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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll