#OpinionArticle
One Country Two Systems trashed by China. The National People’s Congress says No to Hong Kong court’s interpretation of the constitution!
(Nov 19) The Hong Kong High Court yesterday struck down an emergency ban on face masks on the grounds that colonial-era emergency laws, which were revived to justify the anti-mask law, were incompatible with the Basic Law. However, China’s National People’s Congress, the final arbiter of law, today slams Hong Kong’s judicial independence by issuing a statement that “whether the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region comply with the Basic Law of Hong Kong can only be judged and decided by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee of (NPCSC). No other authority has the right to make judgments and decisions.” This is in effect a blatant attempt to trash the One Country Two Systems framework!
The NPCSC this morning expressed its serious concern over the Hong Kong High Court’s ruling that the Emergency Regulations Ordinance does not comply with the Hong Kong Basic Law, rendering the relevant provisions invalid. It stressed that “whether the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region comply with the Basic Law of Hong Kong can only be judged and decided by the NPCSC. No other authority has the right to make judgments and decisions.”
Unquestionably such an interpretation vetos Hong Kong's judicial independence and also overturns the promise before the 1997 handover that China will give Hong Kong autonomy.
Article 158 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region stipulates that "the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress shall authorize the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to interpret on their own, in adjudicating cases, the provisions of this Law which are within the limits of the autonomy of the Region." This underpins "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy". By declaring that whether the Hong Kong laws comply with the Basic Law can only be judged and decided by the NPCSC, China in effect is repealing Article 158 of the Basic Law. This also annuls the Basic Law, the de facto constitution of Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s judicial independence thus will vanish.
The Chinese People's Congress is the apex of China’s legislature. Nominally "NPC deputies" are representatives of various provinces in China. In reality, they have no elective representation whether they are nominated by selection or by appointment. These selections or appointments do not have any support from the people of Hong Kong. Their power to make decisions on Hong Kong laws is even more absurd. As Hong Kong has no sovereign rights, it is going down the path to increasingly losing its freedom and democracy. Hong Kong must follow orders to channel its tax revenues to infrastructures as instructed by Chinese officials. The rule of law established since the British colonial era is what Hong Kong people take pride of. Now it is taken away by China ruthlessly. Source #OneCountryTwoSystem #judicialindependence
One Country Two Systems trashed by China. The National People’s Congress says No to Hong Kong court’s interpretation of the constitution!
(Nov 19) The Hong Kong High Court yesterday struck down an emergency ban on face masks on the grounds that colonial-era emergency laws, which were revived to justify the anti-mask law, were incompatible with the Basic Law. However, China’s National People’s Congress, the final arbiter of law, today slams Hong Kong’s judicial independence by issuing a statement that “whether the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region comply with the Basic Law of Hong Kong can only be judged and decided by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee of (NPCSC). No other authority has the right to make judgments and decisions.” This is in effect a blatant attempt to trash the One Country Two Systems framework!
The NPCSC this morning expressed its serious concern over the Hong Kong High Court’s ruling that the Emergency Regulations Ordinance does not comply with the Hong Kong Basic Law, rendering the relevant provisions invalid. It stressed that “whether the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region comply with the Basic Law of Hong Kong can only be judged and decided by the NPCSC. No other authority has the right to make judgments and decisions.”
Unquestionably such an interpretation vetos Hong Kong's judicial independence and also overturns the promise before the 1997 handover that China will give Hong Kong autonomy.
Article 158 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region stipulates that "the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress shall authorize the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to interpret on their own, in adjudicating cases, the provisions of this Law which are within the limits of the autonomy of the Region." This underpins "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy". By declaring that whether the Hong Kong laws comply with the Basic Law can only be judged and decided by the NPCSC, China in effect is repealing Article 158 of the Basic Law. This also annuls the Basic Law, the de facto constitution of Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s judicial independence thus will vanish.
