Who is Jimmy Lai? 'Prisoner of conscience' who has endured 1,600 days behind bars
The 77-year-old was arrested over his role in pro-democracy protests in 2019 and has since been charged with various offences, including collusion with foreign forces, as well as sedition under colonial-era laws.
His trial for alleged national security offences has faced lengthy delays, but is due to restart in Hong Kong on Thursday.
Here is everything you need to know about the "world's most famous prisoner of conscience" and his trial, as it draws ever closer to a long-awaited conclusion.
Who is Jimmy Lai?
Lai was born in mainland China but fled to Hong Kong at the age of 12, after stowing away on a fishing boat. Here, he began working as a child labourer in a garment factory.
He went on to build a fortune with the fashion empire Giordano and, after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when thousands of people protested for political reforms in Beijing, he became a democracy advocate and turned his hand to newspapers.
Ahead of the 1997 handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China, he started the Chinese-language newspaper Apple Daily in an attempt to maintain freedom of speech.
The paper was staunchly pro-democratic and did not shy away from criticising authorities in Beijing.
Around the same time, in 1994, he became a full British citizen. He has never held a Chinese or Hong Kong passport, but is seen as a Chinese citizen by Hong Kong authorities.
Why is he in jail?
It was his pro-democratic beliefs that led to Lai becoming a key figure in the 2019 protests in Hong Kong, spurred by Beijing's tightening squeeze on wide-ranging freedoms. Lai's Apple Daily newspaper backed the protesters, criticising the government reforms.
Lai and his sons were arrested in August 2020 after police raided the offices of the Apple Daily publisher, Next Digital. He was granted bail, but this was overturned in December of the same year, when Lai was charged with fraud.
He was charged under the very national security laws, put in place in 2020, that he had protested.
The charges include collusion with foreign forces, as well as conspiracy to print and distribute seditious publications.
Lai has been in solitary confinement for most of his imprisonment. During this time, he has lost a significant amount of weight and his son, Sebastien Lai, has consistently raised concerns for his father's declining health.
His legal team has claimed he has been denied independent medical care for diabetes, is only allowed out of his cell for 50 minutes a day and, as a devout Catholic, has been denied the Eucharist.
However, this week the South China Morning Post has reported a Hong Kong government spokesman saying that Lai had received appropriate treatment and welfare in prison.
What has happened during his trial so far?
After years of delay, Lai's national security trial started in December 2023.
Prosecutors allege that Lai conspired with senior executives at Apple Daily to publish 161 seditious articles intended to incite hatred toward the central or Hong Kong governments.
They labelled him a "radical political figure" and accused him of asking the US and other foreign countries to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and mainland China.
The charges he faces under the territory's national security law could see him handed a life sentence.
But Lai has always denied the charges against him.
Nearly a year after the trial started, in November 2024, Lai took to the stand to testify. During his 52 days on the stand he faced questions about his editorial control over Apple Daily, links to activists in Hong Kong, the UK and US - and about alleged meetings with US politicians.
Closing arguments in the trial were due to start on 28 July, but were delayed until 14 August. The next hearing is due to last around eight days.
How is the British government involved?
As he is a British citizen, the UK government expressed concern when Lai was first charged under the national security law in 2020.
Subsequent British governments, including the current Labour one, have said Lai's imprisonment is a breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration - the 1984 agreement which set out the conditions of the transfer of Hong Kong from the UK to China.
Three months after winning the general election, Sir Keir Starmer said securing Lai's release was a "priority" for his government and said his government would "continue" to raise the case with China.
Most recently, during a January trip to China, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she raised the question over Lai's imprisonment with every minister she met. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said he has also pressed Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi on Lai's detention during previous visits.
In March, Lai's son, Sebastien, delivered a letter to 10 Downing Street asking for a meeting with Sir Keir to get his father released immediately.
