Tomas Roberto: Why Jimmy Lai’s sentence demands more than Government handwringing

Tomas Roberto is UK Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy at The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation

Jimmy Lai’s 20-year prison sentence is not just a bogus legal judgment; it is a geopolitical message. Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-shuttered Apple Daily and a British citizen, has been punished to demonstrate that Beijing can jail a Briton, dismantle Hong Kong’s freedoms, and suffer no meaningful consequences. That message did not emerge in a vacuum. It was reinforced, if not invited, by our own government’s weakness, most notably the Prime Minister’s supine visit to Beijing, which signalled accommodation when confrontation was required.

Lai’s “crime” was insisting that Hong Kong’s people deserved the rights promised to them under the Sino-British Joint Declaration – rights now systematically dismantled. His sentence is not merely intended to silence him; it is designed to terrorise others into submission.

The government has condemned the verdict, as it should. But condemnation has become a substitute for action. Statements of “deep concern” and diplomatic protests ring hollow when they carry no consequences. If British citizenship is to mean anything, it must extend beyond rhetorical sympathy or raising cases “respectfully” in private. The Foreign Secretary has said she will now “rapidly engage further” on Lai’s case. The obvious question is: why was the government not already doing so?

Beijing did not hand down this sentence despite British diplomacy; it did so because of it.

The Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing, framed as “re-engagement” and “stability,” was read exactly as intended. Britain wants smooth relations more than accountability. Human rights were raised politely, behind closed doors, while trade, investment, and “dialogue” dominated the optics. Jimmy Lai’s name, if mentioned at all, was clearly not treated as a red line.

Authoritarian regimes are adept at interpreting weakness. Beijing saw a Britain eager to normalise relations, anxious to appear pragmatic, and unwilling to risk economic discomfort. The result was predictable. With diplomatic costs lowered, the Chinese state proceeded with maximum punishment. Lai’s sentence is, in part, the bill for Britain’s deference.

If Britain wishes to reverse course and retain any credibility, it must now act with force. Indeed, engagement must become conditional, not automatic.

First, the U.K. should impose immediate and sweeping Magnitsky sanctions on all officials involved in Lai’s prosecution, including judges, prosecutors, and senior Hong Kong and mainland officials. London’s financial system remains one of Britain’s most powerful tools; those who dismantle freedom should be barred from enjoying its protections.

Second, economic consequences must follow. Britain should suspend preferential financial treatment for Hong Kong, close Hong Kong’s Economic and Trade Office in London, and block further state-linked Chinese investment in strategic sectors. Access to British markets cannot remain unconditional while a British citizen is imprisoned on trumped-up charges.

Third, Britain must abandon the fantasy of “quiet diplomacy” and lead a coordinated international response. This means joint sanctions with the United States, EU, Canada, Australia, and Japan, alongside a concerted effort to isolate Hong Kong officials in international institutions, whilst also excluding President Xi Jinping from the G20 summit in the U.K in 2027. China responds to pressure when it is collective and costly. Engagement must become conditional, not automatic.

The sentencing of Jimmy Lai marks a decisive turning point.

It should end the illusion that the UK can compartmentalise the destruction of Hong Kong while pursuing “constructive” relations with China. Beijing has made clear that it views British protests as cost-free and British citizens as expendable.

Yet amid the geopolitics, the human cruelty of this sentence must not be forgotten. Jimmy Lai is not an abstraction. He is a father and a grandfather. His family has watched him age in prison, endure prolonged solitary confinement, be denied basic medical care to extent his finger nails are falling off, and face the real prospect of dying behind bars for refusing to renounce his beliefs.

Britain must find its spine again and carry out clear, punitive, and sustained action. Failure to do so forfeits its moral authority to speak about the rule of law and invites further contempt from authoritarian states and tinpot dictators the world over that have already concluded Britain can be ignored without consequence.

Jimmy Lai’s freedom will require resolve, not ritual outrage and a Britain willing to defend its values with more than meek words and carefully calibrated statements.