Hong Kong Court Convicts Dow Jones in Selina Cheng Union Case

A Hong Kong court has convicted Dow Jones Publishing Co (Asia) Inc, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, for deterring journalist Selina Cheng from taking up a Trade union position, while clearing the company of a separate allegation that it dismissed her because of that union role.

The ruling, delivered on Thursday, September 10, marks a significant development in a case that has drawn attention to both labour rights and press freedom in Hong Kong. Cheng, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, had brought the private prosecution after losing her job in 2024.

The court’s split verdict is particularly important. It establishes that the prosecution succeeded in proving the first alleged violation of Hong Kong’s Employment Ordinance, but found that the evidence did not meet the required threshold for the separate dismissal charge.

Sentencing for the conviction is expected at a later date.

What did the Hong Kong court decide?

Principal Magistrate David Cheung convicted Dow Jones on the charge that the company prevented or deterred Cheng from exercising her rights to participate in trade-union activities.

However, he acquitted the company on the allegation that Cheng was terminated because she exercised those rights, finding that the defence had raised sufficient reasonable doubt on that second charge.

The prosecution had brought two charges under Hong Kong’s Employment Ordinance. Each carries a maximum fine of HK$100,000, or roughly US$12,750.

The first charge concerned interference with Cheng’s union participation. The second alleged that the company subsequently terminated her employment because of that participation.

The different outcomes show why the two allegations had to be considered separately. The court was satisfied that the evidence established unlawful deterrence, but it was not satisfied to the criminal standard that Cheng’s dismissal was caused by her union activities.

Why did Selina Cheng bring the case?

The case began after Cheng became involved in the leadership of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), the city’s main journalists’ union.

Cheng was elected chairperson of the association in June 2024. She subsequently lost her position at The Wall Street Journal publisher in July 2024.

Cheng alleged that her employer had objected to her participation in the union election and had ultimately removed her from her position because of her union activities.

Rather than relying only on an internal employment dispute, Cheng pursued a private criminal prosecution under Hong Kong’s labour law.

The resulting case became closely watched because it involved a journalist taking on a union leadership role at a time when Hong Kong’s media Environment had already undergone significant changes following the introduction of the National Security law in 2020.

What did Cheng say happened before her dismissal?

During the proceedings, Cheng said her supervisor had told her that her decision to participate in the union election was “problematic”.

She said the supervisor indicated that the matter needed to be discussed with senior management in New York and Dow Jones’ in-house lawyers.

Cheng also told the court that she was informed that taking up the union role would be incompatible with her employment.

Those conversations became central to the first charge because the prosecution argued that they amounted to discouraging Cheng from exercising a legally protected trade-union right.

The court ultimately agreed that the first charge had been established.

Dow Jones denied the allegations

Dow Jones pleaded not guilty to both charges and disputed Cheng’s interpretation of the events surrounding her departure.

The defence argued that Cheng was dismissed because of redundancy and internal restructuring, rather than because she had taken on a union position.

Lawyers for the company also argued that the prosecution had not sufficiently demonstrated that senior Dow Jones management had instructed Cheng’s supervisor to prevent her from participating in the HKJA election.

The defence challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of the conversations and argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish the company’s criminal liability.

While those arguments did not succeed on the first charge, they were sufficient, in the court’s view, to create reasonable doubt regarding the allegation that Cheng was dismissed because of her union activities.

The difference between the two charges is crucial

The split verdict makes more sense when the two allegations are separated.

This means the judgment does not establish that Cheng was unlawfully dismissed because of her union role. Instead, it establishes that the company unlawfully deterred her from exercising her union participation rights.

That distinction is legally important and could shape any future employment or civil proceedings arising from the dispute.

What employment law protects in Hong Kong

Hong Kong’s Employment Ordinance provides protections for employees who exercise certain trade-union rights.

The law restricts employers from preventing or deterring workers from exercising those rights and also prohibits certain forms of discrimination or dismissal based on trade-union participation.

The principle is consistent with a wider international labour-rights concept: workers should be able to join or participate in trade unions without being threatened with adverse employment consequences simply because they exercise those rights.

