Do we still need overseas judges in Hong Kong's top court?
Advertisement
Lord Woolf was then the Master of the Rolls in the English Court of Appeal and was undertaking the task of modernising their Civil Procedure Rules. The debate was intense but entertaining and it was an eye-opener for a law student to watch great legal minds arguing over a topical issue.
Some 10 years later, I was instructed to argue a short point in our Court of Final Appeal. My role was relatively minor and I was on my feet for less than 10 minutes but I can still recall the excitement of meeting Lord Woolf again – on this occasion appearing in front of him when he was sitting as an overseas non-permanent judge in our top court.
My experience is not unique. The opportunity of arguing difficult points of law before the most eminent jurists in our appellate court is, for many barristers, one of the attractions for choosing a career as an advocate.
I am often asked by friends outside the profession whether we still need overseas judges in the top court. This is understandable, especially given the resignations of a number of them in the past few years.
Advertisement
Over the past 28 years, 30 overseas judges from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have sat in the top court as overseas non-permanent judges. Their significant contributions in the administration of justice and in enriching our jurisprudence have been widely acknowledged.
As our chief justice explained in his speech at our Opening of the Legal Year ceremony in January 2025, Hong Kong has by now developed and nurtured sufficient legal and judicial talent to fill the highest judicial offices in their entirety.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
09-08-2025
- RTHK
Same-sex order 'not a bid to regulate societal values'
Same-sex order 'not a bid to regulate societal values' Jose-Antonio Maurellet says the court ruling explicitly preserves Hong Kong's traditional definition of marriage. File photo: RTHK Bar Association chairman Jose-Antonio Maurellet said a Court of Final Appeal order mandating an official framework for same-sex partnership recognition is purely a legal and constitutional matter, not an attempt to regulate societal values. Speaking on a Commercial Radio programme on Saturday, Maurellet emphasised the association's neutral stance on the content of the draft legislation but affirmed that the court's ruling should be implemented. The government's proposal is a direct response to a landmark ruling in 2023 requiring authorities to formulate a framework within two years. Under the proposal, registered same-sex partners would be granted specific rights, including the ability to make hospital visits, obtain their partner's medical information, make medical decisions and donate organs to each other. Maurellet noted that if the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill fails to pass the Legislative Council, the government could apply to the court for an extension to carry out the order. He stressed that the ruling explicitly preserves Hong Kong's traditional definition of marriage. "The five judges of the Court of Final Appeal all agreed that the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman has not changed," Maurellet said. "Therefore, referring to it as an 'alternative framework' signifies that it is not the same as a traditional marriage. "The court's ruling states that while your status is different, you should have legal recognition, and the alternative framework should provide certain rights. "As for what those rights are, the court clearly indicated that the executive authorities have the discretion to consider which rights to provide. "More fundamental rights should certainly be included, while less core rights can be managed by the executive and the legislature. "Thus, the court's sole consideration is legal and constitutional, rather than regulating societal values."
HKFP
08-08-2025
- HKFP
Hong Kong media regulator loses final appeal bid against satirical RTHK show that ‘insulted' police
Hong Kong's media regulator has been denied a final bid to take an appeal to the city's top court to challenge a lower court's ruling that a political satire aired by government-funded broadcaster RTHK did not constitute a breach of its code. In a two-page court document, three Court of Final Appeal justices – Joseph Fok, Johnson Lam, and Kemal Bokhary – dismissed the Communications Authority's application, 'on the ground that it discloses no reasonable grounds for leave to appeal.' The decision on Thursday means that the government has exhausted all methods of overturning the ruling in favour of the RTHK staff union and the city's largest journalists' group, which brought the initial challenge five years ago against a warning from the watchdog over the satirical current affairs show. The top court's decision followed a February ruling by the lower Court of Appeal (CA) denying the watchdog's application to take its case to the apex court. Appellants are allowed to then make an application directly to the Court of Final Appeal. Satire show shelved The legal bid stemmed from a court decision in September, when three CA judges ruled that RTHK did not breach the media watchdog's code in an episode of satirical current affairs show Headliner aired on February 14, 2020. The original warning was issued in May 2020, after the authority received public complaints about the controversial episode. The show jokingly suggested that police officers had more protective gear than healthcare staff during the Covid-19 pandemic. The programme was said to have insulted and denigrated the police, and it was suspended hours after the issuance of the original warning. The authority's move to take the show off the air was challenged by the RTHK Programme Staff Union and the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) in August 2020, and the High Court ruled partially in favour of the parties. Both the government and the staff union filed appeals, and in September, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the HKJA and the staff union. The Communications Authority told local media on Thursday that it had noted the decision of the top court and that it would continue to handle complaints on broadcasting matters in a 'fair, just and impartial' manner to ensure that television and radio programmes are in the public interest.
HKFP
28-07-2025
- HKFP
Australian judge William Gummow to stay on Hong Kong's top court for 3 more years
Australian justice William Gummow has extended his term as a visiting foreign judge on Hong Kong's top court for another three years, following a wave of resignations by his peers after Beijing's national security law came into force. Gummow will remain on the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) as a non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction until July 2028, the Judiciary announced on Friday. Non-permanent Hong Kong judges Frank Stock and Patrick Chan have also extended their terms by three years, with their new appointments beginning on September 1 and October 21, respectively. Their appointments were approved by Chief Executive John Lee, following a recommendation by Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, the top judge of the CFA. Since its establishment in 1997, the CFA has periodically invited judges from other common law jurisdictions to serve on its panel. The practice has long been seen as a vote of confidence from the international community in Hong Kong's judicial system, bolstering the city's reputation as a global financial and business hub. However, in recent years, the presence of overseas judges has come under scrutiny amid a wave of resignations following the introduction of the national security law in June 2020. The UK has also considered pulling its judges from Hong Kong's top court. Last month, Hong Kong's legislature approved the appointment of 73-year-old William Young from New Zealand as a non-permanent judge on the Court of Final Appeal, joining five other overseas judges from the UK and Australia. His profile has yet to appear on the court's official website. 'Cosmetic' In April, Australian judge Robert French resigned from Hong Kong's top court, saying the role of overseas non-permanent judges on the CFA had become 'increasingly anachronistic and arguably cosmetic.' He was the sixth foreign judge to depart Hong Kong's highest court since the start of last year. French said he continued to respect both local and overseas judges who remain on the bench for their integrity and independence. He also rejected claims that foreign judges were 'complicit' in enforcing the national security law or that their presence lent it 'spurious legitimacy.' Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong's mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. The authorities say it restored stability and peace to the city, rejecting criticism from trade partners, the UN and NGOs.
