (21 to 22)]. [999] It was said that there was a credit balance of US$698,581.79: [TB6(1)/20 to 21]. It is admitted that the date shown on the right bottom corner (4 February 2021) was downloaded date by the Police. [1000] [TB6(1)/23]; [TB6(1)/128 to 130]. [1001] [TB6(1)/31]; [TB6(1)/124] (marked: Version 3). [1002] [TB6(1)/256-36 to 256-37]. [1003] [TB6(1)/1876]. [1004] [TB6(1)/860 (861 to 862)]. [1005] [TB6(1)/25 (26)]. [1006] [TB6(1)/1505]. [1007] [TB6(1)/1506 to 1507]. [1008] [TB6(1)/1507]. [1009] [TB6(1)/1509]. [1010] [TB6(1)/1510]. [1011] Ibid. [1012] [TB6(2)/5988/5998]. [1013] [TB6(1)/2629], dated 17.9.2019. [1014] [TB6(1)/1518]. [1015] [TB6(1)/1518]. [1016] [TB6(1)/1512-1517]. [1017] [TB6(1)/1511]. [1018] [TB6(1)/128]. [1019] Including Dr. Mantas Adomėnas (Lithuania), Mrs Viktorija Adomėnienė (Lithuania), Lord David Alton (UK), Mr. Christoffer Karlsson (Sweden), Mr. Kenny Chiu (Canada), Ms. Vicki Dunne (Australia), Ms. Cille Hald Egholm (Denmark), Mr. Niko Grünfeld (Denmark), Ms. Malene Møller Hall (Denmark), Ms. Signe Bøgevald Hansen (Denmark), Professor Kenji lsezaki (Japan), Mr. Olle Johnsson (Sweden), Mr. Andrew Khoo (Malaysia), Ms Miriam Lexmann (Slovakia), Ms. Simona Mohamsson (Sweden), Mr. Michael Palicz (USA), Mr. Luke de Pulford (UK), Mr. Thomas Rohden (Denmark) and Ms. Emmy Scilaris (Sweden). [1020] [TB7A(4)/13806/670]; [TB7A(4)/14006-1 (14006-2)]. [1021] See the five cash advance marked for “EOM” between 13.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 and one payment for “EOM security” on 21.11.2019, all of which from “Funder 1”: [TB10/543]. [1022] [TB6(2)/4969]; [TB10/543]. [1023] See Benedict Rogers’ WhatsApp message to D1 on 22.11.2019: [TB7A(4)/13809/699]. [1024] [TB6(1)/1520]. [1025] Which appears to be where Lord Alton was staying: see Benedict Rogers’ WhatsApp message to D1 on 22.11.2019: [TB7A(4)/13809/697]. [1026] Who appears to be Chu Muk-man, the author of “I’ll bite whoever the Chairman tells me to bite” (「主席叫我咬誰就咬誰」) published in Apple Forum on 24.4.2020: [TB1/620 (622)]. [1027] [TB6(1)/657]. [1028] [TB6(1)/864 to 980]. [1029] [TB6(1)/2398]. [1030] [TB6(2)/3135 to 3228]. [1031] [TB6(2)/3136 to 3159]. [1032] [TB6(2)/3161 to 3195]. [1033] [TB6(2)/3196 to 3210]. [1034] [TB6(2)/3211 to 3213]. [1035] [TB6(2)/3137] [1036] [TB6(2)/3229 to 3347]. [1037] [TB6(1)/2404]. [1038] [TB6(1)/306 to 419]. [1039] [TB6(1)/2405]. [1040] [TB7A(4)/16227/163]; [TB7A(4)/16269]. [1041] [TB6(1)/306 to 419]. [1042] [TB6(1)/1629 to 2023 (2023-1 to 2023-396)]. [1043] [TB6(1)/2433]. [1044] [TB6(1)/2434] [1045] [TB6(1)/2466]. [1046] [TB6(1)/2467]. [1047] [TB6(1)/2585 (2593)]. [1048] [TB6(1)/2586 (2592)]. [1049] [TB6(1)/1682]. [1050] [TB6(1)/2595 (2597)]. [1051] [TB6(1)/2601 (2602)]. [1052] [TB6(1)/1701]. [1053] [TB6(1)/1703]. [1054] [TB6(1)/1760]. [1055] [TB6(1)/1771]. [1056] [TB6(1)/1774]. [1057] [TB6(1)/1825 to 1826]. [1058] Ibid. [1059] [TB6(1)/1876]. [1060] [TB6(1)/2139]. [1061] [TB6(1)/2140]. [1062] [TB6(1)/2151]. [1063] [TB6(1)/2151]. [1064] [TB6(1)/2154]. [1065] [TB6(1)/2154]. [1066] [TB6(1)/2155]. [1067] [TB6(1)/2158]. [1068] [TB6(1)/2159]. [1069] [TB6(1)/1913]. [1070] [TB6(1)/1913]. [1071] [TB6(1)/1915]. [1072] [TB6(1)/1916]. [1073] [TB6(1)/1918]. [1074] [TB6(1)/1919]. [1075] [TB6(1)/1922]. [1076] [TB6(1)/1922]. [1077] [TB6(1)/1961]. [1078] [TB6(1)/3032 to 3038]. [1079] [TB6(1)/1984]. [1080] Italics in original: [TB6(1)/1986]. [1081] [TB6(1)/1988]. [1082] [TB6(1)/1989]. [1083] [TB6(1)/1989]. [1084] [TB6(1)/2799 (2803)]. [1085] [TB6(1)/1997]. [1086] [TB6(1)/2043]. [1087] [TB6(1)/1998]. [1088] [TB6(1)/673]. [1089] [TB6(1)/2566 to 2567]; [TB6(1)/684]. [1090] [TB6(1)/2574 to 2576]; [TB6(1)/685]. [1091] [TB6(1)/2243]. [1092] [TB6(1)/2337]. [1093] [TB6(1)/2243]. [1094] [TB6(1)/2340]. [1095] [TB6(1)/2280 to 2300]. [1096] [TB6(1)/2299]. [1097] [TB6(1)/2292]. [1098] [TB6(1)/2294]. [1099] [TB6(1)/2302]. [1100] [TB6(1)/2317]. [1101] [TB6(1)/2557]. [1102] [TB6(2)/3128]. [1103] [TB6(2)/3129]. [1104] [TB6(2)/3134] [1105] [TB6(1)/2244]. [1106] [TB6(1)/2008]. [1107] [TB6(1)/2269]. [1108] [TB6(1)/2270]. [1109] [TB6(1)/2275 (2335-139)]. [1110] [TB6(1)/2607]. [1111] [TB6(1)/2309 to 2316]. [1112] [TB6(1)/2468]. [1113] [TB6(1)/2470]. [1114] [TB6(1)/2608]. [1115] [TB6(1)/2473]. [1116] [TB6(1)/2472]. [1117] MFI-D-71, Question 12. [1118] [TB6(1)/2496]. [1119] [TB6(1)/2497 to 2499]. [1120] [TB6(1)/2500]. [1121] [TB6(1)/2484]. [1122] [TB6(1)/2485]. [1123] [TB6(1)/2508]. [1124] [TB6(1)/2509]. [1125] [TB6(1)/2510]. [1126] Ibid. [1127] [TB6(1)/2507-2509]. [1128] [TB6(1)/3071]. [1129] [TB6(1)/3074]. [1130] [TB6(1)/3076]. [1131] [TB6(1)/3099]. [1132] [TB6(1)/3101]. [1133] [TB6(1)/ 3099 (3101)]. [1134] [TB6(1)/2815]. [1135] [TB6(1)/1505]. [1136] [TB6(1)/1512]. [1137] [TB7A(4)/16211/70]. [1138] [TB7A(4)/16211/72]. [1139] [TB7A(4)/16211/73 to 74]. [1140] [TB7A(4)/16212/77]. [1141] [TB7A(4)/16212/78]. [1142] [TB6(2)/4529]. [1143] [TB6(2)/4552]. [1144] [TB6(2)/7406 (7449)/1]. [1145] [TB6(2)/7406 (7449)/4]. [1146] [TB7A(1)/2919/6191]. [1147] [TB7A(1)/2919/6195]. [1148] [TB7A(3)/11613/1798 to 1799]. [1149] D-97. [1150] [TB6(2)/7406 (7450)/5]. [1151] [TB6(2)/6021/6285]; [TB6(2)/6657]. [1152] [TB6(2)/7406 (7451)/9]. [1153] [TB6(2)/7408/29]; [TB6(2)/7438]. [1154] [TB6(2)/7408/31]. [1155] The date following the signing into law of HKHRDA. [1156] [TB7A(4)/16226/158]. [1157] [TB7A(4)/13814/747]. [1158] [TB6(2)/7410 (7459)/42]; [TB6(2)/7439 (7542)]. [1159] [TB6(2)/7410 (7461)/44]. [1160] [TB6(2)/7410 (7462)/48]. By way of background, we note that On 15.11.2019, there was a report in Apple Daily with the title: “Dragon Slayers, Borderline Calling”: [TB1/422 to 425 (426 to 433)]. In that interview, Apple Daily interviewed four persons who were said to be members of a truly valiant squad called “Dragon Slayers” [1161] [TB6(2)/7416 (7480 to 7481)/115]. [1162] On 5 April 2020, see below. [1163] [TB6(2)/7430 to 7432/267 to 272]. [1164] [TB7A(4)/16225/151]. [1165] [TB7A(1)/2279 (2346)/124]. [1166] [TB6(2)/7417 to 7418 (7485 to 7486)/130 to 134]. [1167] [TB6(2)/ 7418 (7487)/ 136]. [1168] [TB6(2)/7418/140]. [1169] [TB6(2)/7419 (7489)/145]. [1170] [TB6(2)/7419 (7489 to 7492)/146-155]. [1171] [TB3(1)/285 (291)]. [1172] [TB7A(4)/16225/150]. [1173] [TB7A(4)/16225/151]. [1174] [TB7A(4)/13814/747]. [1175] [TB1/439 (444 to 445)]. [1176] Also referred to as “Mutual Destruction Baa” during the trial. [1177] [TB6(2)/7420/157 to 164]. [1178] [TB6(2)/6030 to 6031/6358 to 6373]. [1179] [TB6(2)/7421/168]. [1180] [TB6(2)/7421/175]. [1181] [TB6(2)/6040/6449]. [1182] [TB6(2)/6041/6450]. [1183] See also the messages D1 forwarded to Wayland on 5.4.2020: [TB6(2)/7430 to 7432/267 to 272]. [1184] MFI-D-71, Question 1. [1185] On 28.4.2021 [1186] [TB6(2)/7422/187 to 188]. [1187] [TB6(2)/7424/201 to 203]. [1188] [TB6(2)/7424/204 to 206]. [1189] [TB6(2)/7424/212]. [1190] [TB6(2)/7425/213 to 214]. [1191] [TB10/603 to 624]. [1192] [TB7A(4)/13252/1941]. [1193] [TB7A(4)/13253 (13603-335)/1943]. [1194] [TB6(2)/7425/216]. [1195] [TB6(2)/7425/217]. [1196] [TB6(2)/4550]; [TB6(2)/4928]. [1197] [TB6(2)/7426/228]. [1198] MFI-D-71, Question 2. [1199] MFI-D-71, Question 3. [1200] [TB6(2)/7426/230]. [1201] [TB6(2)/7427/232]. [1202] MFI-D-78A, at Counter 42. [1203] [TB6(2)/7427/236]. [1204] [TB6(2)/7428/246]. [1205] [TB6(2)/7428/247]. [1206] [TB6(2)/7428/248 to 249]. [1207] MFI-D-71, Question 4. [1208] Ibid, Question 5. [1209] Ibid, Question 6. [1210] [TB6(2)/7427 to 7428/232 to 253], which showed that Wayland was asking a time convenient to D1 as Wayland had “some progressive updates” for D1 “some good and some bad”. [1211] MFI-D-71, Question 7. [1212] [TB6(2)/7428/254]; [TB6(2)/7443 to 7447 (7547 to 7556)]. [1213] [TB6(2)/7428/255]. [1214] [TB6(2)/7429/260]. [1215] [TB6(2)/7429/261]. [1216] [TB6(2)/7429/263]. [1217] [TB6(2)/7429/264 to 265]. [1218] [TB6(2)/7430/266]. [1219] [TB6(2)/7430 to 7432/267 to 271]; [TB6(2)/7448]. [1220] [TB6(2)/7432/272]. [1221] [TB6(2)/7433/279]. [1222] [TB6(2)/7433/280]. [1223] [TB6(2)/7434 (7530)/290]. [1224] [TB6(2)/7434 (7531)/292]. [1225] [TB6(2)/7434 (7531)/293]. [1226] [TB6(2)/7434 (7532)/294]. [1227] [TB6(2)/7434/295]. [1228] [TB6(2)/7435/296]. [1229] [TB6(2)/7435/297]. [1230] [TB6(2)/7435/298]. [1231] [TB6(2)/7435/299]. [1232] [TB6(2)/7435/300], see certified translation in P3038A. [1233] [TB6(2)/7435/301]. [1234] P3038. [1235] [TB10/678 to 679]. [1236] [TB10/643]. [1237] [TB10/683]. [1238] [TB6(2)/7435/302]. [1239] HCCP 289/2020, [2020] HKCFI 1249. [1240] [TB6(2)/7437/316]. [1241] MFI-D-71, Question 8. [1242] Ibid, Question 9. [1243] Ibid, Question 10. [1244] Ibid, Question 11. [1245] MFI-D-78A, at counter 87. [1246] MFI-71, Question 11. [1247] See P3046, Expert Opinion, dated 17.11.2022, at para. 18(i). [1248] Bill reference under Senate, U.S.: S 4110. [1249] Bill reference under House of Representatives, U.S.: H.R. 7415. [1250] Supra, at para. 66. [1251] Supra, at para. 69. [1252] Supra, at para. 70. [1253] Supra, at para 71. [1254] [TB6(1)/2508]. [1255] [TB6(2)/7562]. [1256] [TB7A(4)/13852 to 13853/1108 to 1109]. [1257] [TB7A(1)/1164 to 1165 (1591 to 1592)/1477 to 1488]. [1258] [TB7A(4)/14052/23]. [1259] [TB7A(4)/14053/30]. [1260] [TB7C/2079 (2079-3)]. [1261] [TB7C/2147 (2147-1)]. [1262] [TB1/855 (860)]; [TB1/864]. [1263] [TB7A(4)/14017/100 to 101]. D1 told Benedict Rogers that he was flying to Taipei on Friday (i.e., 4.10.2019), that he would like to have lunch with them and that he would ask “Mark” to contact Luke to confirm. However, it was unclear from D1’s subsequent WhatsApp messages with Mark as to whether he was eventually able to meet with Lord Alton and Luke de Pulford in Taipei: [TB6(2)/5999/6104], contrast with [TB6(2)/6043/6469 to 6470]. [1264] [TB6(2)/5996/6076 to 6077]. [1265] [TB7A(1)/1152/1376 to 1378]. [1266] [TB7A(2)/10330 to 10331/718 to 720]. [1267] [TB7A(1)/1375]. [1268] [TB7A(1)/1152/1378]. [1269] [TB7A(2)/10331/721]. [1270] [TB6(2)/7424 to 7425/212 to 214]. [1271] [TB7A(4)/14055/47 to 48]. [1272] [TB7A(2)/10398 (10629-384 to 10629-385)/1012 to 1014]. [1273] T162: [TB3(1)/1652]. [1274] [TB3(1)/1654]. [1275] [TB7A(2)/10408 (10629-404)/1058 to 1060]. [1276] [TB7A(4)/14055/53]. [1277] [TB7A(4)/14056/67 to 68]. [1278] [TB7A(4)/14057/73 to 74]. [1279] Of which Jack Hazlewood was said to be the writer: see [TB7A(4)/14077 to 14082]. [1280] [TB7A(4)/14057/75 to 76]; [TB7A(4)/14077 to 14082]. [1281] [TB7A(1)/1174/1559 to 1560]. [1282] [TB7A(2)/10429/1145 to 1147]. [1283] Print Form: [TB1/855 (860)]; Digital Form: [TB1/864]. [1284] Print Form: [TB1/1944 (1955)]; English News: [TB1/1975]. [1285] T722: [TB3(3)/5141]. [1286] Strictly speaking, D1 was arrested with two others on that occasion for a charge of “fraud”. However, on 11 December 2020 he was taken to court again by the prosecution for a new charge of “collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to danger national security” [1287] [TB1/1489 to 1491 (1492 to 1504)]. [1288] [TB3(2)/3458 (3458-1)]. [1289] [TB3(2)/3463 (3463-2)]. [1290] [TB1/2405 (2411)]. [1291] [TB1/2404 (2423)]. [1292] [TB1/2425 (2432)]. [1293] [TB1/2446 (2451)]. [1294] D-29 (D-29A), at Counter 4109. [1295] D-37 (D-37A). [1296] According to the WhatsApp records, the donations could be as much as several millions dollars a year for one entity. [1297] (2007) 10 