The recent ruling by a Hong Kong court rejecting former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s request for a jury trial in his libel case against Ta Kung Pao invites a deeper analysis of Lai’s legal strategy. At first glance, the case — centered on a 2020 article suggesting that Lai was planning to abscond from Hong Kong — may seem trivial compared to the much more severe charges he currently faces. However, Lai’s legal team’s strategic maneuvering, embroiled in defending him against multiple criminal allegations, including national security offenses and sedition, adds a layer of complexity to the whole plot. So why, at this critical juncture, did Lai and his team focus on a seemingly minor libel case, and what might this reveal about their broader intentions?
Considering this request’s timing and the nature of the legal issue is crucial. Lai’s libel case, which alleges that Ta Kung Pao maliciously suggested he was planning to flee Hong Kong, was initiated in 2020, well after his legal troubles began escalating. The request for a jury trial in such a trivial case has raised questions about the strategic motives behind this move. The rejection by the court, which found that the case required a detailed examination of documents, suggests that Lai’s legal team may have been attempting to turn this case into a public spectacle when Lai’s reputation in both local and international circles is being scrutinized.
The decision to push for a jury trial in this libel case appears to be a calculated legal tactic rather than a genuine attempt to resolve a legal grievance. After all, Lai is currently facing much graver charges that could result in lengthy imprisonment. In contrast, even if won, a libel case would likely result in financial compensation or a retraction — outcomes that pale into insignificance compared to the severity of his other legal battles. Therefore, it seems plausible that Lai and his legal team are using this case as a diversionary tactic, aiming to shift public attention away from the more damning charges he faces. By focusing on a libel case, they may be trying to frame Lai as a victim of media defamation, seeking to garner local and international sympathy.
READ MORE: Court of Final Appeal judges exemplify judicial excellence
Moreover, the nature of the libel accusation — that Lai was planning to flee Hong Kong — is telling. Given his history of ties to foreign governments and his active role in the 2019-20 black-clad riots, the accusation aligns with a broader narrative that casts Lai as someone willing to evade responsibility for his actions. His legal team’s insistence that this was a defamatory claim deserving of a jury trial seems disingenuous, considering the overwhelming evidence of Lai’s involvement in activities that have undermined the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s stability. In this context, the push for a jury trial could be seen as an attempt to manipulate public opinion, exploiting the emotional appeal of being wrongfully accused of planning to escape.
This brings us to the possibility of a more calculated conspiracy by Lai and his legal team. With multiple high-stakes trials looming, they may have thought it possible to use this libel case to build a broader defense strategy to discredit any accusations. By winning a jury trial in the libel case, Lai could attempt to create a precedent that casts doubt on the credibility of other charges he faces. If he were to prove that Ta Kung Pao defamed him by falsely suggesting he intended to flee, this could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the more serious criminal charges, positioning him as a target of media and legal persecution. The potential impact on public opinion is significant, as it could sway perceptions of Lai’s innocence or guilt.
Furthermore, the decision to push for a jury trial may also have been an effort to sway public opinion at a critical moment in his defense. Unlike a judge, a jury may be more susceptible to emotional appeals and less equipped to deal with the intricacies of legal arguments. By opting for a jury, Lai’s legal team might have hoped to introduce a populist element into the proceedings, allowing them to play on the notion of Lai as a political figure rather than a criminal suspect. This could have allowed them to frame Lai’s own offenses as free speech or political dissent rather than a straightforward legal matter, potentially influencing public opinion in Lai’s favor.
In the broader context of Lai’s legal troubles, this libel case can be seen as part of a larger strategy to soften the blow of his own more serious charges. By focusing public and media attention on a more emotionally charged but legally less significant issue, Lai’s legal team may be attempting to divert attention from his national security and sedition cases, which pose a far greater threat to his freedom. In this way, the libel case becomes a vehicle for Lai to reshape the narrative surrounding his legal battles, portraying himself as a victim of unjust persecution rather than a man facing legitimate legal consequences for allegedly breaking the law.
READ MORE: Jimmy Lai told Apple Daily editors to seek foreign support
It is also worth considering the implications of this strategy, considering Lai’s broader political agenda. Another purpose of dragging out the libel case could be to allow Lai to continue rallying international support, particularly from Western governments and organizations, which have consistently criticized his prosecutions.
The timing of this move, just as his own more severe trials are approaching, suggests a deliberate effort to sell his “political figure” identity.
In a nutshell, Lai’s request for a jury trial in his libel case against Ta Kung Pao appears to be far more than a simple legal maneuver. Instead, it seems part of a broader strategy to manipulate public perception, cast doubt on the credibility of the accusations against him, and undermine the credibility and legitimacy of Hong Kong’s legal system.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
