The recent sentencing of Benny Tai and 45 others for the offense of "conspiracy to subvert state power" by a Hong Kong court has garnered overwhelming support from the majority of citizens. However, anti-China forces are unwilling to see their "proxies" in Hong Kong imprisoned and have been relentlessly engaging in a frenzied smear campaign, revealing their true colors. Equally embarrassing is the conduct of the former judge of the UK Supreme Court, Jonathan Sumption, who resigned from her position as a non-permanent overseas judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

On one hand, he idolizes the defendants, and on the other, he brazenly attacks the judges' sentencing decisions, claiming to feel outraged and so forth. Such remarks completely lack the integrity expected of a judge and illustrate to the world what "political considerations overriding the rule of law" truly mean. He has now become nothing less than a "political zealot," and the people of Hong Kong should consider themselves fortunate: if she had not resigned and had remained in the Hong Kong judiciary, that would have been a disaster for the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Most Hong Kong citizens still remember that Sumption resigned from his position as an overseas non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal earlier this June. Subsequently, he penned an article in the Financial Times, stating that Hong Kong is heading towards authoritarian rule, with the rule of law severely compromised in various areas. However, back in March 2021, when the UK government and politicians were pressuring two UK Supreme Court judges to resign from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, he wrote in the media, expressing that the UK should avoid undermining Hong Kong's judicial system and rejecting involvement in the UK government's encouragement of political boycotts against Hong Kong's judicial institutions. At that time, he also stated that the Chinese government and the Hong Kong SAR government have never interfered with the judicial independence of Hong Kong courts, and the Hong Kong national security law explicitly safeguards human rights.

Extreme, radical, and self-contradictory

In just over three years, Sumption has transformed from a "senior judge" into a "professional politician," with extreme, radical, and self-contradictory speech, lacking the most basic rational thinking. This not only completely erodes the credibility he has built up over the years but also reveals the true face of his views on the rule of law.

Just last month, Sumption appeared on a legal podcast in the UK and expressed respect for David Edmond Neuberger, the former President of the UK Supreme Court who chose to remain as a non-permanent judge. He described Neuberger's decision to dismiss the appeal in the "818 Case" as absolutely correct, noting that the judgment aligns with UK precedents and emphasizing that the same circumstances in the case would constitute a violation of the law in the UK. In this program, Sumption straightforwardly criticized the violence of the protests, stating that the riots caused serious property damage, the Legislative Council was violently occupied, and there were incidents of looting and arson on the streets, bluntly denying that the riots were peaceful. Furthermore, he even stated in the program that seeking to sanction judges in the United States is a completely wrong move.

It is evident that Sumption is fully aware of the true nature of the violence during the protests, which was not a "peaceful demonstration" portrayed by foreign forces, and the "protesters" were far from being "unarmed." Given his deep understanding of the dangers and harms of violence, why then can he come to an opposite conclusion regarding the subversion case?

He describes figures like Benny Tai as respected politicians, journalists, scholars, and labor activists, just as absurdly as his belief that denying the violence was chaos. He completely ignores the actions of the defendants in the subversion case as clarified by the court, which aimed to undermine, destroy, or overthrow the current political system and structure established by the Basic Law and the "one country, two systems". The court points out that the indiscriminate rejection of financial budgets or public expenditure violates the constitutional responsibilities stipulated in Article 73 of the Basic Law, constitutes an abuse of power, and employs illegal means to subvert the state's power.

Sumption has made even more outrageous remarks. Earlier, he likened the subversion case to "the UK Labour Party winning the election, leading to the resignation of the Conservative Party Prime Minister and constituting subversion," attempting to prove the "legitimacy" of the illegal "primary election." This is a serious attempt to confuse and mislead.

It is well known that Benny Tai's plan first aimed to paralyze the Legislative Council and force the Chief Executive to resign by obtaining more than half of the seats, indiscriminately vetoing the government's budget and public spending proposals, and then coordinating with street violence to force the central government to intervene, providing foreign forces with an excuse to sanction China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. If this is legal, why did as many as more than thirty people plead guilty early on?

In fact, applying the Case to the UK, the accurate scenario would be: the UK Labour Party, when campaigning, threatens to unconditionally paralyze parliament, overthrow the constitutional monarchy, launch large-scale strikes and protests domestically, force the military to suppress, and finally have foreign countries sanction the UK. Does Sumption still believe that this kind of behavior is legitimate?

Not to mention that Benny Tai and others are the planners of the illegal "Occupy Central," advocates of "Hong Kong independence" and the vanguard of external forces in Hong Kong's "color revolution." The twisted reasoning they peddle as "illegal but just" is precisely what led to the catastrophe of the violent riots, a fact even acknowledged by Sumption. How can these individuals be considered "respected politicians, journalists, scholars, and labor activists"? Illegal "primary elections" aimed at subverting state power are not only illegitimate but also utterly absurd. Their essence is not the pursuit of democracy and freedom but deceiving and misleading the residents of Hong Kong and the international community, harming the fundamental interests of Hong Kong people. If Sumption refuses to acknowledge these facts, he is only deceiving himself and others.

Those who pressure Hong Kong judges damage their reputation

As a senior judge, can Sumption not understand such simple principles and legal reasoning? Contrary to his remarks respecting judges like David Edmond Neuberger, Sumption is now using his position in the industry to continuously attack the rule of law in Hong Kong. In essence, he is no different from betraying his former colleagues. Unconsciously, he has engaged in behaviors he once criticized, such as "undermining Hong Kong's judicial system" and "inciting political boycotts against Hong Kong's judiciary," becoming one of the accomplices pressuring Hong Kong judges. It can only be said that Sumption is ruining his reputation, which is not just shameful and pitiful but also laughable!

(Source: Ta Kung Pao)

Related News:

Opinion | Websites glorifying Jimmy Lai should be prohibited to avoid affecting fair trials

Opinion | Criminals who threaten national security must not be granted leniency or reconciliation