HKCFAR 98. [1298] (2011) 14 HKCFAR 641. [1299] [TB7A(4)/16185/20]; [TB7A(4)/16193]. [1300] [TB7A(4)/13209/1739]. [1301] [TB7A(1)/2926/6256]. [1302] [TB7A(1)/2927/6258]; [TB7A(1)/3586]. [1303] [TB7A(1)/2927/6259]. [1304] [TB7A(4)/13210/1741 to 1743]. [1305] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/2948/6437 to 6438]. [1306] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/2450/422 to 423]; [TB7A(1)/2509/1323]; [TB7A/2517/1421]; [TB7A(1)/2554/1928]; [TB7A(1)/2576/2229 to 2230]; [TB7A(4)/2578 to 2579/2266 to 2274]; [TB7A(1)/2935/6324]. [1307] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/2474/801]; [TB7A(1)/2670/3473 to 3474]. [1308] Chapter 7, “Arranging Paul Wolfowitz and Jack Keane as Tsai’s consultants”. See also [TB7A(1)/4234/123 to 140]. [1309] [TB7A(1)/2724/4143 to 4151], 17.5.2018. [1310] [TB7A(1)/2734/4283 to 4285], 19.7.2018. [1311] [TB7A(1)/2818 to 2819/5332 to 5343], 19.7.2019. [1312] We shall come back to Royston’s evidence concerning the preparation of the summaries of D1’s monthly expenses in due course. [1313] [TB7A(1)/2526/1552 to 1556]; [1314] [TB7A(1)/4236/156 to 157, 160, 169 to 171]; [TB7A(1)/2527/1561] [1315] Chapter 17, “D1’s article in Wall Street Journal”. [1316] Ibid, “D1’s visit to US in July 2019”. [1317] Ibid, “D1 arranging a “fact-finding” visit by US congressmen”; see also [TB7A(1)/2889/5936]. [1318] Ibid, “Visit by Rick Scott”; “Visit by Ted Cruz”. [1319] Ibid. [1320] Which was a collection of news photographs and paintings about the anti-ELAB movement in 2019: see Chinese version [TB7C/545]; English version [TB7C/601]. [1321] [TB7A(1)/2890/5944]. [1322] Ibid, “D1’s US trip in October 2019”. [1323] Ibid, “D1’s visit to US in July 2019”; “D1’s change of stance on Hong Kong’s special status after the NSL”. [1324] Ibid, “D1 seeking for a leadership group”; “The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (“HKHRDA”). [1325] Ibid, “Magnitsky Act”. [1326] [TB7A(1)/3005 to 3006/6901 to 6908]; [TB7A(1)/4240/200 to 201, 204]. [1327] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/3022 to 3023/7027 to 7032]. [1328] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/3026/7056 to 7060]. [1329] Chapter 16, “ “DC Dems” chat group”. [1330] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/3064 to 3066/7355 to 7358, 7369]; [TB7A(1)/3071/7417]. [1331] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/3082/7510]; [TB7A(1)/3083/7533]. [1332] [TB7A(1)/3084/7551]. [1333] [TB7A(1)/4241/211 to 214]. [1334] Chapter 13, “The content contributors”. [1335] Ibid, “D1’s intended US trip and application to lift travel restriction”. [1336] [TB7A(1)/2856/5638]; [TB7A(1)/3017/6981] & [TB7A(1)/3026/7056]; [TB7A(1)/3063/7345], [TB7A(1)/3067/7382] & [TB7A(1)/3068/7395]. [1337] Chapter 18. [1338] Chapter 20, “D1 asking to meet “Mutual Destruction Bro”. See also [1339] [TB7A(1)/2427/20]; [TB7A(1)/4227/33-36]. [1340] [TB7A(1)/2437 to 2438/221 to 223]. [1341] [TB7A(1)/2439/254 to 255]; [TB7A(1)/4235/151]. [1342] [TB7A(1)/2938/6348]. [1343] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/2436/187]; [TB7A(1)/2429/49 to 50]; [TB7A(1)/2763/4740]; [TB7A(1)/2938 to 2939/6352 to 6357]; [TB7A(1)/2957/6517 to 6523]; [1344] [TB7A(1)/2443/322 to 325]. [1345] [TB7A(1)/3007/6911]. [1346] [TB7A(1)/2889/5927]. [1347] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/2523/1495]; [TB7A(1)/2891/5945 to 5948]. [1348] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/2951/6465]. [1349] [TB7A(1)/2941/6374]; [TB7A(1)/2942/6387]; [TB7A(1)/2943/6392]; [1350] See, e.g., [TB7A(1)/2441/287]; [TB7A(1)/3027/7072, 7075]; [TB7A(1)/3032/7111]; [TB7A(1)/3035/7138]. [1351] Who was named as “Zadomen” in the emails. [1352] [TB6(2)/5272]. [1353] [TB6(2)/5241]. [1354] See also the WhatsApp exchanges between D1 and Mark Simon on 20.6.2019. D1 was told that the sum was “Jack and Paul related. Each of them were $750,000 plus expenses”: [TB7A(1)/4237 to 4238/174 to 175]. [1355] [TB3(3)/5202 to 5216]. [1356] Ibid at p.5209. [1357] T730 to T732: [TB3(3)/5199 to 5201]. [1358] By which time, Mark Simon had already left Hong Kong. [1359] T731: [TB3(3)/5200]. [1360] MFI-D-71, Question 13. [1361] Ibid, Question 14. [1362] At para 5 of the statement. [1363] HCCP 418/2021. [1364] MFI-D-23. [1365] Including Benny Tai’s “Ten steps to real mutual destruction”. [1366] MFI-D-24. [1367] MFI-D-83. [1368] [TB6(1)/1986]. [1369] MFI-D-71. [1370] [TB6(2)/7563]. [1371] [TB6(1)/2473]. [1372] P3044 (P3044A). [1373] [TB6(2)/7406/5]. [1374] MFI-D-70A. [1375] P3040 (P3040A). [1376] P3041 (P3041A). [1377] P3042 (P3042A). [1378] P3043 (P3043A). [1379] MFI-D-71. [1380] MFI-D-71. [1381] P3040 (P3040A), Counter 578. [1382] P3041 (P3041A), Counter 42. [1383] [TB6(2)/7427/236]. [1384] P3041 (P3041A), Counter 87. [1385] Ibid, Counter 79. [1386] P3043 (P3043A), para 3. [1387] P3043 (P3043A), Counter 166. [1388] [TB6(1)/2490/2510]. [1389] P3043 (P3043A), para 5. [1390] MFI-D-70A. [1391] [2020] 1 HKLRD 1082. [1392] See Lai Chee-ying v Commissioner of Police [2022] 4 HKLRD 582 (CFI) (dated 30.8.2022); [2022] 5 HKLRD 205 (CA) (dated 19.10.2022). [1393] Lacock, according to the uncontradicted evidence of Royston, was D1’s company. [1394] [TB6(2)/6021/6285]. [1395] [TB6(2)/6657]. [1396] [TB1/422 (426)]. [1397] [TB7A(4)/16225/150 to 151]. [1398] [TB7A(4)/16227/163]; [TB7A(4)/16269]. [1399] [TB7A(1)/2289/232]. [1400] Print Form: [TB1/438 (440)]; Digital Form: [TB1/448 (452)]. [1401] [TB7A(4)/16210/68]. [1402] [TB3(1)/285 (291)]. [1403] “Dragon Slayers Borderline Calling - All people be valiant. Three strikes” published on 15.11.2019: [TB3(3)/5624 to 5625/47]. [1404] [TB7A(1)/2291 