My Take | Restraint needed in use of the power to ban foreign lawyers

The interpretation of Hong Kong’s national security law by China’s top legislature was intended to clarify whether lawyers based overseas can work on such cases. But the decision raises more questions than it answers. It has far-reaching implications.

Beijing stepped in at the request of the Hong Kong government after the city’s courts said eminent British barrister Timothy Owen could defend media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying at his trial. Lai is accused of collusion with foreign forces.

Contrary to expectations, no blanket ban was imposed on hiring overseas lawyers for national security cases. No direct reference was made to Lai’s case and the judgment of the courts was not overturned. So far, so good.

But the process has been used to bring the foreign lawyers issue within powers already held by the chief executive and the national security committee he chairs. Beijing has put the ball back into Hong Kong’s court. Officials must now decide how to proceed.

Leading lawyers from overseas have long played a significant role in developing Hong Kong’s legal system. The law on their admission was clear. Seven senior judges, including the chief justice, ruled Owen could represent Lai. The lawyer was described as a renowned specialist and his involvement was said to be clearly in the public interest.

Now, the decision on Owen and others like him will be made by officials. This should not be a black box operation. Each application should be considered on its own merits and lawyers blocked only if there is compelling evidence of a security risk. Reasons should be provided and an appeal process available. These would be important safeguards.