The Chinese People's Congress is the apex of China’s legislature. Nominally "NPC deputies" are representatives of various provinces in China. In reality, they have no elective representation whether they are nominated by selection or by appointment. These selections or appointments do not have any support from the people of Hong Kong. Their power to make decisions on Hong Kong laws is even more absurd. As Hong Kong has no sovereign rights, it is going down the path to increasingly losing its freedom and democracy. Hong Kong must follow orders to channel its tax revenues to infrastructures as instructed by Chinese officials. The rule of law established since the British colonial era is what Hong Kong people take pride of. Now it is taken away by China ruthlessly. Source #OneCountryTwoSystem #judicialindependence
#GeoffreyMa #JudicialIndependence
Hong Kong's top judge rebuts, “Duty of judges is strictly to apply the law and nothing else”
Source: Stand News, Apple Daily #Sept23
Read more
⬇️⬇️⬇️
Hong Kong's top judge rebuts, “Duty of judges is strictly to apply the law and nothing else”
Source: Stand News, Apple Daily #Sept23
Read more
⬇️⬇️⬇️
#GeoffreyMa #JudicialIndependence
Hong Kong's top judge rebuts, “Duty of judges is strictly to apply the law and nothing else”
Geoffrey Ma, the chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal, issued a rare statement on September 23 to remind the public that any criticism of judges and court decisions must be informed, solidly based and properly made, otherwise it would be detrimental to public confidence in the administration of justice and, ultimately, to the rule of law in the city.
Ma’s statement came amidst heated debates over Hong Kong’s judicial independence, after claims by both the Communist Party and the local government that the city does not exercise separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The pro-Beijing camp, including media outlets, has also rounded magistrates for supposedly being too lenient with young protesters.
Ma explained to the public that the constitutional duty of judges was “strictly to apply the law and nothing else.”
Judges must be impartial, he said, and when they were not, a number of channels were available: redress by way of an appeal or review, an application for recusal filed by the accused or the prosecution, and the established complaints mechanism of the judiciary.
Notable among other principles were the requirement of a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the need for the prosecution to prove that an accused committed a crime beyond reasonable doubt before there could be a conviction, and the right to an appeal.
Ma also singled out the topics of bail, sentencing, and appeals and reviews, which had attracted comment and criticism. He said it was important that such comments were informed and understood in the proper context.
“In this respect, the role and responsibilities of the Secretary for Justice (as representing the public interest in the prosecution of crimes) must also be properly understood,” he wrote.
Source: Stand News; Apple Daily #Sept23
#SeperationofPowers #RuleofLaw #ChiefJustice
Hong Kong's top judge rebuts, “Duty of judges is strictly to apply the law and nothing else”
Geoffrey Ma, the chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal, issued a rare statement on September 23 to remind the public that any criticism of judges and court decisions must be informed, solidly based and properly made, otherwise it would be detrimental to public confidence in the administration of justice and, ultimately, to the rule of law in the city.
Ma’s statement came amidst heated debates over Hong Kong’s judicial independence, after claims by both the Communist Party and the local government that the city does not exercise separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The pro-Beijing camp, including media outlets, has also rounded magistrates for supposedly being too lenient with young protesters.
Ma explained to the public that the constitutional duty of judges was “strictly to apply the law and nothing else.”
Judges must be impartial, he said, and when they were not, a number of channels were available: redress by way of an appeal or review, an application for recusal filed by the accused or the prosecution, and the established complaints mechanism of the judiciary.
Notable among other principles were the requirement of a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the need for the prosecution to prove that an accused committed a crime beyond reasonable doubt before there could be a conviction, and the right to an appeal.
Ma also singled out the topics of bail, sentencing, and appeals and reviews, which had attracted comment and criticism. He said it was important that such comments were informed and understood in the proper context.
“In this respect, the role and responsibilities of the Secretary for Justice (as representing the public interest in the prosecution of crimes) must also be properly understood,” he wrote.
Source: Stand News; Apple Daily #Sept23
#SeperationofPowers #RuleofLaw #ChiefJustice
#JudicialIndependence
HK Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma: Judicial Independence Must Be Separated from Politics, No One is Above the Law
Source: Stand News #Nov2
Read more
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
HK Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma: Judicial Independence Must Be Separated from Politics, No One is Above the Law
Source: Stand News #Nov2
Read more
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
#JudicialIndependence #SeparationofPowers
HK Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma: Judicial Independence Must Be Separated from Politics, No One is Above the Law
The issue of separation of powers has sparked intense debate in Hong Kong as the authorities and Beijing loyalists refused to acknowledge its practice in Hong Kong.
