Pang argued that the prosecution had passed the time limit for charging Lai, as the colonial-era sedition law stated that charges must be laid within six months of the alleged offence, which involved suspected seditious publications spanning from April 1, 2019, to June 24, 2021.
Pang said the media tycoon was only brought before the court for the first time on December 28, 2021. He added that the prosecution was four days behind the “time bar”, citing the permitted prosecution period outlined in Section 159D of the Crimes Ordinance.
He also pointed to Section 11 of the ordinance, which states: “no prosecution for [sedition offences] shall be begun except within 6 months after the offence is committed”.
The media mogul also allegedly violated the national security law, with two conspiracy charges relating to collusion with foreign forces for allegedly calling for international sanctions against authorities and inciting public hatred in the wake of anti-government protests in 2019.
04:03
Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai’s high-stakes national security trial gets under way
Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai’s high-stakes national security trial gets under way
“The question of the time bar [underpins] the jurisdiction of this court to try the case”, Pang said. “Our submission is on a more fundamental level. [The prosecution] is out of time, therefore there’s no jurisdiction for the court.”
Mr Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang, who presided over the case alongside Madam Justices Esther Toh Lye-ping and Susana D’Almada Remedios, said Pang had made an “interesting point” when he suggested the court should consider the start of the time bar at around April 1, 2019 – when the suspected conspiracy is alleged to have begun.
But Lee expressed reservations over whether the defence’s interpretation was viable in cases that involved a series of alleged offences said to have been committed over a long time span.
Stage set for Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai’s national security trial
Stage set for Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai’s national security trial
Lee said Pang’s point would stand if the charge covered separate agreements among defendants that constituted conspiracy and took place at different stages, but the current allegation against Lai pertained to a one-off incident in which several defendants took part at various points in time.
“[Pang’s interpretation] will emasculate the prosecution’s case in the sense that later acts cannot be charged,” the judge said. “Does that seem fair?”
Lee also challenged Pang on counting the first appearance of Lai as the start of the proceedings, because it would mean any defendants who committed further offences outside Hong Kong would not be prosecutable.
Toh also disagreed with Pang’s line of reasoning and said that Lai’s case involved a series of similar offences from the moment the alleged conspiracy agreement was raised.
Jimmy Lai trial: timeline of Hong Kong media mogul’s arrests and court appearances
Jimmy Lai trial: timeline of Hong Kong media mogul’s arrests and court appearances
But the defence argued that the six-month time limit was to avoid the prosecution dragging the prosecutable period on for as long as it needed to accumulate other indictable acts.
Pang also defined proceedings as only being instituted after information had been laid out in front of the defendant, which he argued was Lai’s first appearance in court to face the charge on December 28, 2021.
The court will resume on Tuesday when the prosecution’s reply and further arguments from Pang will be heard, before the panel makes its ruling on the sedition charge.
