Hong Kong's top legal body head urges global unity against planned US sanctions on judges
The Hong Kong Bar Association's new chairman has called for legal associations worldwide to join hands in opposing potential punitive measures from the US against judges and prosecutors, saying any interference in judicial processes will undermine the administration of justice.
Senior Counsel Jose-Antonio Maurellet, in his first interview with an English-language media outlet since helming the group representing barristers in Hong Kong, also shared plans to relaunch the body's pro bono scheme later this year and partner with more non-profit groups to help those who could not afford legal services.
Maurellet, a Hong Kong-born Eurasian and a corporate law specialist fluent in English, Cantonese and French, succeeded Victor Dawes last month amid uncertainty surrounding United States President Donald Trump's return to the White House and concerns over the potential implications for Hong Kong's legal community.
A bipartisan group of American lawmakers recently introduced a bill aimed at sanctioning Hong Kong's judges and prosecutors involved in the cases of activists charged under the national security law.
The bill, if passed, would require the US president to decide within six months whether to introduce the sanctions under existing legislation.
When asked about the impact of such potential actions, Maurellet said: 'All forms of interference [in legal and judicial work] are actually bad and undermine the administration of justice. So we hope that other legal associations around the world will join us in opposing this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
42 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong shows how to balance national security and human rights
Over the past five years, Hong Kong's national security law has provided meaningful insights into the effort to strike a reasonable balance between safeguarding national security and protecting fundamental rights. Advertisement From the perspective of someone who has followed Hong Kong's legal and constitutional evolution over several decades, this development is neither abrupt nor unprecedented. Rather, it reflects a maturing legal response to the challenges that also confront many other jurisdictions, particularly those rooted in the common law tradition. While courts around the world interpret the relationship between national security and human rights through differing cultural, historical and institutional lenses, one constant remains: the rule of law must serve as the guiding principle. Since its enactment, Hong Kong's national security law has contributed to restoring social order, reinforcing the rule of law, reshaping the city's political culture and safeguarding the rights and freedoms of its residents. It is grounded in the human rights principles of China's constitution and Hong Kong's Basic Law , and it seeks to harmonise the values of national security and human rights. It reinforces Hong Kong's status as an inseparable part of China while emphasising the importance of upholding national security within a rule-of-law framework and embedding respect for human rights throughout its legal provisions. Advertisement National security is a fundamental priority of modern sovereign states, underpinning citizens' ability to enjoy basic human rights. Article 2 of the law clarifies that the Basic Law's Articles 1 and 12 constitute core provisions, stipulating that residents' exercise of rights and freedoms must align with these provisions, thereby establishing the foundation for balancing national security and human rights.
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Public housing in Hong Kong has no room for ‘lying flat'
There is something amiss when those on low incomes are said to have rejected promotions and pay rises to remain qualified for social welfare. Exactly how many Hongkongers have opted for the so-called 'lying flat' lifestyle – doing the bare minimum to get by – to apply for, or not to be kicked out of, a subsidised rental home remains unclear. But the government has good reason to resist calls to be more accommodating in the allocation of scarce public housing. The suggestion that the Housing Authority may combat the phenomenon by allowing applicants to exempt certain 'genuine and reasonable one-off income' in their declaration is debatable. There are also calls to exclude the earnings of grown-up children when assessing ceilings of household incomes. The proposals certainly have an appeal to many who marginally exceed the limits, but such flexibility and leniency also mean a greater burden on public funds. Given the scarcity of public housing, a fair and firm policy on asset and income limits remains the best way to screen out those who are less deserving. If applicants' total incomes – be they bonuses or standard salaries – are above the ceiling, they should not be allowed to remain in the queue for homes. The same goes for existing tenants. They have had the chance to better themselves and should be encouraged to move out and make way for those still waiting. The crackdown on the abuse of public flats by requiring households to declare incomes and other property is in the same spirit. We do not know how many people would actually turn down pay rises and bonuses to meet the qualification. The truth is that no matter where the line is drawn, some people are bound to lose out. A more flexible approach on applicants' bonuses and other personal circumstances is arguably unfair to many in the queue who may have greater housing needs. It may also encourage more people to get around the rules and remain in subsidised units while earning more. Lying flat is a wider social problem that calls for policy intervention at a higher level. A more sympathetic and tolerant approach to homes may only encourage more people to turn to public housing and reinforce the trend of lying flat, which is hardly good for social mobility and development.
HKFP
19 hours ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong justice minister downplays departure of foreign judges, says numbers ‘not main point'
Hong Kong's justice chief has downplayed the departure of foreign judges in recent years, saying it is not about their numbers but whether the judges have 'a good international reputation.' Secretary for Justice Paul Lam told Cable News in an interview published on Monday that the city's foreign judges system was still effective. 'There are new [foreign] appointed judges who are willing to join. Would you say [the system] is useless?' Lam said in Cantonese. 'If they think they wouldn't make any contribution if they were to come here, [I] believe they would not come to Hong Kong to help,' he added. The top official's comments follow a recent exodus of foreign judges from the city's top court. The most recent departure was former Australian justice Robert French, who resigned in April and said the role of foreign judges in the court had become 'arguably cosmetic.' In June, a New Zealand judge, William Young, joined the city's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). There are currently six overseas judges in the top court, compared with 15 at its peak. Lam told Cable News that the number of foreign judges was 'not the main point.' 'It's about what type of people come, and whether they have a good international reputation,' he said. The justice minister also dismissed Hong Kong's fall in the global rule of law index. 'Regarding human rights and freedoms, I believe that their ranking of Hong Kong… does not reflect the actual situation. This might be an issue of external perception,' he said, adding that Western countries often did not have a 'comprehensive' judgement of Hong Kong. Top court exodus Since the CFA's establishment in 1997, it has sporadically extended invitations to judges from other common law jurisdictions to join its panel. This practice has been regarded as a testament to the international community's trust in the city's judicial system. Last year, however, the apex court lost five judges. Anthony Murray Gleeson from Australia did not renew his term when it ended in February 2024, citing old age; UK judges Jonathan Sumption and Lawrence Collins quit in June 2024 before their terms ended; while Canada's Beverley McLachlin and the UK's Nicholas Phillips did not extend their terms. Sumption wrote an opinion piece for the Financial Times just days after his resignation, saying Hong Kong was 'slowly becoming a totalitarian state.' Judges operate in an 'almost impossible political environment created by China,' he said. Before the recent string of departures, two British judges in 2022, Robert Reed and Patrick Hodge, quit the CFA, citing the erosion of political freedoms.
