British judge Lord (Jonathan) Sumption’s recent remarks on Hong Kong’s Judiciary, particularly his claim that the courts have become “too partial” to the authorities in criminal cases, are baseless and a gross distortion of the truth. His resignation from the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) as a nonpermanent judge, which he attributes to this alleged partiality, seems based on a selective and flawed interpretation of certain legal cases. In reality, Hong Kong’s Judiciary remains independent, professional, and entirely consistent with the principles of the rule of law, including its handling of cases under the National Security Law for Hong Kong.
There is no denying that Sumption has had a distinguished legal career. However, this only makes his recent comments on Hong Kong all the more perplexing. Given his legal expertise and experience, he should fully understand that Hong Kong’s Judiciary operates with complete autonomy, adhering to the highest standards of judicial independence. His failure to acknowledge this reality has raised severe doubts about the motivations behind his remarks.
Sumption’s assertion that the Judiciary is “kowtowing” to Beijing is utterly unfounded. Hong Kong courts continue to uphold common law principles, maintaining independence and impartiality in every case. Judges can make decisions based on evidence and legal principles without external interference. Suggesting otherwise is an insult to Hong Kong’s legal professionals and a serious misrepresentation of the judicial process. Hong Kong’s Judiciary has consistently demonstrated its ability to handle complex cases, including those involving national security, without compromising its commitment to justice. The facts do not support the assertion that Hong Kong courts are politically influenced.
The cases involving the 47 individuals who participated in a plot to topple the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, which Sumption referenced in his remarks, were handled with the utmost respect for due process and the principles of the rule of law. The defendants were provided full legal representation, and their rights were protected throughout the proceedings. The convictions in these cases were based on solid evidence, not political consideration. Sumption’s suggestion that these trials were politically motivated is misleading and entirely false. His comments mischaracterized how the legal system in Hong Kong operates. The judicial process in these cases followed the same rigorous standards applied to all criminal cases in Hong Kong, and the outcomes were purely based on careful consideration of the evidence, and nothing else. Sumption’s remarks on these cases reflect a fundamental misunderstanding — or a deliberate misinterpretation — of Hong Kong’s independent legal framework.
Similarly, Sumption’s critique of the Stand News case, in which two editors were convicted of sedition, is flawed. His argument that this case represents a suppression of free speech is oversimplistic and inaccurate. Freedom of speech in Hong Kong remains protected under the Basic Law, but it is not absolute as in any society governed by the rule of law. The actions of the Stand News editors went beyond legitimate criticism and entered the realm of sedition against the government. In this case, the legal proceedings adhered strictly to the rule of law, and the convictions were based on substantial evidence of criminal behavior, not political retribution. Sumption’s failure to recognize this distinction undermines the credibility of his arguments. The Stand News case was not about silencing dissent but ensuring accountability for actions threatening public order and social stability.
The assertion that Hong Kong has somehow abandoned its commitment to liberal values distorts reality and is merely driven by external political interests rather than an objective assessment of the facts
Given the relatively short duration of his tenure at the CFA and his limited experience with Hong Kong’s Judiciary, Sumption may not be fully acquainted with the intricacies of its legal processes, particularly in cases involving national security. His criticism, therefore, seems more aligned with external political narratives rather than an informed critique of the Judiciary. This has raised legitimate concerns about whether Sumption’s comments are motivated by a genuine interest in the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal system or by external pressures that align with the broader geopolitical agenda of Western governments and media outlets.
Indeed, Sumption’s remarks must be viewed in the broader context of the geopolitical climate. His remarks align closely with the narratives of the United States and the United Kingdom governments and Western mainstream media, which have sought to portray Hong Kong’s legal system as “compromised” by the national security laws. This narrative is misleading and deliberately ignores the continued operation of Hong Kong’s Judiciary by common law principles. Foreign judges who have chosen not to renew their appointments have done so under palpable political pressure from Western governments, politicians and media outlets, and their decisions should not be interpreted as evidence of a “compromised” Judiciary. Sumption’s resignation seems more in line with this external political pressure than genuine concern for Hong Kong’s Judiciary. The idea that foreign judges’ departures reflect a decline in judicial independence is a convenient but flawed argument used to support the narrative of Hong Kong’s supposed legal decline — one that is not supported by any substantive evidence.
The assertion that Hong Kong has somehow abandoned its commitment to liberal values distorts reality and is merely driven by external political interests rather than an objective assessment of the facts. Anyone who keeps promoting false and biased narratives on Hong Kong’s Judiciary could only have one intention, i.e. to undermine the international community’s confidence in Hong Kong’s legal institutions.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