He said he was worried his father might die in prison and the case is a "litmus test" for the government to see if it will stand up to China for a British citizen who is in jail "for peaceful campaigning and journalism".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump explains how the world will know if his meeting with Putin has failed
The US President will host the Russian dictator in Alaska tomorrow for talks on ending the war in Ukraine - but he says there is a 25% chance that the summit will fail Donald Trump has revealed how the world will know whether his meeting with Vladimir Putin has been a failure. The US President will host the Russian dictator in Alaska tomorrow for talks on ending the war in Ukraine. But he told Fox News Radio today there was a 25% chance that the summit would be a failure. "If it's a bad meeting, I'm not calling anybody. I'm going home," he told host Brian Kilmeade. "But if it's a good meeting, I'm going to call President Zelensky and the European leaders." It comes after Keir Starmer gave Volodymyr Zelensky a special greeting in the UK. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to confirm there would be a joint press conference at the end of the summit. But Trump wasn't so sure. "I'm going to have a press conference. I don't know if it's going to be a joint. We haven't even discussed it. I think it might be nice to have a joint, and then separates." And he said that if the first meeting is a success, a second would follow to include Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelensky - and potentially very soon. He said he would immediately call Zelensky if the meeting goes well, to "get him over to wherever we are going to meet." "We have an idea of three different locations," he said, adding "including the possibility, because it would be by far the easiest, of staying in Alaska." He added: "There is a 25% chance that this meeting will not be a successful meeting, in which case I will [return to] run the country and we have made America great again already in six months." Earlier, Putin praised Trump's efforts to secure an end to the conflict, saying his administration was making "quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities" and to "reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved." Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! Keir Starmer welcomed Mr Zelensky to No10 Downing Street today in a show of British support for Ukraine a day before the critical Trump-Putin meeting. The two embraced warmly outside Starmer's offices at 10 Downing Street without making any comments, and Zelensky departed about an hour later.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
As thousands more teenagers scramble for university places, I have to ask – why?
A Chinese economist once asked me to explain British universities. 'Why do you take your young,' he said, 'at their most creative age, lock them in a monastery for three years and make them drunk?' Each August I recall this question when hundreds of thousands of British teenagers scramble to enter university. They must perform utterly archaic feats of memory in their exams and then embark on an academic experience that has almost nothing to do with real life. Their reward may be a higher income, but perhaps not higher than their innate ability would have gained them anyway. England's present university system is in a terrible mess, chronically in need of a royal commission. Between 1997 and 2010, university student numbers increased by 68%. Then, under the coalition government, universities were offered £9,000 a year for each of an unlimited number of students. It was an open invitation to lower standards and increase overcrowding. Some cities found themselves with two if not three universities, with multiple campuses, student residences and overheads to match. The waste was ludicrous. Their vice-chancellors received crazy sums. The average for the Russell group is now £400,000. The government supposedly recouped the cost of all this by treating fees and maintenance grants as borrowed. This allowed university extravagance to appear not as public spending but as debt, on the thesis that the students would repay it with interest one day. Until recently no more than a quarter of graduates were expected to fully repay their loans – small wonder, as they averaged £50,000 a head. The accumulated student debt is enormous. It has reached more than £250bn and is said to be heading for £500bn by the late 2040s. Quite why higher education should be so privileged as not to count as current spending has never been clear. As with HS2, the Treasury likes to treat certain sorts of posh spending as 'investment' rather than hard cash. The reliance on fees from overseas students – now covering nearly a quarter of university income – caused the present crisis. As this income has fallen, in part through recent immigration and visa changes, 40% of England's universities are set to be in financial deficit. Jobs and courses are being cut back. Meanwhile, every bit of news out of the university sector seems grim. Employers are disregarding not just classes of degree, but degrees at all. It is 10 years since the large accountancy firm EY started disregarding A-levels and degree classes in recruitment, while PwC said it would rely on aptitude and behaviour tests. I know of no job that ever depends on a class of degree. The Office for National Statistics records that more than a quarter of graduates in England are now in medium- or low-skilled jobs. Another survey shows the graduate 'premium' is plummeting. This is not just a British issue. Across the US and the EU, graduate unemployment is almost on a par with non-graduate. Students seem miserable. The two-thirds who leave home to go to college report soaring mental illness, with 90% suffering from loneliness. The Boston Consulting Group last year found ex-students the fastest group of young people going straight into long-term sickness. The solution is glaring: cut back. The thesis that university courses requirea minimum of three years, each with barely six months of teaching, is absurd. For most courses, two years should be enough, as the former universities minister, Jo Johnson, has proposed. The number of institutions claiming fully-fledged university status should be slashed. The practice of almost every city hosting two universities – or 40 in London – should end in a mass of mergers. There should be a return to vocational colleges, with an emphasis on contact with local employment. This was proposed by James Dyson in setting up just such a college in Wiltshire, the Dyson Institute, in 2017. Another, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in Herefordshire, was started by the Tory MP Jesse Norman. It is simply absurd that a large number of graduates should be doing work supposedly not requiring a degree, and yet the welfare state is chronically short of trained medical and care staff. This is a serious failure of education planning. Higher education should be free at the point of use; not, as now, free only to those whose parents can pay their fees upfront. But those completing a university course should repay the privilege with a modestly higher rate of tax throughout their working life. Loans should cover only maintenance. Of course university is not just a preparation for work, even if for 18-year-olds that is the primary issue at hand. A university is more than a start in life. It is also an experience of liberal education that goes far beyond the young who are its current beneficiaries. A true university should promote breadth of thought and freedom of speech to old as well as young. It should not turn in on itself as its resources shrink. It should make its courses and work accessible to people beyond its walls and across the community. Universities are costing us dear. We should not feel they are wasted on the young. Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The hypocrisy of Tulip Siddiq
