My Take | Banning overseas lawyers from security cases a drastic step
- Such a move would come at a critical time and send a message that Hong Kong does not trust foreigners – even eminent barristers
The unprecedented move to ban overseas lawyers from handling national security cases in Hong Kong tells us much about the transformation of the city in recent years.
These lawyers are leading lights in their profession with international reputations. They have, over many years, made a valuable contribution to the city’s legal development. But, it seems, they are not to be trusted with national security cases.
Last week, Hong Kong’s top court rejected a government bid to stop media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying from being represented at his collusion trial by British barrister Timothy Owen. That decision highlighted the judiciary’s independence. It should have been the end of the matter. But the city’s leader, John Lee Ka-chiu, quickly announced he would ask Beijing to issue its first “interpretation” of the national security law it passed in 2020. The ruling is expected to effectively overturn the court’s ruling and impose a general ban on lawyers based overseas working on national security cases. It is a drastic step.
Seven senior judges in four hearings have rejected the government’s arguments. Chief Judge of the High Court, Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor, described Lai’s case as being of “immense importance” and ruled Owen’s involvement to be clearly in the public interest. The British lawyer, with rich experience in criminal and human rights law, would “undoubtedly add a significant dimension to the case”, he added.
The Court of Appeal agreed, saying the public perception of fair play was vital to the administration of justice, especially in a high-profile case. The government then changed strategy, advocating a “radical new approach”. A ban on all overseas lawyers working on national security cases was proposed, except in exceptional circumstances.