The Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 was held on Jan. 19 at the Hong Kong City Hall. In his speech, Secretary for Justice, Mr. Paul Lam, mentioned that the courts had handed down judgments in several high-profile national security cases over the past year and recently. He expressed that it was "disappointing and distressing, though not entirely surprising" that the judiciary had faced unfounded allegations due to these judgments, with some even being distorted as facts and used as excuses to advocate for unlawful sanctions and improper pressure on judges. Mr. Lam refuted these allegations, reiterating that all judges and judicial officers exercise their adjudicatory power independently. He emphasized that there is no contradiction between safeguarding national security and ensuring Hong Kong remains an open, free, and diverse international city. Regarding the government's occasional defeats in national security cases, Mr. Lam pointed out that the judiciary is capable and has indeed exercised independent judicial power in such cases.
No Contradiction Between Safeguarding National Security and Hong Kong's Development
Mr. Lam stated that there is no contradiction between safeguarding national security and ensuring Hong Kong remains an open, free, and diverse international city to promote development, but in fact, maintaining national security as defined by law provides an indispensable prerequisite for all developments to proceed in a safe, stable, and peaceful environment. He emphasized that all judicial proceedings are conducted openly, and any reasonable and objective person who has attended and observed these proceedings would dismiss such so-called "allegations." Regarding concerns that related procedures might be time-consuming, Mr. Lam noted that "time well spent is also necessary," as it ensures a fair trial for all parties involved.
When asked whether any part of the judgments in national security cases indicated that judges had considered irrelevant factors or that their independence had been compromised, Mr. Lam stated "with great confidence once again" that "the answer is absolutely no." He explained that the judgments in national security cases detail how and why the judges reached their conclusions, demonstrating that the courts had not considered any irrelevant or inappropriate factors, thereby reassuring the public. He further clarified that the length of judgments primarily depends on the volume of evidence and arguments presented, as well as the complexity of the issues involved. Judges naturally exercise extra caution when adjudicating cases known to be contentious, ensuring that judgments fully explain their reasoning.
Government Not Always Victorious in National Security Cases
Mr. Lam frankly admitted that the government does not always win in national security cases, but this also proves that the judiciary is capable and has indeed exercised independent judicial power in such cases. He also pointed out that questioning whether the courts might fail to appreciate the importance of safeguarding national security or to fully and properly fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in this regard, solely based on the outcome of the government losing a case, is "unfair and incorrect." He stated that if there are reasonable grounds for appeal, the government will appeal. If the judgment is final, the government will review whether the outcome was due to any shortcomings in the relevant legislation and, if so, will seek to amend the laws.
Mr. Lam emphasized that under the principle of "one country, two systems," the rule of law based on the common law system is one of Hong Kong's most unique and critical advantages, perhaps even the most unique and important one. The judiciary, the Department of Justice, the Bar Association, and the Law Society each play their respective roles in the legal system. "We may not, nor do we need to, reach consensus on all issues."
Regarding incidents of judges being intimidated, Mr. Lam noted that the judiciary has issued statements on multiple occasions in the past, reiterating that all judges and judicial officers exercise their adjudicatory power independently and will continue to uphold their judicial oath, steadfastly administering justice without interference.
Related News:
Deepline | Does Jimmy Lai have 'privilege to be above the law'?
Deepline | Closing the trade office? A desperate political stunt by US over the Jimmy Lai case
Comment