In his speech at the ceremonial opening of Hong Kong Legal Week 2020, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Geoffrey Ma reiterated the importance of not politicizing the independent judiciary and court. As clearly stated in the Basic Law, Hong Kong enjoys independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. This means no one is above the law, nor can one interfere with court decision. All adjudications must comply strictly with the law, and uphold the principles of equality, equity and fairness.
Geoffrey Ma also pointed out that the rule of law had always been an important core value of Hong Kong, which warranted careful protection, and society could not bear the risk of losing it.
He asked the public to dismiss misconceptions and misunderstanding about rule of law in order to protect it. He believed that law should be predictable, stable and clear, and judicial decision should be open to the public.
Ma stated that according to the Basic Law, the non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal and lawyers from other common law jurisdictions could practice in Hong Kong.
Source: Stand News #Nov2
#RuleofLaw #GeoffreyMa #LegalWeek #Speech
HK Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma: Judicial Independence Must Be Separated from Politics, No One is Above the Law
The issue of separation of powers has sparked intense debate in Hong Kong as the authorities and Beijing loyalists refused to acknowledge its practice in Hong Kong.
In his speech at the ceremonial opening of Hong Kong Legal Week 2020, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Geoffrey Ma reiterated the importance of not politicizing the independent judiciary and court. As clearly stated in the Basic Law, Hong Kong enjoys independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. This means no one is above the law, nor can one interfere with court decision. All adjudications must comply strictly with the law, and uphold the principles of equality, equity and fairness.
Geoffrey Ma also pointed out that the rule of law had always been an important core value of Hong Kong, which warranted careful protection, and society could not bear the risk of losing it.
He asked the public to dismiss misconceptions and misunderstanding about rule of law in order to protect it. He believed that law should be predictable, stable and clear, and judicial decision should be open to the public.
Ma stated that according to the Basic Law, the non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal and lawyers from other common law jurisdictions could practice in Hong Kong.
Source: Stand News #Nov2
#RuleofLaw #GeoffreyMa #LegalWeek #Speech
#Court #FailedState #SeparationofPowers
#HKU Chair Professor of Law Johannes Chan: Judicial Independence Will Be Completely Lost When Judges' Rulings are Required to be 'Patriotic' to China
The deputy director of the PRC's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office Zhang Xiao-ming said on Nov 17, 2020 that 'patriotism should come before democracy and freedom', he then called for judicial reform in Hong Kong.
Johannes Chan Man-mun, the Chair Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), expressed his concern in a Commercial Radio Hong Kong's program that the requirement of 'patriotism' would be imposed on the judicial officers.
Chan then added that 'patriotism' was only a political consideration which could not be measured by the objective standards; if judges in Hong Kong were required to follow the mainland Chinese standards, then when the judges' rulings were not in line with the government's wishes or did not incriminate those accused by the Nation Security Law, they would be considered 'unpatriotic', such situation would put judicial independence in jeopardy.
The prosecution has required the case of People Power's Tam Tak-chi, who faces 14 charges related to 'making seditious remarks and incitement to take part in an unauthorized assembly', to be handled by the designated national security judges.
Chan said that in general, since the principles of fair trial and judicial independence were involved, both sides of prosecution and defense did not have the right to appoint judges, otherwise, the trial would be considered unfair.
Source: Apple Daily #Nov18
https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20201118/JA333PHL45ECRD3KYSXE62X2KQ/
#JudicialIndependence #NationalSecurityLaw #Patriotism #JohannesChan #TamTakChi #ZhangXiaoMing
#HKU Chair Professor of Law Johannes Chan: Judicial Independence Will Be Completely Lost When Judges' Rulings are Required to be 'Patriotic' to China
The deputy director of the PRC's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office Zhang Xiao-ming said on Nov 17, 2020 that 'patriotism should come before democracy and freedom', he then called for judicial reform in Hong Kong.
Johannes Chan Man-mun, the Chair Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), expressed his concern in a Commercial Radio Hong Kong's program that the requirement of 'patriotism' would be imposed on the judicial officers.
Chan then added that 'patriotism' was only a political consideration which could not be measured by the objective standards; if judges in Hong Kong were required to follow the mainland Chinese standards, then when the judges' rulings were not in line with the government's wishes or did not incriminate those accused by the Nation Security Law, they would be considered 'unpatriotic', such situation would put judicial independence in jeopardy.
The prosecution has required the case of People Power's Tam Tak-chi, who faces 14 charges related to 'making seditious remarks and incitement to take part in an unauthorized assembly', to be handled by the designated national security judges.
Chan said that in general, since the principles of fair trial and judicial independence were involved, both sides of prosecution and defense did not have the right to appoint judges, otherwise, the trial would be considered unfair.
Source: Apple Daily #Nov18
https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20201118/JA333PHL45ECRD3KYSXE62X2KQ/
#JudicialIndependence #NationalSecurityLaw #Patriotism #JohannesChan #TamTakChi #ZhangXiaoMing
#Justice
Top Judge in Hong Kong Defends Hong Kong’s Independent Judiciary in Farewell Speech
Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, Hong Kong's top judge for 10 years, delivered his farewell speech at the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong on Jan 6, 2021.
Ma made strong statement in defense of the importance of Hong Kong’s independent judiciary and stressed that human rights are a fundamental feature of the Basic Law.
“It is not just about being conducive to business and investment. Nor is it only about law and order. It also includes the recognition and enforcement of those rights we call human rights and fundamental freedoms (such as the freedom of assembly, of procession, of association and the freedom of the press), always of course recognising as well the importance of the respect for the rights and entitlements of others in the community.”
“The importance we place on rights and freedoms is a fundamental feature of of the Basic Law."
“So whenever there are discussions about the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the role and responsibilities of judges in relation to these fundamental features, the foundation for such discussions must be to refer to the Basic Law,” the top judge said.
“They are not in any way strange concepts that have been transplanted randomly to apply in Hong Kong: they are concepts required by, protected by and to be enforced under the very constitutional document that governs Hong Kong.”
“To repeat a phrase that bears reminding at all times: no one is above the law, all are subject to it and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.”
"As we know, such criticisms can be trenchant, even to the point of being abusive on occasion, but in spite of this our judges have remained true to their calling. Sometimes, I think that courage is needed.”
[Editor's note: On the same day, the Hong Kong police, with the support of the government's Security Bureau, arrested over 50 pro-democracy activists, former lawmakers, lawyer, and scholars under the National Security Law. The act has stirred up outcry and uproar within the outside of the city.]
Source: RTHK #Jan6
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1569026-20210106.htm
#GeoffreyMa #JudicialIndependence #Professionalism #Court
Top Judge in Hong Kong Defends Hong Kong’s Independent Judiciary in Farewell Speech
Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, Hong Kong's top judge for 10 years, delivered his farewell speech at the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong on Jan 6, 2021.
Ma made strong statement in defense of the importance of Hong Kong’s independent judiciary and stressed that human rights are a fundamental feature of the Basic Law.
“It is not just about being conducive to business and investment. Nor is it only about law and order. It also includes the recognition and enforcement of those rights we call human rights and fundamental freedoms (such as the freedom of assembly, of procession, of association and the freedom of the press), always of course recognising as well the importance of the respect for the rights and entitlements of others in the community.”
“The importance we place on rights and freedoms is a fundamental feature of of the Basic Law."
“So whenever there are discussions about the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the role and responsibilities of judges in relation to these fundamental features, the foundation for such discussions must be to refer to the Basic Law,” the top judge said.
“They are not in any way strange concepts that have been transplanted randomly to apply in Hong Kong: they are concepts required by, protected by and to be enforced under the very constitutional document that governs Hong Kong.”
“To repeat a phrase that bears reminding at all times: no one is above the law, all are subject to it and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.”
"As we know, such criticisms can be trenchant, even to the point of being abusive on occasion, but in spite of this our judges have remained true to their calling. Sometimes, I think that courage is needed.”
[Editor's note: On the same day, the Hong Kong police, with the support of the government's Security Bureau, arrested over 50 pro-democracy activists, former lawmakers, lawyer, and scholars under the National Security Law. The act has stirred up outcry and uproar within the outside of the city.]
