header-logo header-logo

Lord Reed speaks in support of Hong Kong judges

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll