Hong Kong’s courts are independent, gov’t says after ex-top court judge says judiciary ‘too partial’ to authorities
Hong Kong Free Press
Hong Kong’s courts are independent and proceedings are conducted in accordance with the evidence presented, the government has said after a former top court judge said the Judiciary was “too partial” to the authorities.
The government’s comments came after former non-permanent Court of Final Appeal judge Lord Jonathan Sumption explained in a podcast earlier this month why he quit the city’s top court in June.
“I left because it seemed to me that recent cases in Hong Kong suggested that the Judiciary was too partial to the government in criminal cases,” he said on an episode of the podcast Law and Disorder.
He added that the guilty verdict for 14 out of the 16 pro-democracy figures who pleaded not guilty in the 47 democrats case, the city’s largest national security proceedings to date, showed the Judiciary was “prepared to kowtow to Beijing.”
A government spokesperson called Sumption’s comments biased, saying that Hong Kong enjoyed judicial independence and rule of law. Any “reasonable, objective and fair person” would see that judges presided over trials independently and “without deviating from their responsibilities.”
“Most importantly, the SAR’s courts absolutely are not influenced by any political pressure from the central or the SAR government when trying national security cases or cases of any nature,” the spokesperson said in a Chinese email on Monday. “Hong Kong’s rule of law has also not deteriorated in any way.”
‘No free speech’
Sumption was one of five foreign judges to depart from the Court of Final Appeal this year, leaving six foreign judges on the top court.
Most recently, the Judiciary announced in September that Briton Nicholas Phillips wished not to have his appointment extended upon its expiry at the end of the month.
Under an arrangement set up after Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997, overseas judges are flown to Hong Kong on an ad-hoc basis, with a visit typically lasting 29 days. The presence of international judges has historically given credibility to Hong Kong’s common law legal tradition.
On the podcast, Sumption also commented on the Stand News sedition verdict. He cited the judge – who found both editors guilty – saying that the pair were not reporting the news but were opposing the government.
“That is a distinction which in any reasonably liberal society, and I would count Hong Kong in that category until the last few years, is ridiculous,” he said.” There is no free speech if newspaper editors are not allowed to criticise the government.”
In its reply, the government spokesperson said news practitioners have a duty to abide by the law. As long as they do not break the law, they are not restricted from criticising the government, the spokesperson said.
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.