My Take | A timely vote of confidence in Hong Kong’s judiciary

Britain has spent months reviewing the role of its judges in the city amid calls for them to quit. Critics have argued their work on the Court of Final Appeal gives the judicial system a veneer of legitimacy it no longer deserves. Many feared they would pull out.

The decision by two leading British judges to stay, announced on Friday, is therefore welcome. It is a timely vote of confidence in Hong Kong’s judiciary. There will be a collective sigh of relief in the city as a disastrous exodus of foreign judges appears to have been averted.

But there is no room for complacency. Britain will continue to closely monitor developments. The continued presence of its judges will depend on confidence in the city’s independent judiciary being maintained. That is the responsibility not only of the courts, but the government, the legislature and the wider community.

Robert Reed, president of Britain’s Supreme Court, and his deputy Patrick Hodge, will stay on as non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal. Their presence is especially important as they are serving Supreme Court judges. The decision makes it more likely retired British judges will also remain.

Reed said he and British ministers had been assessing the situation since July last year. At that time, soon after the enactment of the security law, he warned that a number of its provisions gave rise to concerns.

In his latest statement, Reed said: “At this time, our shared assessment is that the judiciary in Hong Kong continues to act largely independently of government and their decisions continue to be consistent with the rule of law.” He noted the widespread support of the city’s legal community for foreign judges to continue. This support, I suspect, was a key factor in persuading the judges to stay.