The Cheng judgment is therefore significant beyond journalism because it concerns the application of those protections to a major international employer operating in Hong Kong.

Why the case matters for journalists

Although the judgment is formally about employment law, it has attracted considerable attention from media organizations and press-freedom groups because Cheng is a journalist and the chairperson of the HKJA.

The association represents journalists and has historically played a visible role in defending professional standards, labour conditions and press freedoms in Hong Kong.

Any dispute involving the association’s leadership therefore has implications beyond an individual employment relationship.

The International Federation of Journalists had expressed concern ahead of the verdict, describing Cheng’s case as one involving the rights of association and the ability of journalists to participate in union activities.

The case has also raised questions about whether journalists working for international media organizations in Hong Kong can safely participate in professional associations without their employment being affected.

Hong Kong’s media environment has changed sharply

The Cheng case comes against a much wider transformation of Hong Kong’s media environment.

Beijing introduced the National Security Law in 2020, criminalizing a range of conduct under offences including secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

The law has been followed by a substantial restructuring of Hong Kong’s political and media landscape.

Two prominent local outlets known for critical coverage of the Hong Kong government, apple Daily and Stand News, shut down after their senior personnel faced prosecution or arrest.

The changes have generated sustained concern among international press-freedom organizations, which argue that the environment for independent journalism has become considerably more restrictive.

Hong Kong authorities, meanwhile, have maintained that national security legislation is necessary to protect sovereignty and stability and that lawful journalistic activity remains permitted.

Apple Daily’s closure remains a defining moment

The shutdown of Apple Daily became one of the clearest symbols of the changing media environment.

The newspaper, founded by businessman Jimmy Lai, was known for highly critical coverage of the Hong Kong and Chinese governments. Its operations ended in 2021 after police raids, arrests of senior personnel and the freezing of assets connected with the company.

Lai was later convicted in a national-security case and sentenced to 20 years in prison in February 2026.

Former Apple Daily executives and journalists have also received lengthy prison sentences in cases involving national-security offences.

The cases have contributed to concerns among international press groups that Hong Kong’s once-open media environment has become substantially more restrictive.

That backdrop inevitably influences how Cheng’s employment dispute is viewed, even though her case is based on labour law rather than the National Security Law.

Hong Kong’s press-freedom ranking has fallen dramatically

Hong Kong’s position in international press-freedom rankings has also changed substantially over the past two decades.

Reporters Without Borders ranked Hong Kong 140th out of 180 countries and territories in its latest World Press Freedom Index, compared with 18th out of 139 jurisdictions in 2002.

The decline illustrates the dramatic change in the environment in which journalists operate.

Press-freedom rankings are not legal judgments and do not determine whether a particular court case is fair or unfair. They are assessments produced using broader indicators such as media independence, legal restrictions, political pressure, journalist safety and the ability of news organizations to operate freely.

Cheng’s case has therefore become part of a larger international conversation about what happens to professional and labour rights when media organizations operate in a more politically restrictive environment.

Foreign media have traditionally occupied a different position

The controversy has attracted additional attention because the employer was the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, one of the world’s best-known international newspapers.

Foreign news organizations have historically faced a different environment in Hong Kong from many local outlets, benefiting from the territory’s reputation as an international financial and media centre.

That does not mean international media organizations have been immune from political pressure or regulatory concerns. But the closure of local critical outlets has made the treatment of foreign journalists and International News organizations an increasingly watched issue.

Cheng’s case therefore raises an unusual question: how far have broader political and media changes affected employment and professional-association rights inside internationally recognized newsrooms?

The court did not rule that Cheng was fired for union activities

This is perhaps the most important limitation of Thursday’s judgment.

The conviction concerned the alleged deterrence of Cheng from exercising union rights. The company was acquitted of the separate dismissal charge.

That means the court did not establish that the stated reason for Cheng’s termination redundancy was false or that the dismissal was legally caused by her union role.

The defence’s reasonable-doubt argument succeeded on that part of the case.

Therefore, describing the verdict as a judicial finding that Dow Jones fired Cheng because she led the journalists’ union would go beyond what the court decided.

