Hong Kong Appoints New Zealand Judge To Top Court
Quick Read
Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed.
A New Zealand judge has been appointed to Hong Kong's top court amid overseas jurist exodus.
William Young, 73, joins five other overseas non-permanent justices from the UK and Australia.
Hong Kong invites overseas judges to its Court of Final Appeal to uphold common law jurisdiction.
Hong Kong:
A New Zealand judge has been appointed as a justice of Hong Kong's top court, after a years-long exodus of overseas jurists following Beijing's imposition of a sweeping security law on the finance hub.
Hong Kong's lawmakers on Wednesday approved the appointment of William Young, 73, to join five other overseas non-permanent justices from the UK and Australia.
Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction separate from mainland China and invites overseas judges to hear cases at its Court of Final Appeal.
Their presence has been seen as a bellwether for the rule of law since the former British colony was handed back to China in 1997.
Beijing passed a national security law on Hong Kong in 2020, following huge and often violent pro-democracy protests in the Chinese city the year before.
Since then, several overseas judges have quit the Court of Final Appeal without finishing their terms, while others have not renewed their appointments.
The lineup of overseas judges has gone from 15 at its peak down to five, not including Mr Young.
The newly appointed justice, who retired from his role as a New Zealand Supreme Court judge in April 2022, is expected to start in Hong Kong this month.
Hong Kong leader John Lee accepted a recommendation to appoint Mr Young in May and praised him as "a judge of eminent standing and reputation".
Cases at the top court in Hong Kong are typically heard by a panel of four local judges and a fifth ad hoc member, who may be a foreign judge.
In January, Hong Kong's chief justice said recruiting suitable overseas judges "may be less straightforward than it once was", given geopolitical headwinds.
The government has defended the security law as necessary to restore order after the 2019 protests and said the city remains a well-respected legal hub.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
28 minutes ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
38 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Kilmar Abrego Garcia charged with illegally transporting migrants
By Chris Strohm, Myles Miller and Bob Van Voris Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man mistakenly deported by the Trump administration to a prison in El Salvador, has been brought back to the US to face federal charges that he illegally transported undocumented immigrants within the country. Abrego Garcia was indicted by a grand jury in Tennessee in May, according to court filings. He appeared in a Tennessee courtroom Friday, hours after he was returned to the US, ABC reported. Attorney General Pam Bondi said an investigation determined that he was member of the criminal gang MS-13 and a 'danger to our community.' Abrego Garcia's case became a lightning rod over President Donald Trump's immigration policies, which have seen the administration move to ramp up deportations of undocumented migrants. The Supreme Court had told the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country,' Bondi said at a press conference in Washington. 'Upon completion of sentence we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.' The US is seeking to have Abrego Garcia detained as a flight risk and a danger. The charges could result in him spending the rest of his life behind bars, prosecutors said. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along — that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, said in an emailed statement. 'It's now up to our judicial system to see that Mr. Abrego Garcia receives the due process that the constitution guarantees to all persons.' According to court documents, Abrego Garcia's role, with other unidentified people, was to pick up migrants in the Houston area after they'd illegally crossed the border into Texas, then move them to other parts of the country. Abrego Garcia and other members of the group also allegedly transported guns and drugs illegally purchased in Texas into Maryland. Before he was removed from the country, an immigration judge had ruled that Abrego Garcia could not be sent to his home country of El Salvador, finding that he would be at risk of harm under the Convention Against Torture. The government later admitted he'd been deported to El Salvador in error. After he was removed from the country in March, his lawyers asked a federal court in Maryland to order his return to the US. Abrego Garica was initially kept in El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, but was later moved to another facility. On April 10, the US Supreme Court agreed with US District Judge Paula Xinis that Abrego Garcia shouldn't have been deported and ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' his release from Salvadoran custody. Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele initially responded by claiming they had no power to return Abrego Garcia. Xinis then ordered the government to answer questions detailing its efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. A US appeals court upheld the order in a harshly critical opinion on April 17. 'Thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia, this investigation continued,' Bondi said Friday. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democratic senator who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, said that the administration will now 'have to make its case in the court of law.' 'For months the Trump administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution,' Van Hollen said. 'Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
North Korea hit by major internet outage, likely due to internal cause
North Korea's internet was hit by a major outage that lasted several hours on Saturday, knocking off connection to government web sites and official news services online and severing the reclusive country from cyberspace. It was not clear what caused the outage but it may have been internal rather than a cyberattack, as connections via China and Russia were affected, said researchers who monitor North Korea's internet and technology infrastructure. North Korea's main official news services, its Foreign Ministry, and the Air Koryo national airline were among websites inaccessible on Saturday, before they started coming back slowly around midday according to checks by Reuters. North Korea's entire internet infrastructure was not showing up on systems that can monitor internet activities, and email services were also affected, Junade Ali, a UK-based researcher who monitors the North Korean internet, said earlier. 'Hard to say if this is intentional or accidental – but seems like this is internal rather than an attack.' Officials at South Korea's cyber terror response centre, a police division that monitors North Korea's cyber activities, could not be reached for comment. Martyn Williams, who specializes in North Korea's technology and infrastructure at the Washington-based Stimson Center, also said the cause appeared to be internal as the Chinese and Russian connections were not working. North Korea has one of the world's most strictly controlled internet systems, including access to any form of online communication. The general public has access only to an intranet set up by the government and that is not connected to the wider global network. An elite few in the government and leadership are allowed open internet access, and government and news websites often serve up propaganda for outside audiences. North Korea has in previous years experienced large internet outages suspected as being caused by cyberattacks. The country operates elite teams of hackers, including a group known as Lazarus run by the government intelligence apparatus, that are blamed for attacks against foreign institutions and companies and more recently for theft and the laundering of cryptocurrencies. North Korea denies involvement in hacking, crypto thefts and other cybercrime.