to 2292 (2381 to 2382)/262 to 266]. [1405] [TB7A(1)/2283 (2358 to 2359)/174 to 175]. [1406] [TB7A(1)/2286/204 to 209]. [1407] [TB7A(4)/16227/163]; [TB7A(4)/16269]. [1408] [TB7A(1)/2286 to 2287/212 to 215]. [1409] See P3046, Expert Opinion (dated 17.11.2022) and Supplemental Expert Opinion (dated 15.11.2023). [1410] Chapter D, D.3. [1411] Supplemental Expert Opinion. [1412] Expert Opinion, §§23 to 24. [1413] Ibid, §§29 to 50. [1414] Ibid, §§25 to 26; 52 to 53. [1415] See P3046, Expert Opinion (dated 17.11.2022), §§21 to 22. [1416] Ibid, §§27 to 28. [1417] Ibid, §18(v). [1418] Ibid, §18(vii). [1419] Ibid, §18(ix). [1420] Ibid, §18(x). [1421] Ibid, §18(xi). [1422] Ibid, §18(xv). [1423] Admitted Facts (3) (dated 5.6.2024), §§3 to 4. [1424] [TB3(1)/1941]. [1425] [TB3(3)/5953]. [1426] Transcript 3030J to O. [1427] Transcript 3030Q to U. [1428] [TB3(1)/1952-1953]. [1429] Transcript 3031G to I. [1430] [TB3(1)/1955]. [1431] [TB3(1)/1963 onwards]. [1432] Transcript 3031B to D. [1433] Transcript 3031A to B. [1434] Transcript 3034Q to U. [1435] Transcript 3059C. [1436] Transcript 3045J to 3046D. [1437] Transcript 3058N to T. [1438] Transcript 3034 I to O. [1439] Transcript 3035 B to E. [1440] Transcript 3035D to H. [1441] Transcript 3035L to 3036F. [1442] Transcript 3036D. [1443] Transcript 3031J to V. [1444] D-87 (D-87A). [1445] Transcript 3033J to K. [1446] Transcript 3066G to 3067D. [1447] [TB7A(1)/2(399)/4818 to 4831]. [1448] Transcript 3073G to L. [1449] Annex 1. [1450] [TB3(1)/75/9]. [1451] [TB7A(4)/14137/42 to 43]. [1452] [TB7A(4)/14241/78]. [1453] [TB7A(1)/2527/1569]. [1454] [TB7B/1921 to 1947]. [1455] [TB7B/1944]. [1456] [TB7B/2040]. [1457] [TB7B/2137]. [1458] [TB7A(2)/4469 to 4470 (6478)/3085 to 3088]. [1459] [TB7A(4)/14405/15]. [1460] [TB7A(4)/13053 to 13055/1024 to 1030]; [TB7A(4)/13403 to 13404]. [1461] [TB7A(1)/1608-8/778]. [1462] [TB7A(3)/11535/1362 to 1366]; [TB7A(3)/11875]. [1463] [TB7A(1)/2767/4791 to 4792, 4798]. [1464] [TB7A(1)/2773/4868]. [1465] [TB7A(1)/2778/4902 to 4903]. [1466] [TB7A(4)/16021]. [1467] [TB7A(4)/16243/256 to 264]. [1468] [TB7A(4)/16179 to 16191]. [1469] [TB7A(4)/16179 to 16200/1 to 37]. [1470] [TB7A(1)/4273-11]. [1471] [TB7A(1)/2789/5067]; [TB7A(1)/2792/5099]. [1472] Transcript 4839M to R. [1473] [TB3(1)/163(168 to 169)]. [1474] [TB7A(1)/2803/5196]; [TB7A(1)/3447 to 3448]. [1475] Transcript 5706M to 5707B. [1476] [TB7A(2)/4896(7509)/6611]. [1477] [TB4(2)/1938 to 1940 (2149 to 2154)/204 to 221]; [TB4(2)/2371]. [1478] [TB7A(4)/14540(15096)/367]. [1479] [TB3(2)/2557 to 2559]. [1480] Transcript 5692L to T; [TB7A(2)/7484/6505]. [1481] [TB7A(2)/7486/6510 to 6514]. [1482] [TB3(2)/2584-1 to 2584-4]. [1483] [TB7A(4)/13752 to 13756/1 to 23]; [TB7A(4)/13738]. [1484] [TB7A(4)/13755/17]. [1485] [TB7A(4)/13709/23]; [TB7A(4)/13715]. [1486] Transcript 5536 M to J. [1487] [TB7A(4)/13710/31 to 34]. [1488] [TB7A(4)/13710/35 to 42]. [1489] [TB7A(4)/13710/35]. [1490] [TB7A(2)/7378/6073 to 6192]. [1491] T45 & T46: [TB3(1)/1109 to 1110]. [1492] Transcript 5462K to N. [1493] [TB7A(4)/16211/70 to 79]; Transcript 5115 B to D. [1494] Transcript 5156 J to N. [1495] [TB1/422 to 425(426 to 433)]. [1496] [TB6(2)/7410 (7459)/42]; [TB6(2)/7439 (7542)]. [1497] [TB6(2)/7410(7461)/44]. [1498] [TB6(2)/7410(7462)/48]. [1499] Transcript 5719L to5720G. [1500] [TB7A(1)2270 (2318 to 2319)/29-31]; [TB7A(1)/2403]. [1501] [TB7A(1)/2279(2347)/130 to 131]. [1502] [TB7A(1)/2283(2358 to 2359)/174 to 175]. [1503] [TB7A(4)/13805/661 to 663]; [TB7C/778]. [1504] [TB7A(4)/16227/160 to 163/]; [TB7A(4)/16268]. [1505] [TB3(1)/285 to 286(291)]. [1506] [TB6(1)/657]. [1507] Transcript 5196C to 5199K. [1508] [TB7A(1)/2998/6855 to 6859]. [1509] Transcript 5200P to 5201K. [1510] Transcript 5200P to5202T. [1511] Transcript 4072N to 4073J. [1512] [TB7A(1)/2291/262]. [1513] [TB3(1)/364(372 to 373)]. [1514] [TB7A(4)/13239(13603-311)/1880 to 1884]. [1515] [TB7A(3)/10803/632 to 635]. [1516] [TB7A(3)/10804/660]. [1517] [TB7A(3)/10804/665 to 666]. [1518] TB3(1)/365(369 to 373)]. [1519] Transcript 5231L to S; certified translation of Anti-ELAB agreed and amended to Anti-authoritarianism [1520] Transcript 5232D to P. [1521] Transcript 5233U to V; 5235N to P. [1522] [TB7A(4)/13247(13603-325 to 13603-326)/1915 to 1917]; [TB7A(4)/13548]. [1523] Transcript 5340U to V; 5242E to K; 5243T to 5244F. [1524] Transcript 5243H-M. [1525] [TB7A(4)/16227/163 to 165]; [TB7A(4)/16268]. [1526] [TB7A(1)/2950/6457]; [TB7A(1)/3599]. [1527] Transcript 5244K to P. [1528] [TB7A(3)/10805/679 to 680]; [TB7A(3)/710 to 711]. [1529] also known as Laam Caau, Laam Caau Baa, Lau Cho Dik, Finn Lau and mutual destruction baa. [1530] Transcript 5254 C to F; 5257D to H [1531] [TB7A(4)/13256/1954 to 1955]. [1532] [TB7A(1)/3622]. [1533] Transcript 5262 L to R [1534] [TB7A(1)/2291(2381)/262 to 266]. [1535] Transcript 3416B to 3418R. [1536] Transcript 5267C to F. [1537] Transcript 5269J to 5270T. [1538] [TB7A(4)/13274/2030]. [1539] [TB7A(4)/12765(12969-288)/691]. [1540] [TB7A(3)/12309(12547)/933]. [1541] [TB7A(4)/13277(13603-372)/2047]. [1542] [TB7A(1)/2425]. [1543] T359: TB3(2)/2628(2628-1)]. [1544] T361: TB3(2)/2645(2645-1)]. [1545] [TB7A(1)/2286/204 to 209]. [1546] Transcript 3372R to 3373S. [1547] [TB7A(1)/2952/6470]. [1548] [TB7A(1)/2286/212 to 215]. [1549] P3037. [1550] Transcript 5348J to 5349P. [1551] [TB7A(1)/2292 to 2294/267 to 272]. [1552] Transcript 3427M to 3431I. [1553] [TB7A(1)/2293/269]. [1554] [TB7A(1)/2294/272] [1555] [TB6(2)/7433/279] [1556] [TB7A(1)/2389/280]. [1557] [TB7A(1)/2390/285]. [1558] Transcript 3435U to 3436V. [1559] [TB7A(1)/2390/285 to 289]. [1560] [TB7A(1)/2392 to 2393/290 to 