Canadian judge extended Singapore court role months before quitting Hong Kong’s top court citing family time
Hong Kong Free Press
Canadian judge Beverley McLachlin extended a three-year appointment with a commercial court in Singapore 140 days before she quit Hong Kong’s top court in May, citing a desire to spend more time with family.
In an emailed statement to Canada’s National Post, Singapore Courts spokesperson Tashinnya Chandrasekaran said her appointment on the Singapore International Commercial Court was “extended for a period of three years with effect from 5 January 2024.”
See also: Why do foreign judges sit on Hong Kong’s top court?
McLachlin was the third overseas judge on the city’s apex court to announce their departure within a week.
In a statement earlier this month, the ex-Canadian Supreme Court justice noted that she had recently turned 80, as she gave her backing to Hong Kong’s judiciary. “While I will continue certain professional responsibilities, I intend to spend more time with my family… It has been a privilege serving the people of Hong Kong. I continue to have confidence in the members of the Court, their independence, and their determination to uphold the rule of law.”
She added that she informed Chief Justice Andrew Cheung of her decision on May 24.
McLachlin did not respond to the National Post. HKFP has also reached out.
Last December, McLachlin told the Globe and Mail that the “court is doing a terrific job of helping maintain rights for people, insofar as the law permits it, in Hong Kong. Which is as much as our courts do.”
In 2022, Canada’s former justice minister Irwin Cotler urged her to resign over the security law.
The government and Bar Association paid tribute to McLachlin following her announcement.
Ex-UK judge’s op-ed criticised
British judges Jonathan Sumption, 75, and Lawrence Collins, 83, resigned from the top court days before McLachlin, both citing politics. Sumption said in a Financial Times opinion piece last Monday that judges’ freedoms had been “severely limited” amid an “oppressive atmosphere” and paranoia among the authorities.
In a letter published by the British paper on Tuesday, Anthony Rogers, a former senior vice president of Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal, accused Sumption of commenting on an active legal case. Sumption had deemed a recent judgement against Hong Kong democrats “legally indefensible.” The court is yet to hear mitigation submissions and deliver sentencing in the case, while the Department of Justice has lodged an appeal bid against the acquittal of one of the defendants.
Rogers went on to say that the judge was “vulnerable to further criticism in confusing the correctness of the decision with his personal dislike of the relevant legislation. The logic behind the opinion breaks down on analysis into self-contradiction. That a judge may resign rather than administer a law that is considered unjust is right and proper, but those who administer that law do not commit a breach of the rule of law.”
Sumption’s comments were also slammed by legal bodies and Chief Executive John Lee, who said last Tuesday that the duty of a judge was to interpret the law in accordance with legal principles and evidence, “whether he likes that law or not, not from his political stance.”
The presence of international, non-permanent judges has historically given credibility to Hong Kong’s common law legal tradition. They are flown to Hong Kong on an ad-hoc basis, with a visit typically lasting 29 days, for which they are paid HK$399,950. First-class flights, accommodation, meals and travel are also expensed.
The news 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 it called on them to step down.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.