The Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 was held on the afternoon of January 19 at the Hong Kong City Hall. During his speech, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung mentioned the case of Jimmy Lai, stating that the Hong Kong Court of First Instance recently concluded the criminal proceedings involving Lai and his company, resulting in a guilty verdict for crimes related to national security and conspiracy. As expected, the highly publicized judgment has drawn significant international attention and commentary. Also anticipated, given the current geopolitical tensions, there has been no shortage of criticism regarding the prosecution and the verdict, as well as the state of the courts and the rule of law in Hong Kong.
Cheung noted that the legal procedures for the case are still ongoing, and the defendants have the right to appeal. Should an appeal be filed, any alleged errors—whether legal, procedural, or evidential—will certainly be considered by the appellate court. He emphasized a complete respect for individuals' rights to express opinions. Court rulings rarely satisfy everyone. The strength of Hong Kong's judicial system lies in its adherence to the law, transparency, and openness to scrutiny. In this regard, Hong Kong's judicial system is no different from other developed common law jurisdictions. However, any commentary or criticism must be substantiated to be meaningful. Therefore, any severe criticism or opposing views that are expected to be taken seriously must be based on a thorough reading of the judgment and a careful understanding of the court's reasoning, he said.
Cheung pointed out that parties dissatisfied with the court's ruling may file an appeal or seek review according to applicable procedures. Hong Kong's Basic Law and general laws, along with the national security laws, all guarantee the independence and impartiality of the courts, and the right to a fair trial. They require that court decisions be based on the evidence and legal arguments presented, and not on extraneous considerations or public pressure, he added.
As to sweeping comments on the state of the rule of law in Hong Kong arising from the outcome of a particular case, Cheung remarked that many people may be forgiven for growing weary of simplistic assertions that the rule of law is dead whenever a court reaches a result one finds unpalatable. "The rule of law in Hong Kong is far more robust and enduring than the outcome of any single case. It cannot be that the rule of law is alive one day, dead the next, and resurrected on the third, depending on whether the Government or another party happens to prevail in court on a particular day. Such a claim needs only to be stated to highlight how untenable it is," he stated.
According to Cheung, regarding calls that are sometimes heard to halt proceedings or prematurely release a defendant, based on reasons such as occupation, background, or political causes, it should be emphasised that such demands not only circumvent the legal procedures established to ensure accountability under the law, but also strike at the very heart of the rule of law itself.
"A foundational tenet of the rule of law is that no one is above the law, regardless of their status, occupation, office, political affiliation, personal belief or conviction, popularity, wealth, connection, or any other characteristic. The law applies equally to all, without fear or favour. Those who are genuinely committed to upholding the rule of law must also be committed to allowing the courts to do their work according to established legal processes and without interference," he added.
Threats Against Judges Are Similar to Corruption And Bribery, Undermine Justice: Andrew Cheung
Cheung emphasized that, as to the threats of sanctions that have been made from time to time against our judges, it is clear that, however these threats are framed, they are, in substance, attempts to interfere with judicial independence by means fundamentally at odds with the rule of law. Intimidation and threats are no different from bribery and corruption, they being, in truth, two sides of the same coin. Both are means of subverting justice, and have absolutely no place in a civilised society governed by the rule of law.
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