294]. [1561] [TB7A(1)/2394/295]. [1562] [TB7A(1)/2394/296]. [1563] [TB7A(1)/2395/297]. [1564] [TB7A(1)/2395/299]. [1565] [TB7A(1)/2396/300]. [1566] Transcript 5375Q to 5376M. [1567] Transcript 3446O to V. [1568] Transcript 3447K to 3448C. [1569] In November 2019 protestors occupied the Hong Kong Polytechnic University Campus, leading to a violent stand off with police. Police surrounded the campus creating a blockade. Protestors attempted to escape in various ways. The stand off came to an end when the remaining protestors surrendered or were taken into custody and the police entered the campus to clear it. [1570] [TB7A(1)/2351/145]. [1571] Transcript 3334K to M. [1572] Transcript 5127Q to 5128I. [1573] Transcript 3348O to 3351C. [1574] Transcript 3406H to 3407B. [1575] Transcript 5326M to P. [1576] [TB6(1)/842(845)]. [1577] [TB1/856(862)]. [1578] T722: [TB3(3)/5141]. [1579] [TB3(3)/5138]. [1580] [TB3(3)/5103(5115)]. [1581] [TB3(3)/5132]. [1582] Transcript 5324H to M. [1583] Transcript 5324T to5325L. [1584] [TB7A(4)/13852/1108 to 1109]. [1585] Transcript 3356L to M. [1586] [TB3(2)/3531]. [1587] [TB7A(4)/14051/1 to 8]. [1588] Transcript 5409H to J. [1589] Transcript 5405M to P. [1590] [TB7A(4)/14051/10 to 11]. [1591] [TB7A(4)/14051/10]; [TB7A(4)/14058]. [1592] Transcript 5411J to K. [1593] Transcript 5406F to 54078H. [1594] Transcript 5412P to T. [1595] [TB7A(4)/14052/23]; [TB7A(4)/14062] [1596] [TB7A(4)/14054/36]. [1597] [TB7A(4)/14054/44]. [1598] [TB6(1)/852(854)]. [1599] Transcript 5420L to 5431U. [1600] Transcript 5428G to K. [1601] [TB7A(4)/14054/39]; [TB7C/2058]. [1602] [TB7A(4)/14055/48]. [1603] [TB3(1)/1652]. [1604] [TB7A(4)14055/51 to 52]. [1605] [TB7A(4)/14056/59]; [TB7C/2402]. [1606] [TB7A(4)/14056/59 to 62]. [1607] Transcript 5440T to 5441G. [1608] Transcript 3846S to 3847C. [1609] [TB3(2)/2814]. [1610] [TB3(2)/3531]. [1611] Transcript 3816E to V. [1612] [TB1/855 to 859 (860 to 863)]. [1613] [TB7A(4)/13806/670]; [TB7A(4)/13936(14006-2)]. [1614] Transcript 5451O to U, 5453A to L, 5457P to R, 5458L to 5459D. [1615] T3: [TB3(1)/815]. [1616] T15: [TB3(1)/832]. [1617] T25: [TB3(1)/871]. [1618] T190: [TB3(1)/1840]. [1619] T359: [TB3(2)/2628]. [1620] T537: [TB3(2)/3694]. [1621] Transcript 4261O to S D1 stated corrosion was collusion. [1622] [TB3(3)/4242/47 to 49]. [1623] [TB3(3)/4244/49]. [1624] Transcript 4261S to 4262L. [1625] Transcript 4263O to V. [1626] [TB(3)/4513]. [1627] Transcript 4066J to 4067H. [1628] Transcript 3045J to 3058P. [1629] Transcript 3059C. [1630] Transcript 3058C to F. [1631] Transcript 3042D to F. [1632] [CB (counters 1 & 2- Part A/1)]; Transcript 3036F to P. [1633] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae which the prosecution did not dispute and will referred to here on just as D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1634] Transcript 3036R to 3037K. [1635] Transcript 3356L to P; 3503B to C. [1636] Transcript 4066S to 4068F. [1637] Transcript 4067K to 4068G. [1638] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1639] [TB7A(4)/13793/542 to 545]. [1640] Transcript 3037Q to 3038C; [TB7A(4)/13808 to 13811/687 to 722]. [1641] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1642] Transcript 3503B to C. [1643] Transcript 3038P to S. [1644] Transcript 3038B to M; 3846S to 3847C. [1645] In D1’s closing document ‘Amended Dramatis Personae’ which the prosecution does not dispute states ‘Chris Patten, former governor of Hong Kong during 1990-1997’. [1646] Transcript 3039J to T. [1647] Transcript 3040F to G. [1648] Transcript 3040G to Q. [1649] Transcript 3040Q to S. [1650] Transcript 3041M to 3042V. [1651] Transcript 3042L to N. [1652] Transcript 3042T to 3043C. [1653] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1654] Their photograph is shown in the info-graph – Annex 1; Transcript 3042O to I. [1655] Transcript 3044E to F. [1656] Transcript 3043I to 3044 I. [1657] Transcript 3044H to P. [1658] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1659] Annex 1. [1660] Transcript 3045B to G. [1661] Transcript 3286G to L. [1662] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1663] Transcript 3045G to 3046O. [1664] Transcript 3046K to M. [1665] Transcript 4645O to P. [1666] [TB7A(1)/2539/1735]; [TB7A(1)/3180]. [1667] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1668] Transcript 3046P to 3047L. [1669] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1670] Transcript 3048M to D. [1671] Transcript 4017L to 4020B. [1672] Transcript 4019Q to S. [1673] Transcript 3930I to 3931N. [1674] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1675] Transcript 3049H to O. [1676] Transcript 3359O to 3361B. [1677] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1678] Transcript 4682D to H. [1679] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1680] Transcript 3049Q to T. [1681] Transcript 4613J to O. [1682] [TB7A(1)/2519/1459]. [1683] [TB7A(4)/14237/67]. [1684] [TB7A(4)/14239/72]; [TB7A(4)/14289]. [1685] [TB7A(1)/2742/4419]; [TB7A(1)/3873]. [1686] Transcript 4616E to J. [1687] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1688] Transcript 3050T to 3051F. [1689] Transcript 4620J to 4622D. [1690] [TB7A(4)/14132 to 14146]. [1691] Transcript 4624M to T. [1692] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1693] Transcript 3051J to P. [1694] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1695] Transcript 3051Q to T. [1696] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1697] Transcript 3051T to 3052K. [1698] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1699] Transcript 3052M to 3053K. [1700] Transcript 4056L to O. [1701] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1702] Transcript 