The corruption trial of Tulip Siddiq formally commenced in Bangladesh on Wednesday. Among other allegations linked to £3.9 billion worth of embezzlement, the Bangladeshi-origin Labour MP has been accused by the Anti-Corruption Commission of securing luxury property for her family in Dhaka, using her relationship with the country's former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted and fled the country last August following mass protests against her rule. Prior to her election as the Labour MP for Hampstead in 2015, Siddiq, the granddaughter of Bangladesh's founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, had been a spokesperson of her aunt Hasina's Awami League in the UK even joining the former Bangladeshi prime minister on a trip to sign an arms deal with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Even so, Siddiq has maintained that her family links, which are now the focus of the corruption allegations that she denies, have actually 'caused problems' for her, not least because the Bengali diaspora keeps asking for favours. She has claimed that having heritage rooted in Bangladesh, which she now describes as a 'foreign country', has been a challenge, given the 'racist' attitudes around her. Siddiq has frequently spoken about the rise of populism and financial inequality in the West, while her family has been subjugating the masses and overseeing the concentration of capital among the richest in Bangladesh. Regardless of whether the corruption trial in Dhaka is well-founded, or politically motivated as she insists, Siddiq's case illustrates the hypocrisy of the South Asian elite that come from privileged backgrounds but prefer to lecture on the inequalities in the West. The families of the feudal leaders of all three major Pakistani political parties, for instance, have been raised or educated in the same West that they avow hostility against. Imran Khan's British sons are currently campaigning for his release in the same US that their imprisoned father has long accused of plotting against him and his country. Oxford-educated chairman of Pakistan's historically left People's Party, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, talks about 'Islamophobia' in the West, but has never spoken out against the spate of forced conversions of under-aged Hindu girls under his party's rule in Sindh province. Bilawal's cousin, the academic and author Fatima Bhutto, who studied and spends much of her time in the 'racist' West that she accuses of being responsible for the genocide and apartheid in Gaza, rarely has much to say about the Ahmadis or Baloch whose persecution her grandfather, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, laid the foundation of. Like the Pakistani left, the Indian left too is dominated by the elite that prefer to focus on the ailments of the West. London-born Shashi Tharoor, a member of the traditionally left Indian National Congress, who has written and spoken extensively on the evils of British colonialism, even arguing that the UK owes India reparations, has recently been leading delegations defending the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party's security policy in the region which ascertains India's stranglehold over Kashmir. Tharoor describes the ongoing US tariff negotiations as being akin to 'colonialism', and continues to find time to denounce the British Raj while being officially tasked with defending India's hegemonic geopolitical strategy, which includes dictation and intervention even in South Asian states beyond Pakistan. These self-proclaimed left-leaning convictions of the South Asian elite are not only duplicitous but more often than not unravel as soon as there is any personal cost to be paid, as evidenced by just how quickly Tulip Siddiq abandoned the Bangladeshi origin that had for a long time used earned her points inside the Labour party. Similarly, Siddiq's fellow Labour MP, Rushanara Ali, the first British Bangladeshi elected to parliament, vociferously deploys 'pro-Palestine' rhetoric, but abstained from the Gaza ceasefire vote in 2023 in line with the party whip. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Jr speaks of the racism he faced in British schools, and undertakes queer activism in the West, but doesn't mention Islamisation, and the correlated queerphobia, initiated by his grandfather whom he is named after, owing to his political ambitions in Pakistan. The disappearing pronouns from the bios of many amid the reversal of gender ideology in Western policymaking, and the lowered decibels in 'pro-Palestine' activism at US campuses during the ongoing crackdown, underlines how the South Asian-origin left in the West is devoid of actual conviction. Indeed, much of the South Asian left's narrative-building is a parroting of the western left, which entails trashing their own states and its majority community, while rigidly embracing their minority identities that might check the diversity eye test. Zohran Mamdani's success in winning the Democratic nomination for this year's New York City mayor election, founded on a scathing critique of everyone but the community he most identified with, is illustrative of the support the left offers to members of the minority community that can showcase the least introspection. Perhaps the case that best highlights the absolute abandonment of self-reflection on the left is Rushanara Ali evicting her tenant while serving as the homelessness minister. She had to resign from the post last week. If the left is to survive its ongoing global crisis, it needs to start backing candidates that go beyond mimicking the so-called postcolonial discourse that focuses solely on the West, and exhibit a willingness to offer similar scrutiny for the minorities they identify with, as they would with the majority. This is especially true for those hailing from South Asia, where religious majoritarianism is on the rise, and where the advent of colonialism long preceded the Brits.
