The recent departure of a British judge sitting on Hong Kong’s top court from an advisory board of an international media freedom group might reflect that foreign judicial figures in the city are facing mounting pressure from critics, a scholar has said.
David Neuberger has stepped down from his role as chairman of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, an independent advisory body of the Media Freedom Coalition, a role he held for nearly five years.
In a statement made on Wednesday, Neuberger cited unspecified “concerns” about his concurrent position as a non-permanent judge at Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.
“I have now concluded that I should go now, because it is undesirable that focus on my position as a non-permanent judge in Hong Kong should take away, or distract, from the critical and impactful work of the High Level Panel,” he said.
He is one of five justices who presided over the case of jailed former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and six former opposition lawmakers convicted of participating in an illegal march during the 2019 anti-government protests.
Michael Davis, a former law professor at the University of Hong Kong, said he believed that Neuberger had faced great pressure in Britain and from overseas human rights activists.
“There is a wide view in the international legal community that the Hong Kong courts are under severe pressure to deliver the results sought by the government in these sensitive cases,” he said.
Davis added that recent remarks about the case by former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten had offered a widely respected view on the “futility” of the role of foreign judges serving in the city, given the current pressures placed on the courts.
Earlier this week, the court refused to apply two British legal precedents cited by the appellants to overturn the convictions and jail sentences of Lai and the six others, who include veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming. The judgment was co-written by Neuberger.
Patten said Neuberger was “a party to this decision” and described it as an “unjust verdict”. He said it showed “the rapidly deteriorating state of the rule of law in Hong Kong”.
On Wednesday, the Hong Kong government condemned Patten’s “malicious slandering” of the court judgment and his “wanton personal vilification” of Neuberger aimed at undermining his reputation.
Barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah, also an adviser to the chief executive, described the resignation of Neuberger as a “responsible decision”.
He said Neuberger’s two roles – as chairman of the advisory body and a judge in Hong Kong – might involve a conflict of interest in terms of “public perception”, considering that British politicians often attacked Hong Kong’s judicial system.
Grenville Cross, former director of public prosecutions, said there was no reason to assume Neuberger would resign from any other roles apart from the panel.
“He has only resigned from this role to avoid distractions to the work of this particular panel,” Cross said.
On its website, the Media Freedom Coalition describes itself as a “partnership of countries” working together to advocate for domestic and global media freedom, as well as for the safety of journalists and media workers.
Reporters Without Borders said on Thursday the resignation of Neuberger was “necessary” to protect the independence and integrity of the panel.
Director of campaigns Rebecca Vincent, who is also a member of the panel’s consultative committee for civil society, said: “We have been deeply disappointed by Lord Neuberger’s continued activity with the Hong Kong courts during a period of unprecedented decline in media freedom and rule of law in the territory.”
She added that foreign judges who retained their roles within the Hong Kong judiciary were “sadly helping to legitimise an illegitimate system and enabling dangerous prosecutions of journalists”, which included Lai.
