As more arrests are made amid the continuing unrest and criticism of judges’ decisions begin to roll in, Hong Kong should be reminded of the need to respect the judicial process. A repeat of the pressure that judges have had to bear working through the Occupy cases would undermine confidence in the courts.

After three months of sometimes violent protests, the government has relented on the extradition bill. But, for the city to truly move on, it must end the silence on alleged police abuses, put universal suffrage back on the agenda, and examine why young people are angry with Beijing.

If Hong Kong is to survive this ordeal, the protesters must avoid provocative acts that make crackdowns more likely. The SAR government is most responsible for the escalation, though, through its misguided bill and recent inaction.

The extradition controversy is a symptom of a deeper problem: the chief executive is seen as Beijing-friendly and Hong Kong’s political system, too business-friendly. To ensure stability, our core values, separate system and way of life must be respected.

Though not a democracy, Hong Kong is ruled by consultation and consensus. Pushing through the extradition bill against all opposition will upset this understanding and alter the balance of the ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement.

Beyond the debate on whether the sentences for eight leaders of the pro-democracy protests of 2014 were just, Hong Kong will still have to grapple with questions about the limits of free expression, the role of civil disobedience, and the prospects for democracy here.

Talks began more than 20 years ago between Hong Kong and Beijing on a rendition agreement. Why did nothing come of it, and why is the government opting for a case-by-case approach that fails to address Hongkongers’ demand for fair trial safeguards?

The Court of Final Appeal has been accused of first going too far in asserting its independence and then surrendering too much ground. The 1999 incident also opened the door to Beijing’s interpretations of the Basic Law.

The precise relationship between China’s constitution and Hong Kong’s de facto constitution can be debated in academic circles, but let’s not forget that the Basic Law exists to protect the Hong Kong system.

First the Marina is closed, then a new shopping mall appears - could the golf carts be next? Middle-class allure of suburb-by-the-sea tainted by uncertain future

Two court decisions this year which freed young protesters have been criticised as too light, but both rulings clearly warn that, in future, demonstrations that end in violence will be dealt with sternly.

Judges have been attacked for recent rulings, but scant attention is given to the reasoning behind judgments. To educate the public, the judiciary can consider a bold move Britain has made – allowing filming in courts.

The future’s looking bright in the fight against discrimination – a victory in the city’s top court by a lesbian couple who took on the Immigration Department will have far-reaching implications

The court ruling against spousal benefits for a gay couple is a setback for Hong Kong’s progress in protecting minority rights, and the government should be ashamed of its role in it.

Unlike in mainland China, freedom of expression under Hong Kong’s ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement can only be restricted in extreme cases in the public interest.

The surprise election of human rights lawyer Philip Dykes as Bar Association Chairman has raised fears that what has long been a strong, independent and credible voice could be adopting a more confrontational, political stance.

There is no clear justification under the Basic Law for the wholesale application of mainland laws in a part of Hong Kong. Attempts to get around the city’s legal framework will have far-reaching consequences.

In light of the Court of Final Appeal’s recent refusal to allow two lawmakers disqualified for improper oath-taking to even make their case before the top court, it is worth revisiting its judgment of 1999.