3054B to V. [1703] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1704] Transcript 3055B to E. [1705] Transcript 3055I to M. [1706] Transcript 3729S to T. [1707] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1708] Transcript 3055N to R. [1709] Transcript 3357F to M. [1710] Transcript 4710A to H. [1711] [TB7A(1)/2584/2355]. [1712] [TB7A(1)/4236/169 to 170]. [1713] [TB7A(1)/2971/6626 to 6627]. [1714] [TB7A(1)/3014/6958]; Transcript 4711G-M. [1715] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1716] Transcript 3056C-I. [1717] D1’s description in Amended Dramatis Personae. [1718] Transcript 4952P to 4955B. [1719] Transcript 3057H to M. [1720] Transcript 3057N to P. [1721] Transcript 4059H to I. [1722] Transcript 3057P to V. [1723] Transcript 3357N to U. [1724] Transcript 3057T to V. [1725] Transcript 3055T to 3056B. [1726] Transcript 3051E to F. [1727] Transcript 3058C to K. [1728] Transcript 3058L to 3059B. [1729] Transcript 3059D to F. [1730] Transcript 4620B to H. [1731] [TB7A(1)/3042/7187 to 7190]. [1732] T537: [TB3(2)/3694]. [1733] [TB7A(1)/3055/7282]. [1734] [TB3(3)/5709/5]; [TB3(3)/5743/19]. [1735] Transcript 4513Q to 4514D. [1736] [TB7A(4)/14215/52]. [1737] T41: [TB3(1)/1073]; T42: [TB3(1)/1074]. [1738] [TB7A(1)/3059/7317]. [1739] [TB7A(1)/3059/7322]. [1740] [TB7A(1)/3073/7426]. [1741] [TB7A(1)/3073/7430]; [TB7A(1)/3726]. [1742] [TB7A(4)/3074/7434 to 7436]. [1743] Transcript 6089B to T. [1744] [TB7A(4)/14197 to 14198]. [1745] [TB7B/2163]. [1746] [TB7B/2164]. [1747] [TB7B/2171]. [1748] P20-CYB648V; [TB3(2)/2899]. [1749] [TB3(2)/2907(2907-1)]. [1750] [TB3(2)/2904]; Transcript 4013P to R. [1751] T410: [TB3(2)/2887]. [1752] D1 agreed the tweet had misspelt communist as Commujiat. [1753] [TB7A(3)/11336/14 to 16]. [1754] [TB7A(3)/11337/17 to 18]. [1755] [TB7A(3)/11337/19]. [1756] [TB7A(1)/4273-18 to 4273-23]. [1757] [TB7A(4)/14233/43]. [1758] [TB7A(4)/14234/44]. [1759] Transcript 4628P to Q. [1760] [TB7A(1)/2526 to 2527/1552 to 1556, 1561]. [1761] [TB7A(1)/2527/1566)]. [1762] Transcript 4630I to R. [1763] [TB7A(4)/14238 to 14239/69 to 72]. [1764] [TB7A(4)/14239/73]. [1765] Transcript 4638M to S; [TB7A(4)/14240/74]. [1766] [TB7A(4)/14240/75]; [TB7A(4)/14291 to 14292]. [1767] [TB7A(4)/14241/78]. [1768] [TB7A(1)/2527/1569]. [1769] [TB7A(4)/14245/99]. [1770] [TB7A(1)/2537/1728]; [TB7A(1)/3175]. [1771] [TB7A(4)/14246/102 to 110]. [1772] Transcript 4707C to 4709K. [1773] Transcript 4648F to G. [1774] Transcript 4651G to I. [1775] [TB7A(4)/14405/10 to 12]. [1776] Transcript 4649R to 4650H. [1777] [TB7A(4)/14405/13]. [1778] [TB7A(4)/14405/14]; [TB7A(4)/14412]. [1779] [TB7A(4)/14405/15]. [1780] Transcript 4652K. [1781] Transcript 4657A to B. [1782] Transcript 4654L to 4655K. [1783] Transcript 4655N to 4656E. [1784] [TB7A(1)/2649/3192 to 3197]. [1785] [TB7A(1)/2584/2355]; Transcript 4713D to V. [1786] [TB7A(4)/14260/162]; [TB7A(4)/14309];Transcript 4715A to O. [1787] [TB7A(4)/14263/178 to 181]. [1788] Transcript 4655T to 4656F. [1789] [TB7A(4)/14406/35]. [1790] Transcript 4728U to 4729F. [1791] [TB7A(4)/14406/33, 35]. [1792] [TB7A(4)/14267(14349)/196]; [TB7A(4)/14395]. [1793] [TB7A(4)/14406(14417-20)/37]. [1794] [TB7A(1)/4236/169 to 171]. [1795] Transcript 4728N to P. [1796] [TB7A(1)/2752/4552]. [1797] [TB7A(4)/14137/42 to 43]. [1798] Transcript 4717K to O. [1799] Transcript 4643K to T. [1800] [TB7B/2137]. [1801] [TB7B/2137]. [1802] [TB7B/2187]. [1803] [TB3(3)/4012]. [1804] Transcript 4709J to K. [1805] [TB3(3)/4026/45]. [1806] [TB3(3)/4607-16]; [TB3(3)/4607-47/32]. [1807] Transcript 4650M to 4651E; Transcript 4633Q to T. [1808] Transcript 4650M to 4651F. [1809] Transcript 4633S to T. [1810] Transcript 3042F to J. [1811] [TB7A(1)/2527/1566]; [TB7A(4)/14240/74]; [TB7A(4)/14290]. [1812] Transcript 3051 E to F. [1813] [TB7A(1)/2819/5336 to 5339]. [1814] [TB7A(1)/2552/1910]; [TB7A(1)/2569/2153]. (WhatsApp text with Mark Simon). [1815] Transcript 4657L to M; 4661K to S. [1816] [TB7A(1)/2569/2153]; [TB7A(1)/2570/2163]; Transcript 4638M to 4639Q and 4657N to 4658M; Transcript 4660B to D; Transcript 4639 H to L. [1817] [TB7A(1)/2570/2163]. [1818] [TB7A(1)/2582/2328]; Transcript 4658D to L. [1819] Transcript 4661M to Q. [1820] Transcript 4660D to H. [1821] [TB7A(1)/2593/2465]. [1822] Transcript 4662D to -S. [1823] [TB7A(1)/2582/2328]; Transcript 4663H to I. [1824] [TB7A(1)/2819/5336 to 5339]; Transcript 4663F to P. [1825] [TB7A(1)/2818/5332 to 5342]. [1826] Transcript 4663R; 4672B to N. [1827] [TB7A(1)/2605/2598]. [1828] Transcript 4679H to P. [1829] [TB7A(1)/2734/4283 to 4284]. [1830] Transcript 4682D to H. [1831] [TB7A(1)/2734/4288]. [1832] [TB7A(1)/2536/1722]; Transcript 4685A to N. [1833] [TB6(2)/5360 to 5367] (record of payments made to Antonio Chiang). [1834] [TB6(2)/5339 to 5367(5349 to 5350)]. [1835] Transcript 4689O to 4691P [1836] Transcript 4698D to S. [1837] Transcript 4694F to H. [1838] Transcript 4700R to S. [1839] [TB7A(1)/716/6267 to 6268]. [1840] Transcript 4700A to S. [1841] Transcript 4704A to E. [1842] [TB3(1)/66]; Transcript 4812P to 4813H. [1843] [TB3(1)/73/7 to 13]. [1844] [TB3(1)/75/9]; [TB3(1)/100/35]. [1845] [TB7A(1)/2764/4744]; Transcript 4739D to K. [1846] [TB7A(4)/13053/1024]; [TB7A(4)/13403]. [1847] [TB7A(4)/13055(13603-6)/1030]; [TB7A(4)/13608-16]. [1848] [TB7A(4)/13054(13603-5)/1029]. [1849] [TB7C/260(260-1)]. [1850] [TB7A(4)/13055/1031]. [1851] [TB7A(4)/13056/1035]. [1852] [TB7A(1)/3/4826]; [TB7A(4)/255]. [1853] [TB7A(1)/2/4818 to 4820]; [TB7A(1)/254]; [TB7A(1) 1458-31/819]. [1854] Transcript 4754N to P. [1855] [TB7A(3)/11535/1362 to 1366]. [1856] [TB7A(3)/11537/1373]; [TB7A(3)/11876]. [1857] [TB7A(3)/11538/1377 