Full Text | Opening remarks by Grenville Cross at UN Committee on Human Rights: Judicial Independence in HKSAR
Editor's notes: The United Nations Committee on Human Rights on Monday (July 4) held a meeting on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. Mr. Grenville Cross SC, who is a Senior Counsel and Professor of Law, and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), addressed the meeting with a focus on judicial independence in the HKSAR. The following is the full script of his opening statement.
Judicial Independence in the Hong Kong SAR
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Hong Kong has an independent Judiciary that protects the rights of citizens, provides a level playing field for litigants, and ensures fair trials. Whereas, before 1997, judicial independence was simply a convention, it is now specifically guaranteed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong, its de facto "mini-constitution".
Upon appointment, every judge swears the judicial oath, to "safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favor, self-interest or deceit" (Oaths & Declarations Ordinance, Sect.17).
Under the Basic Law (Art.88), the chief executive appoints judges on the recommendation of an independent body, the Judicial Officers Recommendation Committee (JORC), chaired by the chief justice. Judges are chosen on the basis of what the Basic Law calls "their judicial and professional qualities" (Art.92). Whereas most judges are permanent residents, ten eminent overseas judges from Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom currently serve as non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA).
At all times the Judiciary operates independently, and, on June 15, the HKSAR's first chief justice, Andrew Li Kwok-nang, when discussing its first 25 years, said: "I can state that during this period there has been no instance of interference with how a judge should adjudicate, and there has been no instance of interference with the process of judicial appointment".
On June 16, Canada's former chief justice, Beverley McLachlin, who became a non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal in 2018, said: "the Court is completely independent and functioning in the way I was used to in Canada", adding "there's no governmental influence, and, if there were, I wouldn't be there".
Although two overseas judges resigned as non-permanent judges of the CFA in March over the national security law, ten did not, and Britain's Lord (Jonathan) Sumption, who joined the Court in 2019, has explained that the national security law "guarantees human rights", a reference to its Art.4, that incorporates the ICCPR, and the overseas judges will, he said, "serve the cause of justice better by participating in the work of Hong Kong's courts".
The national security law's Article 44 requires the chief executive to designate judges "to handle cases concerning offence endangering national security", and some claim this precautionary measure means that only judges are designated who will convict suspects. This, however, is untenable, and, on January 24, 2022, the chief justice, Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, explained that judicial independence: "exists as a fact", and has not been affected by the national security law.
Once judges are designated by the chief executive, in consultation with the chief justice, the Judiciary then decides who does which case, not the chief executive. Those judges designated come from the existing Judiciary, where they will have proved their worth.
Once designated, judges remain true to their judicial oath, and administer justice "without fear or favor", just as they do in every criminal case. As Cheung explained, this means that "there is no question of the impartiality of our courts being affected by this special arrangement under Article 44".
Although only very few national security cases have been determined so far, they have all been handled by professional judges in accordance with established common law procedures. The traditional rights of defendants have been respected, with fair trials ensured. As Cheung emphasized, the: "Hong Kong judiciary is committed to maintaining an independent, impartial and efficient judicial system which upholds the rule of law".
Conclusion
Since 1997, the Judiciary has not only maintained the rule of law but also applied the ICCPR. Thus, in the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index 2021, Hong Kong was ranked 19th out of the 139 jurisdictions surveyed. Its common law legal system is destined to last at least until 2047, and hopefully thereafter.
Thank you.
Grenville Cross is a Senior Counsel and Professor of Law, and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Grenville Cross:
Full Text | Opening remarks by Grenville Cross at 'HKSAR 25th Anniversary: Business & Rule of Law'
Comment