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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
back-to-top-scroll