Source: RTHK #Jan6
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1569026-20210106.htm
#GeoffreyMa #JudicialIndependence #Professionalism #Court
news.rthk.hk
CJ defends independent judiciary in farewell speech
Outgoing Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma delivered a robust defence of the importance of Hong Kong’s independent judiciary and stressed that human rights are a fundamental feature of the Basic Law, in a farewell sitting at the Court of Final Appeal on Wednesday…
#RuleofLaw #HKBA
Chairman of HK Bar Association: Secretary for Justice Needs to Stop Unprincipled Attacks on #JudicialIndependence
Source: Stand News, #Jan11
Read more
⬇️⬇️
Chairman of HK Bar Association: Secretary for Justice Needs to Stop Unprincipled Attacks on #JudicialIndependence
Source: Stand News, #Jan11
Read more
⬇️⬇️
#RuleofLaw #HKBA
Chairman of HK Bar Association: Secretary for Justice Needs to Stop Unprincipled Attacks on #JudicialIndependence
In his speech marking the opening of the Legal Year on 11 January 2021, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, #PhilipDykes talked about judicial independence imperative to maintaining the Rule of Law in Hong Kong.
Dykes said his main concern were accusations that judges had acted out of partiality or bad faith “for no reason other than that they happened to decide a case one way rather than the other. Or because the result does not fit a political or moral agenda.”
He opined that these attacks on the judges “are pure poison” and it is the justice secretary’s responsibility to ensure accountability for these acts. He added, “If nothing is done about attacks, they will undermine confidence and respect for the courts and the administration of justice will slowly evaporate.”
Dykes stressed that “Without independent-minded lawyers, you will not have independent-minded judges.” “Independence at the Bar means being bold in defense and, where necessary, bold in aggression. It means barristers will take on unpopular causes and stick doggedly with them and not being swayed by negative opinions about them or their clients.”
He further elaborated that “the Judiciary is, notoriously, weaker than the other branches of Government whose functions, duties and powers are described in Chapter IV Basic Law”.
"The Judiciary commands no army or police force nor can it appeal to a sympathetic political electorate for support. It must demonstrate its worth in the constitutional order by commanding the people's respect through its commitment to the Rule of Law, which means, essentially, administering justice 'without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit."
"When there is a creeping barrage of baseless criticism that supposes that judges are politically biased, incompetent or dishonest, the damage is done not so much to the judges, who have broad backs, but to the Judiciary as an institution."
Dykes wrapped up his address hoping that “common sense prevails and that people see that conscienceless attacks on the Judiciary do no one any good. They eat away at society's respect for the Law, which is necessary for judicial independence.”
He carried on saying, "without judicial independence, a pearl of great price, we might as well pack up our bags and steal away for Hong Kong is nothing without it.”
Source: Stand News, #Jan11
=====
Read Philip Dykes’ full speech
Speech of the Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, Philip Dykes SC, at the Opening of the Legal Year 2021, dated 11 January 2021
https://www.hkba.org/sites/default/files/20210111-Speech%20of%20Bar%20Chairman%20at%20Opening%20of%20Legal%20Year%202021%20%28E%29.pdf
Chairman of HK Bar Association: Secretary for Justice Needs to Stop Unprincipled Attacks on #JudicialIndependence
In his speech marking the opening of the Legal Year on 11 January 2021, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, #PhilipDykes talked about judicial independence imperative to maintaining the Rule of Law in Hong Kong.
Dykes said his main concern were accusations that judges had acted out of partiality or bad faith “for no reason other than that they happened to decide a case one way rather than the other. Or because the result does not fit a political or moral agenda.”
He opined that these attacks on the judges “are pure poison” and it is the justice secretary’s responsibility to ensure accountability for these acts. He added, “If nothing is done about attacks, they will undermine confidence and respect for the courts and the administration of justice will slowly evaporate.”
Dykes stressed that “Without independent-minded lawyers, you will not have independent-minded judges.” “Independence at the Bar means being bold in defense and, where necessary, bold in aggression. It means barristers will take on unpopular causes and stick doggedly with them and not being swayed by negative opinions about them or their clients.”
He further elaborated that “the Judiciary is, notoriously, weaker than the other branches of Government whose functions, duties and powers are described in Chapter IV Basic Law”.
"The Judiciary commands no army or police force nor can it appeal to a sympathetic political electorate for support. It must demonstrate its worth in the constitutional order by commanding the people's respect through its commitment to the Rule of Law, which means, essentially, administering justice 'without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit."
