‘Courts respect freedom of expression’ unless you’re wearing a T-shirt with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX written on it.
The Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 takes place. Top legal and judicial officials insist, as usual, that all is fine with rule of law. First, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung…
…the top judge said the convictions of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai and his companies in a recent national security trial had drawn international attention and some critical responses amid geopolitical tensions.
Cheung said few court decisions pleased everyone and that openness to scrutiny was among the strengths of the city’s justice system.
“A comment or a criticism is only as meaningful as it is informed,” he said.
“Any serious comment or disagreement intended to be taken seriously must be grounded in a careful reading of the judgement and a sincere effort to understand the court’s reasoning.”
Does this also apply to comments supporting the court’s guilty verdict in the case of Jimmy Lai? Most of the ones I read claimed that the judgement was sound because it ran for 855 pages.
Cheung stressed that laws in Hong Kong guaranteed the independence and impartiality of courts.
Secretary for Justice Paul Lam…
…refuted what he called “unfounded accusations” against the judiciary, stressing the need to uphold the rule of law and public trust and confidence in the legal system.
…Lam acknowledged that judgements in “highly charged” national security cases had sparked criticism, including what he described as false allegations used to advocate for unlawful sanctions against judges or to pressure overseas non-permanent judges to resign.
…Such criticism, Lam warned, risks eroding trust in Hong Kong’s judicial system and the rule of law – foundations he called critical to the city’s status as an international hub.
The justice minister made it clear defendants were treated fairly in judicial proceedings.
“Some might opine that the proceedings have taken a long time. I would say the time was well spent and necessary to ensure that there was a fair trial to all parties concerned,” he added.
…Addressing external pressure, Lam noted the judiciary has repeatedly stated that judges exercise power independently and free from interference, in line with their judicial oath.
“There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of these statements,” he said.
If these statements are self-evident and true, why do he and other officials feel such a need to keep repeating them?
In case you haven’t seen it – Donald Trump’s recent letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. So embarrassingly unhinged that many people initially refused to believe it was authentic. Seems it’s real.
These so called “top legal and judicial officials” are absolute clowns.
We already had an ex-HK overseas judge make their comments on the irregularities of the HK 47 trial where a constitutional function that was in the Basic Law (rejecting a govt budget) was made a crime if combined with people Beijing doesn’t like.
Did we not have an ex HK overseas judge from UK state that the rule of law in HK was profoundly compromised?
No matter how many times these clowns parrot that the judiciary is independent, these statements come off as completely hollow compared to an ex judge speaking freely.
But it’s not like the world overseas is looking much better. The Trump letter showcases authoritarianism is on the rise globally in the 2020s.
The level of self-delusion that minions of an authoritarian system have to practice is so embarrassingly high that one must doubt their sanity.
Re Trump’s rant, one could equally ask what gives the descendants of white Europeans “right of ownership” to the United States of America? It’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago (and later they stole a big chunk from Mexico). It’s been obvious to everyone but the Republican Party for some time that Trump has declined from unorthodox to completely insane.