Opinion | Chris Patten's moral posturing and unfounded attack on Hong Kong's court system

By Hordei Arista

Lord Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, has once again surfaced in the media, this time to malign and discredit the recent ruling of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) regarding the August 2019 unauthorized assembly case involving Jimmy Lai. Patten condemned the conviction of Jimmy Lai and six others as "unjust", stating it highlights the "rapidly deteriorating state of the rule of law" in Hong Kong. Patten told The Guardian that the "unjust verdict" was made worse by the involvement of Lord Neuberger, a former President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, in the decision. After carefully dissecting the HKCFA's detailed reasoning and legal arguments, one would immediately see that Patten's accusations are superficial, preconceived, unfounded and biased, while at the same time reflecting deep-seated hypocrisy and misjudgment that were rampant throughout his political career. Patten's reckless rhetoric reflects a man clinging to the past, out of touch with the legal realities of the modern world.

Patten's Troubled Legacy

Patten, who governed Hong Kong in the twilight of British colonial rule, had a career riddled with examples of questionable decisions and political misjudgment. After losing his parliamentary seat in the 1992 General Elections—a defeat that ended his role as Conservative Party Chairman—Patten was appointed as the last Governor of Hong Kong, a political consolation prize. During his tenure, Patten presided over a regime that offered limited political rights to Hong Kong's residents. It was only in the waning days of British rule that Patten introduced some so-called "democratic" reforms, which many rightly saw as a last-ditch effort to maintain British influence post-handover. Patten's attempts to reshape Hong Kong's political landscape at the eleventh hour serve as a stark reminder of his lack of genuine commitment to Hong Kong's future. His recent criticisms were not born out of concern for Hong Kong but rather a desperate attempt to remain relevant in a world that has moved on from colonialism.

Patten's political career is marked by a series of failures and dubious leadership roles after his time in Hong Kong. As the European Commissioner for External Relations, Patten's handling of the Balkans conflict came under heavy criticism. His slow and bureaucratic approach to the crisis arguably prolonged violence in the region, leading to escalating conflict and humanitarian crises. Reports from the period highlight the EU's failure to coordinate effectively in the Balkans, despite being the largest donor and having a significant military presence. His tenure was marked by a lack of understanding of the complex ethnic and political dynamics in the Balkans, just as he could not understand the intricacies regarding Hong Kong, leading to ineffective policies that failed to stabilize the region.

As Chairman of the BBC Trust, Patten was harshly criticized for his mishandling of the Jimmy Savile scandal—one of the broadcaster's gravest failures. The scandal, which surfaced after Savile's death, revealed that the revered presenter had committed hundreds of sexual offenses, many on BBC premises. Patten faced scrutiny for the BBC's sluggish response and failure to act decisively. His leadership was condemned for downplaying the crimes, neglecting victims, and deepening public distrust. This episode further illustrates a recurring pattern in Patten's career, where his lofty moral rhetoric is consistently undercut by his actions—or lack thereof—when it matters most.

A Willful Ignorance of Legal Principles

In his recent diatribe, Patten has demonstrated an alarming ignorance of the legal process that underpins the rule of law. It is apparent that he either has not read the judgment of the HKCFA or, if he has, lacks the capability necessary to grasp its intricacies. Instead, Patten focuses entirely on the perceived unfairness of the judgment's outcome—a preconceived and subjective opinion—while completely neglecting to critically assess the specifics of why the HKCFA's reasoning might be flawed. One must wonder—did Chris Patten fail to fully understand the judgment, or was he merely clouded by his own prejudices? While Patten's undergraduate academic achievements at Oxford were unremarkable (second-class honors, which means his academic performance was mediocre at best), one would assume that a Balliol College history graduate possesses at least a basic understanding of fundamental legal principles—principles that Patten so often invokes to criticize others. Patten's baseless attack on Hong Kong's legal system is, in reality, also a disdainful affront to both the legal sovereignty of Hong Kong and the British legal heritage that helped shape it.