"When there is a creeping barrage of baseless criticism that supposes that judges are politically biased, incompetent or dishonest, the damage is done not so much to the judges, who have broad backs, but to the Judiciary as an institution."
Dykes wrapped up his address hoping that “common sense prevails and that people see that conscienceless attacks on the Judiciary do no one any good. They eat away at society's respect for the Law, which is necessary for judicial independence.”
He carried on saying, "without judicial independence, a pearl of great price, we might as well pack up our bags and steal away for Hong Kong is nothing without it.”
Source: Stand News, #Jan11
=====
Read Philip Dykes’ full speech
Speech of the Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, Philip Dykes SC, at the Opening of the Legal Year 2021, dated 11 January 2021
https://www.hkba.org/sites/default/files/20210111-Speech%20of%20Bar%20Chairman%20at%20Opening%20of%20Legal%20Year%202021%20%28E%29.pdf
#Court #1C1S
The Times: British Judges in Hong Kong should resign together in demand for judicial independence
On March 15, 2021, The Times published an editorial titled “British Judges should resign from Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal”.
The editorial states that Beijing is suppressing Hong Kong’s freedom and is demanding that “patriots rule Hong Kong”. The UK has explicitly said that China has violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
According to the editorial, the reason why China has not removed the British judges in Hong Kong is only because Beijing wanted to maintain the status quo. They believe that the current judicial system provides a welcome gloss of legitimacy, so that Hong Kong can continue to serve as an international financial centre.
“With the illusion that they can deliver change from within the new system exploded, they should instead adopt a common position and resign together. They should insist, with one voice, that they will no longer lend their authority to a compromised system, and demand that independent justice be restored to Hong Kong.”
In a report published on the same day, The Times mentioned that Lord Neuberger’s agreement to remain a judge in Hong Kong for 3 more years brought controversy over “the role of the ten British judges on Hong Kong's court of final appeal”. The report quoted senior figures saying that the UK can protest against Beijing’s changes to Hong Kong’s electoral system by withdrawing the British judges serving in Hong Kong.
According to the published report, Lord Neuberger previously said that the time would come when it would be right for all foreign judges to quit the Hong Kong bench. In 2017, he spoke at the University of Hong Kong, saying that foreign judges are the “canaries in the mine”, harbinger of a crisis.
“So long as they are happy to serve on the court, then you can safely assume that all is well with the judicial independence and impartiality in Hong Kong.” He said, “but if they start to leave in droves, that would represent a serious alarm call.”
Source: Stand News; The Times #Mar16
#TheTimes #Editorial #BritishJudges
#JudicialIndependence #PoliticalOppression #Beijing
The Times: British Judges in Hong Kong should resign together in demand for judicial independence
On March 15, 2021, The Times published an editorial titled “British Judges should resign from Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal”.
The editorial states that Beijing is suppressing Hong Kong’s freedom and is demanding that “patriots rule Hong Kong”. The UK has explicitly said that China has violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
According to the editorial, the reason why China has not removed the British judges in Hong Kong is only because Beijing wanted to maintain the status quo. They believe that the current judicial system provides a welcome gloss of legitimacy, so that Hong Kong can continue to serve as an international financial centre.
“With the illusion that they can deliver change from within the new system exploded, they should instead adopt a common position and resign together. They should insist, with one voice, that they will no longer lend their authority to a compromised system, and demand that independent justice be restored to Hong Kong.”
In a report published on the same day, The Times mentioned that Lord Neuberger’s agreement to remain a judge in Hong Kong for 3 more years brought controversy over “the role of the ten British judges on Hong Kong's court of final appeal”. The report quoted senior figures saying that the UK can protest against Beijing’s changes to Hong Kong’s electoral system by withdrawing the British judges serving in Hong Kong.
According to the published report, Lord Neuberger previously said that the time would come when it would be right for all foreign judges to quit the Hong Kong bench. In 2017, he spoke at the University of Hong Kong, saying that foreign judges are the “canaries in the mine”, harbinger of a crisis.
“So long as they are happy to serve on the court, then you can safely assume that all is well with the judicial independence and impartiality in Hong Kong.” He said, “but if they start to leave in droves, that would represent a serious alarm call.”
Source: Stand News; The Times #Mar16
#TheTimes #Editorial #BritishJudges
#JudicialIndependence #PoliticalOppression #Beijing