No evidence that Hong Kong judges are prejudiced by ‘political persuasion’, city’s Law Society states

Hong Kong’s Law Society delivered a stout defence of the city’s judiciary on Thursday, stating there was no evidence that judges were “prejudiced by any political persuasion” and warning against attempts to “introduce political or ideological screening” in judicial appointments.

The city’s top regulatory body for solicitors issued a statement hours after a trusted aide of former chief executive Leung Chun-ying suggested in a newspaper article that it was inevitable for judges in the city’s highest court to use political judgment when applying and explaining laws.

Although the body did not name anyone, it was understood that the strong statement was a direct rebuttal to Beijing loyalist Shiu Sin-por, who was referring to lawmakers’ recent approval of two foreign judges who are vocal supporters of same-sex rights joining the Court of Final Appeal.

Last month, 60 out of 62 lawmakers present at the Legislative Council said yes to Britain’s top judge Brenda Hale and Canada’s former top judge Beverley McLachlin becoming the first women to join the city’s highest court.

The pair will begin their three year terms next month. Though Legco has never rejected the appointment of foreign or local judges, a handful of pro-establishment lawmakers voiced reservations on two fronts. Several were concerned about the judges views on same-sex equality, saying they were echoing concerns expressed by members of the public. However, others asked if they would uphold China’s national interests.

Starry Lee Wai-king, chairwoman of the city’s largest pro-establishment party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said: “If there are cases related to Hong Kong independence put forth to the court, some citizens may be worried that the verdict would be affected by judges who are known for embracing a federal system.”