The source said the interpretation was expected to focus on Chapter 4 covering case procedures, but declined to name the specific clauses that could be amended.

The Beijing-imposed law only requires cases be heard by a pool of designated judges hand-picked by the city’s leader, and no restrictions are made on the types of lawyers who can represent defendants.

The city leader asked the central government to intervene after the Court of Final Appeal rejected arguments by the Department of Justice that British King’s Counsel Timothy Owen not be allowed to defend Lai against charges of foreign collusion and sedition, which could land the tycoon in jail for life.

Prosecutors argued the involvement of overseas lawyers in national security cases could compromise state secrets.

Hong Kong tycoon Jimmy Lai’s trial may be deferred by month or more

The mainland source added the standing committee had the option to call an interim meeting to tackle the interpretation ahead of its regular session on December 30.

But Hong Kong’s sole delegate to the apex legislative body, Tam Yiu-chung, cast doubt on the feasibility of holding such a meeting within seven days.

He was also sceptical that Beijing would ultimately choose to approve a small circle of lawyers for national security law cases, calling it “very controversial and hard”. Instead, the standing committee was likely to keep its decision in line with the scope of Lee’s request, he added.

“I believe when the chief executive made his suggestion, he did his research on the feasibility and rationale, and with support from the central government,” he told the Post.

The justice department on Tuesday afternoon said it had written to the Court of First Instance requesting Lai’s trial, set for Thursday, be adjourned.

According to a local source, the length of the adjournment sought is seven days and the court is expected to deal with the matter at a hearing on Thursday.

The standing committee has interpreted the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, on five occasions in the 25 years since Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule, most recently in 2016 when it held that public officials take their oaths “sincerely” and “solemnly” or risk being removed from office.

Lee said he respected the court’s latest judgment as it followed legal principles and evidence, yet as the city’s leader, he had the responsibility to solve any long-term problems on the legal and enforcement mechanisms for national security.

He called the situation stemming from Lai’s case “unprecedented”, but said he trusted the standing committee would deal with the matter expeditiously.

Asked which clause of the national security law would be interpreted, Lee said it was the “prerogative and authority” of the standing committee to decide on such questions. “I will leave it to them,” he said.

He also stressed the proposed interpretation would only target lawyers registered overseas, not foreign ones listed in Hong Kong.

“If you are not a lawyer who does not have full rights to practise in Hong Kong, you don’t fall under this category,” he said.

Lai, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily tabloid newspaper, has been detained for alleged national security offences since the end of 2020, just months after Beijing imposed the new law, although he was jailed for 14 months in May last year over his role in illegal protests.

In a rare move, the judiciary commented on an ongoing legal case, saying on Monday night: “The judiciary respects the chief executive’s proposal to ask the NPC Standing Committee for an interpretation of relevant provisions of the national security law to clarify issues.”

The two main bodies representing the city’s barristers and solicitors also weighed in on Lee’s decision. Bar Association chairman Victor Dawes noted that while the standing committee was entitled to interpret the legislation under Article 65 of the national security law, he hoped the power would be used sparingly.

“The exercise of such power will inevitably attract discussions and criticisms of our legal system. The national security law is a relatively new piece of legislation and we hope that any ambiguity can be clarified by our courts in the future and the power to interpret … be exercised sparingly,” he said.

He also dismissed suggestions that banning overseas barristers would undermine defendants’ rights and freedom in legal representation, saying there were sufficient lawyers in the city to handle national security cases.

Hong Kong wants Beijing to interpret national security law. Here’s why it matters

Law Society president Chan Chak-ming said he was mindful that generally, legislative interpretations by the standing committee could affect perception of the common law system.

“The bedrock to the rule of law in Hong Kong encompasses the trust and confidence of the public and the international community towards our judges and the judicial and legal systems,” he said, adding he had full confidence in the independence and role of the city’s courts, the judicial and legal systems.

Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, former law dean at the University of Hong Kong, said the seven-day adjournment was unfair to the defendant, as Lai would be unable to find an alternative lawyer in such a short time.

“No counsel would be able to take up such a big case within seven days, and further adjournments will be inevitable,” he said.

Additional reporting by Harvey Kong