to 1380]. [1858] Transcript 4767E to G. [1859] [TB7A(1)/2766 to 2767/4790 to 4800]. [1860] [TB7A(1)/2767/4791 to 4792]. [1861] [TB7A(1)/2767/4798]. [1862] [TB7A(1)/2771/4828]. [1863] [TB7A(1)/2771/4829]. [1864] Transcript 4772T to 4773U. [1865] [TB7A(1)/2771/4837]; [TB7A(1)/3403]. [1866] [TB1/2(3)]. [1867] [TB7A(1)/2773/4868]. [1868] [TB7A(1)/2778/4902 to 4903]; [TB7A(1)/3410 to 3411]. [1869] [TB3(1)/61-3]. [1870] [TB7A(1)/2771/4837]; [TB7A(1)/3403 to 3404]. [1871] [TB7A(1)/2771/4828 to 4831]. [1872] [TB7A(4)/16201/1]. [1873] [TB7A(1)/16201/5 to 6]; [TB7A(1)/16245 to 16246]. [1874] [TB7A(4)/16219/115 to 150]. [1875] [TB7A(4)/16225/150]. [1876] [TB7A(4)/16225/151]. [1877] [TB7A(1)/2268/5 to 18]. [1878] [TB7A(4)/16243 to 16244/256 to 264]. [1879] [TB7A(1)/3079 to 3080/7478 to 7484]. [1880] Transcript 3889N-3890D. [1881] [TB7A(4)/16288]. [1882] Transcript 3890R to 3892L. [1883] Transcript 4798 E-F. [1884] [TB7A(1)/2803/5196]; [TB7A(1)/3447 to 3448]. [1885] [TB7A(1)/2804/5197]. [1886] [TB7A(4)/14145 to 14146/94 to 95]. [1887] [TB3(1)/90 to 93/29]. [1888] Transcript 4811A to C. [1889] [TB3(1)/159-1 to 159-15]. [1890] [TB3(3)/4013]; [TB7A/4036 to 4037/111]. [1891] [TB3(3)/4513]; [TB3(3)/4522 to 4525/6]. [1892] [TB3(1)/159-8 to 159-9/22]. [1893] [TB7A(1)/2789/5067]. [1894] [TB7A(1)/2792/5099]. [1895] Transcript 4980R to 4981U. [1896] Transcript 4736N to O; [TB7A(1)/2707/3951 to 3953]. [1897] Transcript 4841J to 4842L [1898] [TB7A(2)/4470(6478)/3088 to 3090]. [1899] [TB7A(2)/8900 to 8902]. [1900] Transcript 4839M to R. [1901] [TB3(1)/163/(168-169)]. [1902] [TB3(1)/94 to 95/31]. [1903] [TB7A(1)/2836/5486]. [1904] [TB7A(1)/2837/5491]; [TB7A(1)/3486 to 3847]. [1905] [TB7A(1)/2845(3818)/5544]; [TB7A(1)/3500 to 3505]. [1906] Transcript 4815F to J. [1907] Transcript 4818T to 4819B. [1908] [TB7A(1)/2820/5351]; [TB7A(1)/3482]. [1909] [TB7A(1)/2820 to 2823/5351 to 5363]; [TB7A(1)/3482]. [1910] [TB7A(1)/2823/5362 to 5366]. [1911] [TB7A(1)/2821/5353]. [1912] [TB7A(1)/2823(3782)/5653]. [1913] Transcript 4852S to T. [1914] In March 2019, Apple Daily’s Article stated that Anson Chan, Kwok Wing Hang and Mok Nai Kwong had met with Matt Pottinger senior Director of the US NSC. [TB7C/7260-1]. [1915] Transcript 4857D to 4858Q, 4865U. [1916] [TB7A(1)/2832/5444 to 5466]. [1917] Transcript 4855N to 4857A. [1918] [TB7A(1)/2834/5465 to 5473]. [1919] Transcript 4863L and 4866P to T. [1920] [TB7A(4)/16208/55]. [1921] [TB7A(4)/16208/56 to58]. [1922] [TB7A(1)/2889, 2896 to 2898/3894, 3904 to 3909]. [1923] [TB7A(1)/2896/5990]. [1924] [TB7A(1)/2897/5994 to 5996]. [1925] [TB7A(4)/16215/94]. [1926] [TB7A(4)/16214 to 16215/90 to 94]. [1927] [TB7A(1)/2912 to 2913/6131 to 6132]. [1928] Transcript 4877C to D. [1929] [TB7A(4)/13620(Photograph at 13683)/205]. WhatsApp between Dennis Kwok and D1 on 13/10/2019. [1930] [TB7A(1)/2889, 2910, 2913(3894, 3929, 3934)/5936, 6117-6119, and 6136]; [TA7A(1)/3571]; [TB7A(2)/10290 to10291(10629-190 to 10629-192)/531 to 534]. [1931] [TB3(1)/277 (277-1 to 277-13); [TB3(1)/278 to 279 (279-1 to 279-6)]. [1932] [TB7A(1)/2882(3882)/5884]. [1933] TB7A(1)/2883(3882)/5886, 5888 to 5890]. [1934] Transcript 4872A to F. [1935] [TB7A(4)/16205/44]. [1936] [TB7A(4)/16210/67]. [1937] Transcript 4923G to I. [1938] [TB7A(4)/16206/45]; [TB7A(4)/16254]. [1939] [TB7A(4)/16206/52]. [1940] [TB7A(4)/16210/67]. [1941] [TB7A(4)/16210/C68]. [1942] Transcript 3343I to V [1943] [TB7A(4)/16211/70]. [1944] [TB7A(4)/16211-16212/71-77]. [1945] [TB3(1)/285(291)]. [1946] Transcript 5093N to 5094I. [1947] Transcript 5095B to C; Transcript 5146P to 5147S. [1948] Transcript 4179P to 4180H. [1949] Transcript 5146R to 5150R. [1950] Transcript 4887H to 4888S. [1951] [TB10/188(191-199)]. [1952] [TB10/197]. [1953] Transcript 4945E to H. [1954] [TB3(1)/1109]. [1955] [TB7B/2037]. [1956] Transcript 3589E to G. [1957] Transcript 3590C to E. [1958] [TB-3(1)/1194]. [1959] [TB3(1)/1484, 1522 to 1529/168 to 179, 195]. [1960] [TB7A(3)/10859/1635 to 1636]. [1961] [TB3(2)/2672]. [1962] [TB3(2)/2816]. [1963] [TB3(3)/5226]; Transcript 4436S to 4437I. [1964] [TB3(3)/5704]. [1965] [TB3(3)/5747/22]. [1966] Transcript 4515E to G. [1967] [TB3(3)/5510]. [1968] [TB3(3)/5566/65]. [1969] Transcript 4843M to V. [1970] [TB7A(1)/4273-11]. [1971] Transcript 5035L to M. [1972] [TB7A(1)/4273-12 to 4273-13]. [1973] [TB7A(1)/2966/6596]. [1974] [TB3(1)/473]. [1975] Transcript 5054L to P. [1976] [TB7A(1)/2997/6835 to 6836]. [1977] [TB7A(1)/3021/7014-7015]. [1978] [TB7A(1)/3033/7119]. [1979] [TB7A(1)/3040/7180]. [1980] [TB7A(1)/3041/7184]. [1981] Transcript 5076A to P. [1982] [TB7A(1)/3051/7250]. [1983] [TB7A(1)/3053/7272]. [1984] Transcript 5067A to B. [1985] Transcript 5072J to Q. [1986] Transcript 5074C to J. [1987] Transcript 4863P to 4864J. [1988] [TB7A(1)/2821/5353]. [1989] [TB7A(4)/16211/70]. [1990] [TB7A(4)/16226/156 to 157]. [1991] Transcript 4962M to 4965S. [1992] [TB7A)(1)/2966/6596]. [1993] [TB7B/1921 to 1922]. [1994] [TB7B/2049 to 2050]. [1995] [TB7B/2040 and 2043]. [1996] Transcript 5008C to 5009V. [1997] [TB7B/2049]. [1998] [TB7B/2052]. [1999] [TB7B/2055]. [2000] [TB7A(1)/3062 to 3063/7341 to 7343]. [2001] Transcript 4991E to R. [2002] [TB7A(1)/3053/7272]. [2003] [TB7A(1)/3053/7271 to 7275]. [2004] [TB7A(1)/3055/7282]. [2005] [TB7A(1)/2995/6822 to 6827]. [2006] [TB7A(1)/3048/7230 to 7235]. [2007] [TB7A(1)/3049/7243]. [2008] [TB7A(4)/16179]. [2009] Transcript 5022K to N. [2010] Transcript 5023B to E. [2011] [TB7A(4)/16180(16192)/4 to 16]. [2012] Transcript 5026P to 5027E. [2013] [TB7A(4)/16185/20]; [TB7A(4)/16193]. [2014] [TB7A(4)/16185/22 and 