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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll