The government of Hong Kong has issued a strong condemnation of remarks made by Chris Patten, the last governor of the former British colony, regarding a recent ruling by the Court of Final Appeal. Patten criticized the court’s decision to uphold the convictions of Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai and six former lawmakers for participating in an unauthorized march in 2019, calling it “unjust.” He also expressed concern about the involvement of David Neuberger, a former president of Britain’s supreme court, in the ruling.
Patten’s comments were published in the Guardian newspaper, where he described the verdict as “unjust” and criticized Neuberger’s role in the decision. The government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) released a statement condemning Patten’s remarks as “malicious slandering” and “wanton personal vilifications” against Lord Neuberger. The spokesperson for the SAR administration accused Patten of attempting to exert political pressure on the judges and influence the judicial system in Hong Kong.
The government’s statement emphasized that Patten’s criticisms were made without regard for the detailed legal analysis provided in the Court of Final Appeal’s 76-page judgment. The spokesperson reiterated that while everyone has the right to express their views on court decisions within the boundaries of the law, it is unacceptable to abusively criticize or slander judges or make baseless allegations for political motives.
Background of the Court of Final Appeal Ruling
The ruling by the Court of Final Appeal that upheld the convictions of Jimmy Lai and six former lawmakers stemmed from their participation in an unauthorized march in 2019. The march, which took place during a period of widespread protests in Hong Kong, was deemed illegal by the authorities. Lai, a prominent pro-democracy activist and media mogul, was one of the key figures involved in the event.
The Court of Final Appeal’s judgment cited evidence that Lai and the lawmakers had knowingly participated in an unlawful assembly, which led to their convictions. The court’s decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and legal arguments presented in the case. Despite criticisms from Patten and others, the court maintained that the convictions were justified under Hong Kong’s laws.
Chris Patten’s Criticisms and Concerns
Chris Patten’s criticisms of the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling on the convictions of Jimmy Lai and the former lawmakers have sparked controversy in Hong Kong. Patten, who served as the last British governor of the territory before its handover to China in 1997, has been an outspoken advocate for democracy and human rights in Hong Kong.
In his article for the Guardian, Patten expressed concerns about the perceived injustice of the court’s decision and the involvement of David Neuberger, a respected legal figure, in the ruling. Patten’s remarks drew attention to the potential implications of the verdict on the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong.
Government’s Response to Patten’s Remarks
The government of the Hong Kong SAR wasted no time in responding to Chris Patten’s criticisms of the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling. In a strongly-worded statement, the SAR administration condemned Patten’s remarks as “malicious” and “wanton” attacks on the judiciary and Lord Neuberger.
The spokesperson for the SAR government reiterated that Patten’s comments were intended to exert political pressure on the judges and undermine the judicial system in Hong Kong. The government emphasized that while freedom of expression is protected in Hong Kong, it is essential to respect the rule of law and refrain from making baseless allegations against judges.
Despite the government’s condemnation of Patten’s remarks, the former governor’s criticisms have resonated with many in Hong Kong and abroad. Patten’s long-standing commitment to democracy and human rights in the territory has earned him respect and admiration from those who share his concerns about the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong.
As the debate over the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling continues, it remains to be seen how the government, the judiciary, and the international community will address the underlying issues of justice, rule of law, and judicial independence in Hong Kong. In the meantime, the voices of dissent, including those of Chris Patten, serve as a reminder of the ongoing challenges facing the territory and its people in their struggle for freedom and democracy.