The judgment instead establishes a narrower but still important finding: the company unlawfully deterred her from taking part in union activities.

Why the conviction still matters

Even with the dismissal charge dismissed, the conviction has significance because it confirms that workplace conversations and instructions surrounding union participation can create criminal liability under Hong Kong employment law.

The case shows that protections for trade-union participation are not merely theoretical. An employer can face prosecution if conduct is found to have crossed the legal line into preventing or deterring an employee from exercising those rights.

For journalists, the importance is amplified because professional associations can serve functions beyond negotiating salaries and employment conditions. They can also play a role in professional standards, newsroom independence and collective representation.

A journalist who holds an elected position in such an association may therefore be exercising both workplace and professional rights.

Questions over corporate responsibility are also central

Another important element of the trial involved who had authority to act on behalf of Dow Jones.

The defence questioned whether the company’s senior management had actually instructed Cheng’s supervisor to discourage her from participating in the union election.

During the proceedings, the prosecution and defence disputed the roles and authority of different managers, including Cheng’s former supervisor and a Dow Jones human-resources director.

That issue mattered because establishing what an individual employee or manager said is not necessarily the same as establishing that the corporate employer itself committed an offence.

The court nevertheless found sufficient grounds to convict on the first charge.

The corporate-liability aspect of the case could make the judgment relevant to other multinational employers operating in Hong Kong.

The case began as a private prosecution

Another distinctive feature is that Cheng pursued the case as a private prosecution.

Private prosecutions are legally available in Hong Kong and can allow individuals to pursue criminal proceedings in circumstances where the government prosecution authority does not take over the case.

The Department of Justice considered whether to intervene in Cheng’s case but ultimately did not take over the prosecution, allowing the private action to proceed.

That made the case unusual for an employment dispute involving a major multinational company.

It also meant that Cheng and her legal team had to carry the prosecution through the court process rather than relying entirely on a government prosecutor.

The verdict could influence the wider employment dispute

The criminal judgment may not be the end of the legal dispute between Cheng and Dow Jones.

Cheng has also pursued separate civil remedies through Hong Kong’s Labour Tribunal in relation to her termination, although those proceedings were connected to the criminal case and had been delayed while the prosecution was underway.

The exact effect of Thursday’s judgment on those proceedings will depend on the legal issues involved and how the court processes the separate claims.

However, the criminal conviction provides a significant factual development that did not exist before today.

At the same time, the acquittal on the dismissal allegation means Cheng cannot simply treat the criminal judgment as a finding that her termination itself was unlawful because of her union activities.

Press freedom and labour rights are connected but not identical

The Cheng case illustrates why labour rights and press freedom should not be treated as the same legal issue.

Press freedom concerns the ability of journalists and media organizations to gather, publish and distribute information without unlawful interference. Trade-union rights concern workers’ ability to organize and participate in collective representation.

But in journalism, the two can intersect.

If journalists cannot participate safely in professional associations or raise workplace concerns collectively, the independence of newsrooms can be affected even without a direct government censorship order.

That is why journalist unions and professional associations often describe freedom of association as part of the broader infrastructure supporting independent journalism.

The Cheng judgment does not itself establish that Dow Jones violated press freedom. It does, however, reinforce the legal significance of labour and association rights for journalists.

Hong Kong authorities continue to defend the rule-of-law framework

The Hong Kong government has consistently rejected broad claims that the city’s judicial system no longer protects legal rights.

Officials argue that courts continue to operate under the Basic Law and that residents retain lawful rights to association, expression and other freedoms, subject to legislation.

The government also argues that national-security measures are aimed at protecting sovereignty and public order rather than suppressing legitimate journalism.

The Cheng verdict is therefore notable because the court applied a labour-rights protection against a major international media company at a time when the broader international debate about Hong Kong’s freedoms remains intense.

It demonstrates that the city’s legal system continues to contain statutory protections for trade-union participation even as political restrictions have expanded in other areas.

What the verdict means for the Wall Street Journal publisher

For Dow Jones, the immediate consequence is a criminal conviction on one charge under the Employment Ordinance and the prospect of a fine at sentencing.

The company has avoided conviction on the more direct allegation that it terminated Cheng because of her union role.