The HKCFA, comprising judges with respected credentials, including Lord David Neuberger, meticulously outlined their reasoning, citing the principle of operational proportionality, while carefully differentiating relevant parts and legal reasoning of the precedents from the United Kingdom that were or were not directly applicable to Hong Kong's legal context. This was not a mere box-ticking exercise but a rigorous application of legal standards aimed at showing that no further proportionality assessment by the Courts below was required, and therefore the HKCFA unanimously dismissed the Defendants' appeals. Patten's criticism of these judges, who have devoted their careers to upholding the rule of law, is not only baseless but also an affront to the judiciary he once claimed to respect. His outburst reveals a man either too ignorant to understand the nuances of the law or too malevolent to care.

In the judgement, Lord Neuberger particularly underscored the importance of adhering to established legal reality and precedents, cautioning that any departure from them must be justified by compelling reasons. Moreover, His Lordship argued that judges have a duty to apply the law as it stands, and only rely on precedents of other Common Law Jurisdictions when taking into consideration local legal realities and, at the same time resist any temptation to reinterpret it based on personal beliefs, external pressures or legal naivete. His subtle warning against judicial activism—where personal views might distort legal interpretation—highlights the dangers of allowing subjective biases to overrule objective legal standards. Such actions could lead to a distortion of the law and threaten the principle of judicial independence.

Rule of Law is Not Legal Imperialism

Patten's argument, devoid of these nuanced considerations, reveals that he believes British law should simply and wholly override in other jurisdictions, without regard for the local context, which reeks of judicial imperialism. Such an attitude is not only legally indefensible but also reveals a willful ignorance of the complexities that define Hong Kong's world-class legal framework. Patten's criticism of HKCFA is legally flawed and politically tone-deaf, reflecting an outdated colonial mindset that sees British law as inherently superior.

The United Kingdom has a proud legal tradition, one that has influenced legal systems around the world including Hong Kong. However, Patten's actions are a disgrace to this tradition. In attacking the HKCFA, Patten is not championing the rule of law but rather attempting to impose his own outdated and imperialistic views on a legal system that has moved beyond its colonial past. His actions undermine the very essence of British legal tradition, which emphasizes the importance of local context and the careful application of statutory laws, precedents and legal principles. Lord Neuberger's arguments in the judgment serve as a powerful reminder of this, demonstrating a profound respect for the rule of law and the necessity of tailoring legal interpretations to the unique circumstances of each jurisdiction.

The Irony of United Kingdom's Decline

In the broader context, Patten's posturing is emblematic of a United Kingdom in decline, a country that once wielded both military and legal power as instruments of its imperial rule. Today, as the sun sets on the UK's global influence, Patten's attempts to lecture other nations on legal matters appear increasingly hollow and grotesque.

UK's colonial legacy includes grave abuses of power and a blood-stained history—evident in incidences and periods such as the Amritsar Massacre, the Malayan Emergency and the Mau Mau Uprising, where hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians fell prey to the cruelty of British colonialism. Patten's silence on these issues is deafening. His unsubstantiated attack comes across as the last gasp of a fading empire, clinging to its former glory while ignoring its own grave challenges of societal, racial and religious tensions, where basic civil rights of law-abiding citizens are under grave threat. One wonders if Patten has spoken out in favor of the protests in the United Kingdom with the same fervor he reserves for Hong Kong.

All in all, Chris Patten's recent diatribe against the Hong Kong judiciary is not just an attack on a specific court decision; it is an assault on the very principles of the rule of law. His hypocrisy, ignorance, and imperialist mindset reveal a man out of touch with reality, clinging to the remnants of a bygone era. Hong Kong deserves better than to be lectured by a former colonial master whose own legacy is stained by the injustices of British colonial rule.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

The author is a pundit.

Related News/Articles:

Opinion | Unveiling hypocrisy: The dark realities of American and British security discourse

Opinion | Defying Naysayers: Hong Kong's enduring advantages and new competitive frontiers