header-logo header-logo

10 February 2023 / Dr Ping-fat Sze
Issue: 8012 / Categories: Features , International justice
printer mail-detail

Hong Kong: legal future in doubt?

110009
The denial of Jimmy Lai’s right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice casts serious doubt on Hong Kong’s legal future, says Dr Ping-fat Sze
  • The decision of the first instance court, the appeal court and the final appeal court to allow a London silk to represent Hong Kong businessman Jimmy Lai, awaiting trial on national security charges, is now pending a final determination from the National People’s Congress in Beijing.
  • Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Hong Kong’s Basic Law seems to depend on the circumstances in question. The appointment of temporary judges by the chief justice serves as an apt example of this.

The rule of law in Hong Kong hit the headlines again at the end of last year, as the justice secretary turned to Beijing to stop a leading London silk, Tim Owen, defending Jimmy Lai against sedition and collusion charges under the national security law (see Baron Pannick, ‘Hong Kong media trial is crunch time for its rule of law’,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll