Former non-permanent judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, Lord Jonathan Sumption, openly disclosed the reasons for his resignation. Following this, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a member of the House of Lords in the UK, expressed that “the resignation of judges will have a significant impact in the UK. Any companies or investors with economic interests (related to China) must think twice before acting.”
Last week, Jonathan Sumption resigned from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Then, on Monday (June 10), he published a rare and high-profile article in the British media titled “The Endangered Rule of Law in Hong Kong,” stating that the “47 people case” in Hong Kong was the “last straw” that led to his decision to resign.
On June 11, UK Member of Parliament and Baroness Kennedy stated in an email to Epoch Times that Jonathan Sumption, a knowledgeable conservative lawyer, made a significant public statement. She emphasized that any enterprises with interests related to China should take this as a cautionary sign. “In recent years, dangerous signals have emerged in the development of Hong Kong,” she mentioned.
Since the enforcement of the National Security Law for Hong Kong on June 30, 2020, the law has been used to target democratic activities. According to the Hong Kong government, as of March 8, a total of 291 individuals between the ages of 15 and 90 have been arrested under this law.
On June 11, the Hong Kong government issued a statement strongly opposing Jonathan Sumption’s views on the rule of law in Hong Kong, claiming they are unfounded.
Another British judge, Lord Lawrence Collins, who resigned from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal together with Jonathan Sumption, briefly stated that the political situation in Hong Kong was his reason for resigning.
Also, on Monday (June 10), Canadian judge Beverley McLachlin of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal announced her retirement. She became the ninth overseas non-permanent judge to leave the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal after the implementation of the National Security Law.
After the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, under the Sino-British “one country, two systems” agreement, Hong Kong was supposed to maintain its freedoms and systems for 50 years, including freedom of expression and judicial independence. Currently, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal still has seven foreign judges – three from the UK and four from Australia.
Former Hong Kong District Councilor Wu Man-chun stated on June 11 that he welcomes the resignation of the two British judges and expresses regret that if they had decisively severed ties with the Chinese Communist Party earlier, it would have had a greater social impact.
“Now it’s too late to leave. If these foreign judges had stood up and collectively left the authoritarian system back when the National Security Law was implemented, during the arrests of the 47 individuals, it would have sparked significant international attention and put more pressure on the CCP,” he said.
“However, I appreciate the actions and words of the two judges today. A late resignation is better than no resignation at all,” he added.
Benedict Rogers, co-founder and CEO of Hong Kong Watch, and Alyssa Fong, Public Affairs Manager of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong (CFHK), both welcomed the exit of the two British judges from the Hong Kong courts and expressed that they should have done so earlier.
Some judges who continue to serve on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal also made statements. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said during a lawyer’s association meeting in London on June 10 that he will continue to serve on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. He believes that the resignations of Jonathan Sumption and Lawrence Collins were not wrong, acknowledging the different feelings individuals have towards the “boiling frog” situation created by the CCP.
Jonathan Sumption raised another major issue in his article in the Financial Times: “If China (the CCP) disagrees with a court ruling, it can overturn the judgment.”
This precedent dates back to 2023 when the highly publicized Hong Kong billionaire, Jimmy Lai, was charged. The Court of Final Appeal allowed Lai to choose foreign lawyers, but the standing committee of the National People’s Congress issued an “interpretation” stating that the decision of whether Lai could engage foreign lawyers should be made by Chief Executive Carrie Lam.
Baroness Kennedy stated, “Lord Sumption correctly points out that the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress can overturn judgments through different interpretations, this is entirely accurate. China’s monitoring and long arm have had a chilling effect on Hong Kong’s judicial institutions and legal practitioners.”
She mentioned that the legal community in Hong Kong misunderstands that winning the struggle through a “gentle” approach is possible, stating that “This is not how the ruling class of China operates.”
Wu Man-chun expressed that the National People’s Congress can “interpret” to overturn judgments, which is not new to the people of Hong Kong. “This absurd practice has been vividly witnessed in the past few years after the change of sovereignty in Hong Kong. We have become accustomed to the authoritarian methods of the CCP.”
Baroness Kennedy revealed that she faced retaliation from the CCP in the UK parliament for her expressed concerns about democracy in Hong Kong and was included on a so-called sanctions list. This prevents her from going to the region and contacting old friends there for fear of endangering their safety.
Following the pronouncement of the 47 people case in Hong Kong on May 30, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) of the US Congress and the Executive Branch condemned the judgment, urging the Biden administration to sanction the judges and prosecutors involved in the political prosecutions.
On May 31, the US State Department stated that the US would impose new visa restrictions on CCP and Hong Kong officials in response to the Hong Kong court citing the National Security Law to convict 14 pro-democracy activists. The US criticized these judgments as politically motivated and called on the Hong Kong authorities to immediately release these individuals.
Jonathan Sumption acknowledged the possibility of Hong Kong judges being sanctioned by the US but noted that most Hong Kong judges are respected and possess free-thinking common law minds. However, they are forced to work in the “impossible political environment” created by the CCP.
Mr. Kwok Tsz-kin, former District Councilor of Hong Kong and founder of The Hong Kong Scots, noted that the current wave of resignations among foreign judges in Hong Kong is also linked to US sanctions.
“The US sanctions are real, not just empty talk. These judges have to plan for themselves and leave themselves a way out,” he said. He pointed out that former Hong Kong Chief Executives like Tung Chee-hwa and Leung Chun-ying, including Carrie Lam, who was sanctioned by the US, still receive protection from the CCP after retirement, receive money, and have their “former Chief Executive’s office.”
“They (the judges) are different from high-ranking Hong Kong officials. If they were sanctioned by the US, they would have no way out,” he pointed out.
The arrangement of having foreign judges in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal is designed to ensure judicial independence under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The wave of resignations of overseas judges will affect judicial independence and Hong Kong’s status as an international financial center.
Kwok Tsz-kin mentioned that due to the ambiguous nature of the National Security Law, many gray areas exist, causing foreign companies to lose confidence in the rule of law in Hong Kong, thereby harming its international status.
“For example, what expressions cross the bottom line of inciting regime change, there is no objective standard, no place for reference and discussion, the outside world does not know where the red line is,” he said. “Foreign companies and institutions operating in Hong Kong also do not know how to handle these situations, this chaos makes it impossible for foreign companies and institutions to operate with peace of mind.”
Wu Man-chun stated that according to the nature of CCP authoritarianism, they will definitely settle scores with those in Hong Kong fighting for democracy. “In this authoritarian rule, all we can do is silently wish for the safety of all those with conscience and justice.”