British judges withdraw from Hong Kong’s final appeals court | Hong Kong

British judges have withdrawn from the last appeals court in Hong Kong, raising concerns that their continued participation appears to support the current government amid dwindling political liberties and freedom of expression in Chinese territory.

Lord Reed, the President of the UK Supreme Court, the country’s highest court, said he and his colleague Lord Hodge had tendered their resignations as judges of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (HKCFA) with immediate effect.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Reed said: “Hong Kong courts continue to be internationally respected for their commitment to the rule of law. Nonetheless, I have come to the conclusion, in agreement with the government, that the Supreme Court justices cannot continue to meet in Hong Kong without appearing to support a government that has deviated from the values ​​of political liberty and freedom of expression , which the Justices of the Supreme Court are deeply committed to.”

Justices of the Supreme Court and its predecessor, the House of Lords Appeals Committee, have sat on the HKCFA since 1997, when the UK returned the territory to China. In recent years, Beijing has increasingly meddled in the Hong Kong government, with a crackdown on dissidents in the city-state that has led to thousands of arrests, a repressive national security law China imposed in 2020, and opposition politicians who refuse to stand in elections .

Reed’s decision marks a change of heart since August of last year as he said that he and Hodge would remain committed to the HKFCA with the support of the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. This stance drew criticism from some who believed it lent credibility to an anti-democratic regime.

British Consul-General in Hong Kong Brian Davidson said the government “can no longer support sitting judges at the Court of Appeal”.

“We support the people of Hong Kong and the principles of freedom and democracy as promised in the joint statement,” he said.

Benedict Rogers, chief executive of UK-based Hong Kong Watch, said the decision “reflects the sad reality that the national security law has torn apart the human rights and constitutional guarantees that have made Hong Kong a meaningful autonomy.”

“The continued presence of the UK judges has given a legitimate veneer to a fundamentally compromised system and the UK government has rightly taken steps to remove them. The two resigning judges did the right thing and we hope all remaining foreign judges will follow suit.”

Chung Ching Kwong, Hong Kong campaign director for the Interparliamentary Alliance on China, said the decision came as a surprise given expectations of a debate at Westminster Hall on Wednesday morning.

Kwong told the Guardian the activists sought to remove the British judges from the Court of Appeal as their presence “no longer acted as a moderating force, as the government claims, but gave the court a false sense of legitimacy by the Hong Kong government”.

Kwong said the non-permanent judges have no influence on political cases and therefore there is no positive influence they can exert by staying.

“They are only on the final Court of Appeals and when it comes to national security law cases, the Hong Kong government can choose which judges can sit on the panel. None of the British judges were ever selected.”

Tom Tugendhat MP, co-chair of the China Research Group set up by Conservative MPs in the UK, said: “Beijing’s repressive control of Hong Kong has undermined freedom in the city and transformed the right from a defense against tyranny to a tool of its own the tyrant.

“It is unfortunately true that the UK is changing its stance in response to the changing situation on the ground. British judges should not add a legitimate touch to a legal system that is now being used to jail Hong Kongers without due process.”

The decision will shift the limelight to the foreign judges staying in Hong Kongincluding a former High Court Justice of Australia, Robert French.

In September 2020, another Australian judge, James Spigelman, resigned from the HKCFA two years before his appointment expired, citing reasons “related to the substance of national security laws”.

The Hong Kong government claimed it had “revoked” Spigelman’s appointment, but gave no details. The removal of a judge can only be made by a chief executive officer on the recommendation of a panel of arbitrators composed of at least three local judges for “inability to discharge his duties” or for “misconduct” and must be approved by the Legislative Council.