Former media tycoon and Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s scheduled 80-day trial in Hong Kong’s High Court before three judges began in late December and is still underway. Lai faces a range of charges, including sedition and collusion charges under the National Security Law for Hong Kong. Three Apple Daily-related companies face similar charges.

A distinctive feature of the trial to date is that evidence for the prosecution has chiefly been provided by accomplice witnesses (who have pleaded guilty to relevant charges). Prosecution witnesses within the Apple Daily group include former publisher Cheung Kim-hung, former associate publisher Chan Pui-man, and former editorial writer Yeung Ching-kee.

Of course, the panel of three judges hearing the trial will decide Lai’s innocence or guilt on all charges. In the meantime, the evidence disclosed at the trial presents a distinct prima facie narrative covering how the Apple Daily group developed and applied its editorial policy, especially in 2019 and 2020, as the protests against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s new extradition bill spun off into rapidly increasing, highly destructive social unrest extending over many months.

But why is there such a collective aversion across the Western mainstream media to regularly reporting the actual trial testimony? The best explanation is that this tangible trial evidence is a poor fit within the pre-shaped Western mainstream media narrative about Lai being a valiant journalist-crusader for Western-specified, wholesale political reform in Hong Kong

The lengthy testimony of these primary prosecution witnesses has been challenged under cross-examination. However, the evidence on balance still tells us how Lai personally directed the setting of much of Apple Daily’s editorial policy and its week-to-week application. That this may have been the case is hardly surprising. Lai, a long-term, successful and decisive businessman, had established himself, over many years, as the charismatic, pivotal leader of the entire Apple Daily endeavor.

Given the extensive, intriguing nature of this publicly recorded evidence combined with the high level of expressed interest in this major trial, for over a year, across the Western mainstream media one might have expected to see serious coverage of what was said at trial in those media outlets. Yet, such Western media reporting is difficult to locate. There is a collective averting of the gaze from the actual evidence given in court.

Trial coverage in the Western mainstream media has still been emphatic, but it has almost always focused on matters outside of the trial proceedings. For example, there has been heavy coverage of a public letter from four former US consuls general in Hong Kong expressing “dismay” about the trial and demanding that “Jimmy Lai should be set free”. Lai is described in this letter as “one of Hong Kong’s leading journalists”. Lai was the paramount commander of the complete Apple Daily enterprise, and he is aptly, more commonly, referred to as a media owner or media mogul. We can be confident that this diplomatic foursome would not readily describe Rupert Murdoch as “one of the United States’ leading journalists”. But the US is exceptional, while Hong Kong is different in ways not approved of in Washington.

But why is there such a collective aversion across the Western mainstream media to regularly reporting the actual trial testimony? The best explanation is that this tangible trial evidence is a poor fit within the pre-shaped Western mainstream media narrative about Lai being a valiant journalist-crusader for Western-specified, wholesale political reform in Hong Kong. Solution: Ignore or lowball awkward evidence — but intensify the preferred, broad narrative. And always remember to demand the release of Lai — never mind any basic rule of law impediments.

Finally, one other significant recent legal development is worthy of reflection.

The HKSAR government released a consultation paper in late January on the introduction of new national security laws in accordance with its obligations spelled out in Article 23 of the Basic Law. Public submissions in response to the consultation paper were accepted until late February. The proposed Article 23 legislation has now been submitted to the Legislative Council for deliberation.

When we consider how the long-foreshadowed introduction of these new provisions under the Article 23 legislation is proceeding, it turns out that the trial of Lai has become a part of the proximate context within which this is happening. On the face of it, the evidential narrative emerging from that trial, outlined above, credibly strengthens the case in support of this fundamental legislative project.

The author is an adjunct professor in the Faculty of Law, Hong Kong University. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.