That distinction could be significant for its reputation and for any related civil litigation.

At the same time, a conviction involving interference with an employee’s trade-union rights is itself a serious finding against a major international media organization.

For the Wall Street Journal, which regularly reports on labour, corporate Governance, law and political rights around the world, the case also carries an unusual reputational dimension because the dispute concerns the treatment of one of its own journalists.

Why the verdict matters beyond one newsroom

The broader significance of the case lies in the precedent it may create for how employers interpret trade-union rights in Hong Kong.

Companies with employees involved in professional associations or unions may take greater care when discussing those activities, particularly when managers believe that union participation could conflict with workplace responsibilities.

Employees, meanwhile, may point to the verdict as evidence that the Employment Ordinance provides meaningful protection against conduct designed to discourage union participation.

For journalists, the implications could be especially important because professional associations frequently combine employment representation with advocacy for journalistic standards and press freedom.

A complicated verdict in a changing media city

Selina Cheng’s case does not produce a simple victory for either side.

Cheng succeeded in establishing that Dow Jones unlawfully deterred her from exercising a trade-union right. But she did not succeed in proving, to the criminal standard, that the company dismissed her because of that union involvement.

Dow Jones therefore faces a conviction and sentencing on one charge while being acquitted on another.

The distinction is important because it prevents the judgment from being interpreted as a finding that the company deliberately fired a journalist for becoming a union leader.

But the conviction nonetheless carries wider implications because it confirms that an employer’s conduct toward union participation can attract criminal liability.

What happens next for Selina Cheng and Dow Jones?

The next immediate step is sentencing, which is expected to take place at a later date.

The separate civil employment proceedings could also continue depending on their procedural status following the criminal judgment.

For Cheng, the conviction establishes an important part of her case while leaving the central question surrounding the reason for her dismissal unresolved in the criminal proceedings.

For Dow Jones, the company will have to address the consequences of the conviction while maintaining its position that Cheng’s termination was related to redundancy rather than her union role.

For Hong Kong’s media community, the outcome is likely to remain closely watched because Cheng is not only a former Wall Street Journal reporter but also the chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

The larger question is whether professional rights can remain protected

The significance of the case extends beyond the question of whether one employee was wrongly treated.

Hong Kong’s media environment has changed profoundly since the 2020 National Security Law. Local critical publications have closed, journalists and editors have faced prosecution, and international press-freedom rankings have recorded a steep decline in the city’s position.

Against that backdrop, the protection of seemingly narrower rights such as the right of workers to participate in unions can take on greater significance.

Independent professional associations depend on members being able to participate without retaliation. Newsrooms depend on journalists being able to exercise professional rights. And a functioning labour system depends on employers respecting statutory protections even when they disagree with an employee’s union activities.

Thursday’s judgment does not resolve Hong Kong’s much larger press-freedom debate. But it does provide a concrete ruling on one part of that debate: the legal protection of a journalist’s right to participate in a union.

Hong Kong court ruling draws a careful line

The conviction of Dow Jones Publishing Co (Asia) Inc is significant because the court found that the publisher unlawfully deterred Selina Cheng from exercising her trade-union rights.

At the same time, the court’s acquittal on the dismissal charge is equally important. It means the evidence did not establish, to the necessary criminal standard, that Cheng was fired because of her union activities.

The ruling therefore draws a careful legal line between deterring an employee from exercising union rights and proving that a later dismissal was caused by those rights.

Yet the case arrives at a moment when questions about Hong Kong’s media independence and professional freedoms are already under intense international scrutiny. Cheng’s position as a journalist and HKJA chairperson has made the dispute particularly prominent, while the collapse of several once-prominent local media organizations provides a much wider backdrop.

The immediate issue now is sentencing. The larger issue is what employers, journalists and professional associations take from the judgment.

For Hong Kong’s media sector, the case underscores that press freedom is not only about what journalists are allowed to publish. It can also involve whether they are able to exercise the basic professional and labour rights that allow journalists to organize, represent one another and participate in the institutions of their profession.

That makes the verdict an important development even though the court did not find Dow Jones responsible for Cheng’s dismissal.