header-logo header-logo

19 July 2020
Issue: 7896 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , International justice
printer mail-detail

Lord Reed speaks in support of Hong Kong judges

In a rare intervention, the President of the UK Supreme Court has expressed concern about China’s imposition of a national security law on Hong Kong and the role of serving UK judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal

An agreement made at the time of the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China was that the House of Lords would provide two serving Law Lords to sit on the then newly created Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong’s highest court. This was part of the UK’s continuing commitment to safeguarding the rule of law.

In a statement last week, Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court, said he was currently the only serving judge as Lady Hale retired this year and has not yet been replaced. No serving UK judge has been scheduled to sit in Hong Kong this year.

‘The new security law contains a number of provisions which give rise to concerns,’ Lord Reed said.

‘Its effect will depend upon how it is applied in practice. That remains to be seen. Undoubtedly, the judges of the Court of Final Appeal will do their utmost to uphold the guarantee in Article 85 of the Hong Kong Basic Law that ‘the Courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference.’

Lord Reed said: ‘The Supreme Court supports the judges of Hong Kong in their commitment to safeguard judicial independence and the rule of law.

‘It will continue to assess the position in Hong Kong as it develops, in discussion with the UK government. Whether judges of the Supreme Court can continue to serve as judges in Hong Kong will depend on whether such service remains compatible with judicial independence and the rule of law.’

The UK government has since suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong and barred the export of riot control equipment to the territory. In a statement to the House of Commons this week, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the security law, which targets political dissent, was ‘a clear and serious violation of the UK-China joint declaration, and with it a violation of China’s freely assumed international obligations’. The extradition treaty would be suspended ‘immediately and indefinitely’, he said, and would not be restored unless there were ‘clear and robust safeguards which are able to prevent extradition from the UK being misused under the national security legislation’.

Issue: 7896 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , International justice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll