The trial of Jimmy Lai resumed on November 20, 2024, with Lai appearing in court to testify. Simultaneously, a "foreign fake legal team" has been actively disseminating propaganda abroad, seemingly aimed at undermining Hong Kong's judicial process.
Why Call Them a "Fake Legal Team"?
This purported international legal team is led by British barrister Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, who has collaborated with Lai's son, Sebastien Lai, for over two years. Gallagher claims to represent Jimmy Lai on the international stage and was scheduled to hold a press conference on Nov 20 at the National Press Club in Washington, where she was expected to once again disparage Hong Kong.
However, Lai's only legitimate legal representatives are from the Hong Kong-based law firm Robertsons. On January 13, 2023, Robertsons issued a statement clarifying that they are Lai’s sole legal team for all Hong Kong-related criminal cases and litigation. Lai has not authorized any other group to represent him in these matters, nor does he have any affiliation with an international legal team.
This situation presents two logical possibilities: either Lai and his legal team are being dishonest, and Gallagher’s group genuinely represents him while conducting political activities abroad to disrupt the trial; or Gallagher’s team operates independently, without Lai’s authorization or funding—hence the term "foreign fake legal team."
Based on available evidence, Robertsons' statement suggests that Gallagher’s team falsely claims to represent Lai. Gallagher, a human rights lawyer associated with Doughty Street Chambers, is known for her anti-China stance. Notably, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a senior figure at the firm and a Labour peer, has been sanctioned by China since 2021 due to her involvement in anti-China activities and her role as co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC).
Misleading International Narratives
For over two years, this "foreign fake legal team" has propagated unfounded allegations internationally, claiming Lai faces inhumane treatment in prison. Their objective is to pressure foreign governments to demand Lai’s immediate release without trial.
In January, at the start of Lai’s trial, the team submitted an urgent appeal to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, alleging that key witness Andy Li had been tortured while detained on the Mainland. These claims were later disproven in court. Similarly, in September, they alleged Lai was held in solitary confinement without proper medical care for his diabetes and was denied religious rites. On September 27, Robertsons refuted these claims, clarifying that Lai receives adequate medical treatment and has access to religious services although he did not make relevant requests. Despite these clarifications, false narratives continue to circulate internationally, distorting perceptions of Hong Kong's judicial system.
Potential Legal Violations in the UK
Gallagher and her associates' misrepresentation may constitute a breach of the UK Fraud Act 2006. Under Section 2, fraud by false representation includes dishonestly making false statements for personal gain or causing others to suffer loss. By falsely claiming to represent Lai and disseminating unverified accusations, they may have violated this law. The UK government should investigate these actions and hold those responsible accountable.
Additionally, according to the UK Barristers’ Code of Conduct, barristers must act with honesty and integrity and avoid behaviour that undermines public confidence in the profession. Gallagher’s actions—misrepresenting her role and spreading unfounded allegations—contravene these principles. The UK Bar Standards Board should investigate her conduct and, if violations are confirmed, consider revoking her license.
It is deeply concerning that a prominent legal jurisdiction like the UK allows such activities within its legal profession. Hong Kong reserves the right to pursue accountability for the damage caused to its judicial system by this "foreign fake legal team."
Wing-hung Lo
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The trial of the "35+" subversion case has concluded, with Hong Kong's judiciary sentencing 45 individuals. Among them, Benny Tai, the key architect of the plot, was given a 10-year prison term—a sentence that underscores the city's commitment to the rule of law and met public expectations.
Yet, international criticism, particularly from organizations like Human Rights Watch, sought to distort the case. The group misleadingly claimed, “Participating in and attempting to win elections is now a crime punishable by 10 years in Hong Kong.” Such comments, either calculated misinformation or reckless ignorance, trivialize the serious nature of the case. As a Cantonese adage reminds us, “One does not feel the pain until the needle pricks their own skin.” Tai’s agenda, if successfully implemented, would have plunged Hong Kong into chaos and destruction.
