Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Advertisement
Advertisement
Jimmy Lai trial
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
Jimmy Lai’s defence team has requested to re-open it cross-examination of a key prosecution witness. Photo: AP

Lawyers representing Hong Kong’s Jimmy Lai grilled over failing to question key witness about Slack chat records

  • Jimmy Lai’s defence seeking to question ex-publisher Cheung Kim-hung about internal chat records on Slack, which included abstracts of various ‘lunchbox meetings’ among Apple Daily executives
  • ‘Your client is the one who had the Slack records. It’s mind-boggling to think you do not know about [the] Slack records,’ judge says
Brian Wong
Judges hearing Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s trial have grilled the Hong Kong media mogul’s lawyers for failing to question a key prosecution witness about contentious workplace messages during earlier proceedings.

Lai’s legal team on Tuesday appeared unable to convince the three justices sitting at West Kowloon Court to allow them to reopen their cross-examination of former Apple Daily publisher Cheung Kim-hung.

The defence is seeking to question Cheung about the now-defunct tabloid’s internal messaging records on workplace communication app Slack.

Those records included the abstracts of various “lunchbox meetings” among Apple Daily executives. Lai allegedly delivered his instructions to senior editorial staff during those meetings, including ones directing his newspaper to drum up support for the 2019 anti-government protests.

Defence Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung maintained the existence of such records only came to their knowledge during Cheung’s oral testimony in court.

Defence lawyers say they only knew the Slack chat records existed during ex-publisher Cheung Kim-hung’s oral testimony. Photo: Dickson Lee

“If we do not put this matter to the witness, then that will substantially prejudice my client,” Pang said.

The bench appeared visibly displeased by that submission, with Madam Justice Susana D’Almada Remedios saying Lai’s legal team could not “shift the blame onto the prosecution” who had no knowledge of the Slack conversations before the trial.

“Your client is the one who had the Slack records. It’s mind-boggling to think you do not know about [the] Slack records,” she said.

Madam Justice Esther Toh Lye-ping said the defence lacked justification for not making any attempt to locate the text records earlier especially when Lai apparently knew of their existence.

“The interest of justice is interest for the defence and interest for the prosecution acting upon the community. It’s not just one way, it’s a level-playing field,” she added.

Mr Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang also noted that some of the Slack chat groups were opened by Lai, indicating his knowledge of the matter.

The bench is expected to rule on the defence request when the trial resumes on Thursday.

Post