25]. [2015] [TB7A(4)/16188/30]. [2016] [TB7A(4)/16190/34]. [2017] Transcript 5046R to 5047K. [2018] [TB7A(4)/16190/36]. [2019] [TB7A(1)/3074/7435 to 7436]. [2020] Transcript 4035B to G. [2021] [TB7A(1)/4273-18 to 4273-23]. [2022] [TB3(1)/55]. [2023] Transcript 5083M to 5084E. [2024] Transcript 3057P to Q. [2025] [TB3(2)/2312 to 2314/3 to 4]. [2026] [TB7A(1)/3074/7434]. [2027] [TB3(2)/3574/3620]. [2028] [TB3(3)/5000-5003/53-C54]. [2029] See generally Criminal Evidence in Hong Kong, by Bruce & McCoy, VI [253]. [2030] See Prosecution Opening, Annex I. Although the item numbers go from 1 to 153, some items contain more than one article, so that the total number of the impugned articles is 161. [2031] See section 9(1)(a) to (g), Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. [2032] [TB1/50 (52)]. [2033] Print Form: [TB1/534(540)]; Digital Form: [TB1/535]. [2034] [TB1/556 (558)]. That article was one of the 161 samples which the prosecution relies upon for the charge of conspiracy to commit sedition (Charge 1). [2035] Print Form:[TB3/450 (452); Digital Form: [TB3(1)/463]. [2036] Print Form: [TB1/627 (630)]; Digital Form: [TB1/628]. [2037] Print Form: [TB1/643 (645)]; Digital Form: [TB1/653]. [2038] Print Form: [TB1/ 1290(1292)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1300]. [2039] Print Form: [TB1/1676(1678)]; English News: [TB1/1685]. [2040] Print Form: [TB1/655 (657)]; Digital Form: [TB1/664 (657)]. [2041] Print Form: [TB1/736 (738)]; Digital Form: [TB1/744 (738)]. [2042] Print Form: [TB1/824 (826)]; Digital Form: [TB1/832 (826)]. [2043] Print Form: [TB1/1245 (1247 to 52)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1253 (1255)]; English News: [TB1/1260]. [2044] Print Form: [TB1/2518 (2520)]; Digital Form: [TB1/2526]. [2045] Print Form: [TB1/771 (773)]; Digital Form: [TB1/779]. [2046] Print Form: [TB1/949 (951)]; Digital Form: [TB1/958(960)]; English News: [TB1/967]. [2047] Print Form: [TB1/1470 (1472)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1478(1480)]; English News: [TB1/1486]. [2048] Print Form: [TB1/1272 (1274)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1279(1281)]; English News: [TB1/1287]. [2049] [2024] 2 HKLRD 565, at §123. [2050] Print Form: [TB1/506 (508)]; Digital form: [TB1/516]. [2051] On 18 August 2020, D1 on Live Chat with Jimmy with Mr Perry Link as guest and Mark Clifford as co-host. [2052] See, e.g., Apple Daily’s report of D1’s interview with Albert Ho, posted online on 25.7.2019: [TB1/157 (161)]; and D1’s article “Despotic tyranny suppresses, Our spirit is immortal” (「專橫暴政打壓 我們氣魄不滅」)[2052], published on 26.4.2019: Print Form: [TB1/627 (630)]; Digital Form: [TB1/628]. [2053] See, e.g., T18 on 24.5.2020: [TB3(1)/864]; T155 on 11.6.2020: [TB3(1)/1639]; and T204: [TB3(1)/1928]. [2054] See, e.g., D1’s article for Wall Street Journal: [TB7A(1)/3495]; and D1’s article for The New York Times: [TB3(1)/1182 to 1198]. [2055] See, e.g., D1’s interview with Peter Robinson of Hoover Institution on 9.6.2020: [TB3(1)/1522 to 1529/168-195]; and D1’s interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox News on 26.5.2020: [TB3(1)/1006 to 1028]. [2056] [TB7A(1)/231/(824-74)/6951]. [2057] [TB7A(3)/10856/1609]. [2058] See, e.g., D1’s article: “Spread the wings Backbone of conscience is supporting)” (「飛翔吧 良知的脊梁在撐着」, published on 5 July 2020: [TB1/1086 (1088)] which called for continued resistance. [2059] [TB3(2)/3574 to 3576/23]. [2060] Chapter 27 and Chapter 28. [2061] Print Form: [TB1/995 (1000)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1016]. [2062] [TB1/1023 (1023-1)]. [2063] [TB1/1062 (1067)]. [2064] Quoted in Chapter 10. [2065] [TB1/1290 (1292)]. [2066] [TB1/1676 (1678)]. [2067] Quoted in Chapter 12. [2068] Quoted in Chapter 10. [2069] Print Form: [TB1/1245 (1247 to 1252)]; Digital Form: [TB1/1253 (1255)]; English News: [TB1/1260], quoted in Chapter 10. [2070] [TB1/1272 (1274)]. [2071] [TB3(2)/2568/7]. [2072] [TB3(2)/3584 to 3585/36]. [2073] [TB3(2)/3585/40]. [2074] [TB3(2)/3586 to 3587/42]. [2075] [TB7A(1)/1173/1553]. [2076] [TB3(3)/4513 to 4561]. [2077] [TB3(3)/4607-16 to 4607-74]. [2078] [TB3(3)/5588 to 5674]. [2079] [TB7A(1)/4273-12 to 4273-13]. [2080] [TB3(2)/2741/14 to 15]. [2081] Chapter 13. [2082] [TB7A(3)/10868/1778] [2083] T493: [TB3(2)/3395]. [2084] [TB7A(4)/14217]. [2085] [TB3(3)/6142 to 6143/14]. [2086] See Chapter G of prosecution’s closing submission, para 75. [2087] [TB7C/545 to 600 (601 to 660)]. [2088] [2018] EWHC 3055 (QB). [2089] Supra, §§ 21 & 58. [2090] [1965] 1 QB 233. [2091] Chapter 27 and Chapter 28. [2092] [TB7A(1)/2850/5586]. [2093] [TB7A(4)/16226/158]. [2094] [TB7A(4)/13814/747]. [2095] [TB7A(4)/16227/163]. [2096] Chapter 21. [2097] Print Form: [TB1/855 (860)]; Digital Form: [TB1/864]. [2098] Print Form: [TB1/1944 (1955)]; English News: [TB1/1975]. [2099] T722: [TB3(3)/5141]. [2100] [TB7A(1)/2789/5067] [2101] [TB7A(1)/2792/5099]. [2102] [TB7A(2)/4584 (6698)/4098]. [2103] [TB7A(4)/16226/158]. [2104] [TB7A(1)/3687 to 3688]. [2105] [TB7A(1)/2297/298 to 299]. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years; a person who commits an offence of a grave nature shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years.
indirectly receives instructions, control, funding or other kinds of support from a foreign country or an institution, organisation, or individual outside the mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao of the People’s Republic of China to commit the offences under Article 20 or 22 of this Law shall be liable to a more severe penalty in accordance with the provisions therein respectively.”Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCC 51/2022