Dawes added he had given a “complete picture rather than giving a one-sided picture” on controversial subjects, including concerns over Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, which requires Hong Kong to pass its own legislation to prohibit acts of treason, secession, sedition and subversion.

The legislation must also outlaw the theft of state secrets, as well as ban foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the city and forbid Hong Kong political organisations or bodies from establishing ties with foreign counterparts.

The implementation of the Beijing-imposed national security law in 2020 was also discussed.

“It was a constructive discussion,” Dawes said. “It was frank and the fact that it overran quite a bit perhaps indicates to you that it was a meaningful discussion.”

He added the talks had offered comfort over the outlook for Hong Kong’s rule of law.

“As to what was said, whether it gave us assurance [on Hong Kong’s rule of law], I think my answer is a resounding ‘yes’,” he said.

Dawes declined to disclose further details of what was discussed at the meeting, but said the delegation had appealed for a balance between human rights protection and the safeguarding of national security under Article 23 legislation, which he expected to be proposed soon.

Hong Kong Bar Association to resume regular exchanges with Beijing

Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu earlier said the government’s goal was to complete the legislation “as soon as this year, and if not, next year”.

The group also visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for talks with Ma Xinmin, the director general of its Department of Treaty and Law.

The five-day visit, spearheaded by Dawes, who became chairman of the association in January 2022, marks a major thaw in relations between the organisation and Beijing.

Dawes said the trip carried symbolic and practical weight for the Hong Kong Bar.

“A lot of our friends have described this trip as an ice-breaking trip,” he said. “But to us, it is really like meeting old friends.”

The body’s regular visits to the capital stopped in 2018 and relations with mainland Chinese officials cooled in the wake of 2019’s anti-government protests and political upheaval in Hong Kong.

Outspoken former association chairman Philip Dykes, a human rights lawyer, and his successor Paul Harris both criticised the Beijing-decreed 2020 national security law.

The delegation is scheduled to visit the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office on Thursday, but it is unlikely the members will meet its director Xia Baolong, who will leave for a six-day visit to Hong Kong that morning.

Dawes earlier said the group would visit the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s office.

Dawes, a commercial lawyer who has defended the city’s rule of law and promised to steer clear of politics as head of the association, has been viewed as a moderate able to mend fences with Beijing.

He told the Post last month the association had resumed regular contact with the mainland, which included giving lectures on the common law system at the prestigious Peking University, which the delegation was also expected to visit on Thursday.

He revealed that Xia had invited him to Shenzhen in February for a private meeting, where the Beijing official underlined that the city’s independent Bar would remain a vital part of the common law system, which was critical to Hong Kong.

Dawes also said that the association had on Wednesday submitted its “technical” views to the legislature on landmark legal amendments requiring courts to obtain the chief executive’s permission before a foreign lawyer can take part in a national security case.

The association said it supported the proposal in principle as it was not a scheme that involved a complete ban, but was to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

It also noted that, under traditional common law principles, questions concerning whether something was “in the interests of national security” were recognised as within the purview of the executive branch.

They said it was not a matter for judicial decision, so in principle it supported the proposals as they put the question of whether a person participating in a case concerning national security under the purview of the chief executive as opposed to the courts.

Bar Association head calls for rethink on ban on foreign counsel national security cases

But the barristers’ body also highlighted that it would not always be clear-cut when a case concerned national security, especially when it did not directly involve offences under that legislation.

“Litigants and their local legal representatives will benefit from clearer and more certain guidance when advising the prospects of success of an application for ad hoc admission, the evidence required and the procedure to follow, particularly in cases that do not involve any provision or offence under the national security law, especially civil cases,” the association said.

The group also cast doubt on the review powers that the city leader would have, as an assessment mechanism could be started even after overseas counsel had been admitted to appear in a case under the proposed amendments.

“If, for example, an overseas counsel has been admitted to appear for a party in a case and the review mechanism is initiated very close to, or during, the trial or the hearing, this could potentially cause prejudice to the party concerned, leaving him not properly represented,” the association warned.

The submission asked for clarification on steps that would be taken to prevent the risk of prejudice.

Additional reporting by William Yiu