Hong Kong’s legal system is, in a sense, in the dock as well as Jimmy Lai
- As the city’s “trial of the century” attracts unprecedented interest both here and overseas, justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done
The long-awaited trial of media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying has, understandably, attracted unprecedented levels of interest both in Hong Kong and overseas.
Lai, 76, is the most prominent person arrested under the city’s controversial national security law. He has spent three years in custody waiting for his trial on charges of colluding with foreign forces and sedition.
That day arrived on Monday. It was preceded by a familiar war of words between Western governments and Beijing. The trial was condemned by the United States, Britain, Canada and the European Union, with calls for Lai to be released.
Beijing and the Hong Kong government hit back, with China’s embassy in the UK describing the tycoon as “a major plotter and instigator of the anti-China riots in Hong Kong”.
Such comments, on both sides, are not conducive to the conduct of a fair trial. Judges are well-used to putting such remarks out of their minds and focusing on the evidence.
Hong Kong court rejects Jimmy Lai’s request to dismiss sedition charge
But the exchanges risk a perception the court has been influenced by external pressure. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. The three judges, approved for national security cases by Hong Kong’s leader, should be left to get on with the job.
Their work, however, is rightly subject to scrutiny. The trial must be open and the judicial process transparent.
The judiciary has sought to accommodate as many spectators as it can. It has made 388 seats available for the public, either in court or via a live broadcast.
Long queues formed on the first day. Among those attending were at least 10 representatives of foreign consulates. The ability to monitor the proceedings is vital.
To use a time-honoured phrase: “Publicity is the very soul of justice … it keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial.”
Those who attended on the first day might, however, have felt it was an anticlimax.
There was an initial skirmish, involving technical legal arguments, which delayed the prosecution opening of the case until January 2. It is not surprising empty seats began to appear.
The issue concerned the time limit for bringing a sedition case. The law requires such prosecutions to begin within six months of an offence being committed. Lai’s lawyers argued the Department of Justice had missed this deadline and therefore could not proceed with the sedition charge.
Legal arguments concerned when the deadline was and what constituted the beginning of the prosecution, with the judges ruling the Department of Justice had acted in time.
Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, the court used traditional common-law methods for interpreting Hong Kong’s laws, referring to precedents set by the city’s higher courts and judgments in the UK.
Jimmy Lai trial: timeline of Hong Kong media mogul’s arrests and court appearances
The swift publication of the written ruling is welcome. The practice will, hopefully, be followed every time the judges decide an issue in the case. This gives everyone an opportunity to at least be informed of the court’s thinking and to understand it.
Many will have formed their own view of the trial, even before we have heard any evidence. But verdicts are months away, with the hearing set down for 80 days.
In a sense, Hong Kong’s legal system is in the dock as well as Lai. We will all form our verdict on it at the end of the trial.
The issues raised require the judges to try their best to reconcile the national security law with the city’s human rights protections, a process described by the Court of Appeal as “extremely difficult and delicate”.
Senior Beijing official Xia Baolong, speaking in general terms on Friday rather than in reference to the case, called on the judiciary to preserve the “golden brand” of Hong Kong’s rule of law, with a spirit of fearlessness, impartiality and selflessness.
Those qualities will be needed as the world watches Hong Kong’s “trial of the century”.
