Hong Kong’s justice secretary, chief justice, and its two professional legal bodies, have backed the city’s judicial independence, after two of the top court’s overseas judges resigned on Thursday. Meanwhile, the city’s leader said rights and freedoms have been maintained after one of the judges cited the “political situation” as his reason for quitting.
British judges Lord Jonathan Sumption, 75, and Lord Lawrence Collins, 83, quit the Court of Final Appeal, with the latter citing the “political situation.”
Chief Justice Andrew Cheung said in a statement in the early hours of Friday that Non-Permanent Judges (NPJ) – including Lords Collins and Sumption – “have made valuable contributions to the work of the Court for which we in Hong Kong are very grateful.”
“The Chief Justice reiterates the Judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong guaranteed under the Basic Law. All judges and judicial officers will continue to abide by the Judicial Oath and administer justice in full accordance with the law, without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit,” he added, speaking on behalf of the permanent top court judges.
Cheung said the apex court will continue to serve its role, and will not be affected by the resignations, as new candidates are sought.
Collins cites ‘political situation’
Sumption has yet to speak about his departure, but Collins was quoted by legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg on Thursday as saying: “I have resigned from the Court of Final Appeal because of the political situation in Hong Kong, but I continue to have the fullest confidence in the court and the total independence of its members.”
In a Friday statement, Chief Executive John Lee said in response to Collins’ reason for resigning that “the large-scale riots and Hong Kong version of ‘colour revolution’ in 2019 seriously threatened national security and the safety of the HKSAR,” adding that two security laws were enacted to fill a legal loophole.
He listed human rights legislation to which Hong Kong is a signatory, saying that rights and freedoms remain protected: “These systems have remained unchanged since the promulgation and implementation of the Basic Law, and will not change in the future. Hong Kong has transitioned from chaos to order. That did not change the human rights and freedoms enjoyed by citizens in accordance with the law.”
Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. The authorities say it restored stability and peace to the city, rejecting criticism from trade partners, the UN and NGOs.
Separately, the homegrown 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets and espionage. It allows for pre-charge detention of to up to 16 days, and suspects’ access to lawyers may be restricted, with penalties involving up to life in prison. The law has been criticised by rights NGOs, Western states and the UN as vague, broad and “regressive.” Authorities, however, cited perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to “close loopholes” after the 2019 protests and unrest.
News of Thursday’s resignations came four days after an investigation by The Independent revealed that British judges were paid £40,000 (HK$399,225) per month to sit on the top court, with flights, accommodation and travel also expensed. The resignations also came three weeks after NGO, the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, released a report claiming “foreign judges are lending legitimacy to Beijing’s crackdown on political freedoms in Hong Kong,” as they called on them to step down.
“When judges are routinely sending Hong Kong teenagers to jail for exercising their freedom of expression, these judges must understand that their presence offers no positive impact for the people of Hong Kong. They only help to maintain the illusion of rule of law. The judges must resign,” the May report read.
Justice minister expresses regret
Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said remaining judicial officers deserved the support and encouragement of the public, as he expressed regret over the resignations. “The Department of Justice (DoJ) expresses regret at the resignation of two overseas Non-Permanent Judges of the Court of Final Appeal, but is grateful to their past contribution,” Lam said in a statement early Friday morning.
“Nevertheless, this incident will not [shake] or impair DoJ’s determination and confidence in upholding the rule of law, including the independent judicial power exercised by the courts.”
In a Friday statement, the Hong Kong Bar Association, which regulates barristers, said it respected the pair’s personal decisions, and was grateful for their contributions: “The Bar strongly believes that their resignations will not affect the ability of our apex court in discharging its judicial functions and has every confidence in the independence of our judicial system.”
The Law Society of Hong Kong, the city’s professional body for solicitors, echoed the sentiments and thanked the two judges: “The Law Society has full confidence in Hong Kong’s judicial independence and integrity.”
British judges Lord Robert Reed and Lord Patrick Hodge resigned from the Court of Final Appeal in March 2022. Thursday’s resignations leave just three other British judges sitting on the top court – namely Lord Lennie Hoffmann, Lord David Neuberger, and Lord Nick Phillips. There are also four Australians and one Canadian serving as overseas non-permanent judges, one of whom began a three-year term last month.
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
