Hong Kong authorities have condemned the city’s last colonial governor, Chris Patten, for his “wanton personal vilification” of a British judge who joined colleagues on the top court in dismissing an appeal by jailed media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and six former opposition lawmakers over their convictions for taking part in a banned march.
The government on Wednesday also hit out at Patten’s “malicious slandering” of the judgment by the Court of Final Appeal the day before, which upheld the convictions of the seven for taking part in an illegal march during the 2019 anti-government protests.
Patten told the media the verdict “revealed the rapidly deteriorating state of the rule of law in Hong Kong”.
“This unjust verdict is made worse by the fact that Lord Neuberger, a former head of Britain’s Supreme Court, was a party to this decision,” Patten said, referring to the non-permanent overseas judge sitting on the city’s top court.
The Hong Kong government slammed Patten’s criticism of Neuberger.
“Patten’s criticisms against Lord Neuberger … who handled the relevant case were completely groundless and unjustified personal attacks aiming to smear and slander the [judge’s] reputation, which fully exposed Patten’s malicious attempt to undermine the system of non-permanent judges,” the statement read.
In June, two British judges resigned from Hong Kong’s top court, attributing their departure to the city’s political situation. City leader John Lee Ka-chiu has said Hong Kong would maintain the practice of having foreign judges to show the world the transparency of the judicial system.
The statement added that the judges involved in the case gave detailed legal analysis and explanations on the rulings, including why two UK cases should not be followed by Hong Kong courts from a jurisprudential point of view.
“Everyone has the right to express his or her views on court decisions within the boundaries permitted by the law, but no one can abusively criticise or slander judges, or make baseless allegations purely out of political motives,” it said.
“Patten deliberately ignored the judgment delivered by Lord Neuberger and maliciously accused the judge of not properly explaining the reasons for his judgment.”
The government said Patten’s remarks were made “in blatant disregard of the detailed legal analysis” by the top court and were made “for the sole purpose of exerting political pressure” on the judges.
On Monday, the Court of Final Appeal refused to apply two British legal precedents cited by the appellants to overturn the convictions for taking part in an illegal march during the 2019 anti-government protests.
The appeal centred on Lai and six others’ roles in a demonstration that organisers had described as a “water flow assembly” at Victoria Park in Causeway Bay on August 18, 2019. They were convicted in 2021 of organising and taking part in the banned march.
A District Court judge imposed jail sentences of between eight and 18 months on Lai, who founded the now-closed Apple Daily newspaper, and three former opposition lawmakers – Lee Cheuk-yan, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Cyd Ho Sau-lan.
Martin Lee and ex-legislators Albert Ho Chun-yan and Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee were given suspended jail sentences.
The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences of Lai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Leung and Ho after it quashed the organising charges, but they had completed their sentences by the time the verdict was delivered last year.
