Hong Kong courts 'impartial' in face of Occupy movement, says Beijing think tank report

Courts in Hong Kong could remain impartial when handling cases relating to last year's Occupy Central movement although the pro-democracy protests had sparked concerns on respect for the city's rule of law, according to a report by a Beijing think tank.

A chapter on Hong Kong in the latest blue book on nationwide rule of law, published yesterday by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the illegal blockade of roads in pursuit of democracy constituted "the biggest challenge to the city's rule of law" since the 1997 handover.

But the chapter's writer, Professor Lin Feng, associate dean of the school of law at City University in Hong Kong, concluded that the performance of courts in ruling on applications for injunctions to clear protest sites had "boosted people's confidence on the future of the rule of law in Hong Kong".

Lin's assessment was in stark contrast to that of academy legal scholar Chen Xinxin who previously argued that the 79-day civil disobedience movement - which tried to force Beijing to change its stringent framework for the 2017 chief executive election - undermined the rule of law.

"The deliberate illegal behaviour [by protesters] would give other people a wrong impression that they would not be arrested as long as there were enough people participating in the illegal movement," Lin wrote. "The rule of law would have been eroded if that illegal behaviour had become common in the community."

He added: "Fortunately, the judiciary in Hong Kong has maintained its impartiality and independence even in handling the cases relating to Occupy movement."