1. Subversion in Plain Sight
Benny Tai’s "10-step Lan Chao (all burn) plan" openly called for actions to destabilize Hong Kong. This plan sought to paralyze governance by orchestrating the indiscriminate vetoing of the annual government budget by opposition lawmakers, forcing the Chief Executive to resign, and prompting Beijing to declare a state of emergency. Tai envisioned violent street clashes, crackdowns, and Western sanctions against China—all designed to push Hong Kong into turmoil and ultimately topple the government.
Instead of averting potential bloodshed, Tai aimed to provoke it, revealing his calculated strategy to undermine the region’s stability. To ensure the participation of all opposition lawmakers, Tai organized an illegal primary election coupled with the infamous “no regrets” pledge, coercing candidates into committing to vetoing the government budget. This pressure tactic forced even moderate opposition figures into an irreversible course of illegality.
To reduce this conspiracy to mere "participation in and attempting to win elections," as Human Rights Watch did, is profoundly misleading. Imagine a similar "10-step plan" after Trump has resumed his presidency, aimed at shutting down the federal government, instigating violent uprisings and bloody repression, and forcing the removal of the president. Such actions would undoubtedly lead to arrests and prosecutions.
2. The Fallacy of "Achieving Justice Through Breaking the Law"
Tai’s political ideology centres on "achieving justice through breaking the law." From leading the 2014 Occupy Central movement to supporting the violent riot of 2019 and devising the "10-step Lan Chao plan" in 2020, Tai consistently weaponized this concept to undermine government authority.
Western media, such as Deutsche Welle, portrayed Tai as a "legal scholar" handed a harsh sentence. But can a true legal scholar promote illegal actions? Can they serve as the mastermind behind movements designed to destabilize society?
Tai’s interpretation of the rule of law included four principles: (1) laws must exist, (2) laws must be obeyed, (3) laws should limit power, and (4) laws can achieve justice—even if violated. By elevating this fourth principle to the highest ideal, Tai propagated a dangerous fallacy. He misled students and educators, and was even invited to government’s civic education events as an instructor.
Warnings against Tai’s ideology emerged as early as 2017, cautioning that his distorted philosophy undermined the rule of law and misled teachers and students. While these warnings were dismissed at the time, Tai’s actions have since brought Hong Kong to the brink, necessitating a return to order. His conviction vividly illustrates the consequences of his misguided beliefs.
3. Shifting Blame and Avoiding Responsibility
In the "35+" case, the court noted that most defendants pleaded ignorance of the law as a mitigating factor. However, Tai and Civic Party leader Alvin Yeung, both possessing legal expertise, were fully aware of the implications of their actions. Tai’s decision to plead guilty further demonstrated his awareness of the illegality of his scheme, as he sought to reduce his sentence by leveraging a one-third reduction for early admission.
Tai’s defense arguments during sentencing bordered on absurdity. First, he claimed the plan was unfeasible, suggesting it was a mere political stunt. If true, this would amount to deliberate deception. More likely, Tai genuinely believed in the plan’s success until its failure. Second, he downplayed his role, asserting he was merely a minor participant warranting a lighter sentence. This disingenuous claim ignored his position as the plot’s architect and insulted the court’s intelligence.
Western Narratives and Lessons for Hong Kong
Western media and human rights organizations have painted Tai and his co-defendants as martyrs for democracy, framing the case as an attack on electoral participation. Such narratives aim to embolden like-minded activists to continue subversive activities against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and the central government.
This case should serve as a cautionary tale. The West’s support for Ukraine against Russia, for example, has come at great cost to the Ukrainian people, turning the country into a land of rubbles. With Donald Trump returning to power, the dire future of Ukraine is all but expected. Hong Kong must avoid becoming another pawn in these kind of geopolitical struggles.
Wing-hung Lo
