In Hong Kong, making ill-advised statements against courts or judges may land you in jail for scandalising the judiciary. It is contempt of court if a person, by words or conduct, intentionally or recklessly creates a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. Criticism is fine, especially in a place that treasures freedom of expression, but it should offer "reasonable argument or expostulation" and be "within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith", however outspoken or vigorously expressed. What is prohibited is "scurrilous abuse" - a "personal attack on a judge in abusive language that vilifies the judge rather than simply pointing out his errors" - or the imputation of improper motives or bias without any justification. This is not the same as a charge of defamation or libel, which aims to protect an individual's reputation; the concern is with people's confidence in the administration of justice, an essential condition of the rule of law. The city has had at least three such cases. The first is the infamous case of a local newspaper that waged a "campaign against the judiciary" as revenge for decisions made against it in several cases. The campaign consisted of a series of articles that alleged in abusive language a conspiracy between the courts and government to persecute the newspaper. It culminated in a three-day, round-the-clock paparazzi-style stalking of a Court of Appeal judge. These were low days for the rule of law as many of the newspaper's readers sent in letters of support for the campaign. Ironically, the newspaper was undermining the very institution that in the end delivered justice in its favour in two Court of Final Appeal decisions. The other two cases concerned a defendant who was known to the court as a vexatious litigant. He tried to stop a judge from presiding over his trial by "indulging in an abusive attack on the integrity" of the judge, who sat through the "verbal assault" patiently. The same defendant also wrote a series of letters using profanity and other abuse to attack the integrity of the court registrar. It is worth asking whether we should retain this offence. England and Wales abolished it in June 2013. Lord Lester QC and Lord Pannick QC were strong proponents of abolition. The latter argued that confidence in courts is what it is and prosecuting people for scandalising will not improve public confidence if it is already low. He wrote: "Respect for the judiciary … is undermined rather than strengthened by the existence and use of a criminal offence which provides special protection against free speech relating to the judiciary." In Hong Kong, the reputation of the judiciary is solid and insults directed at it bounce back immediately upon the character of those who lobbed the abuse. But where the abuse becomes disruptive, the offence helps to restore the "circumstances of calm and dignity" needed for courts to get on with their work. Professor Simon Young Ngai-man is associate dean (research) at the University of Hong Kong's law faculty