When asked if Beijing decided to ban foreign lawyers from representing defendants in Hong Kong national security cases, and a defendant was unable to hire any local lawyers, Tam said their case can be transferred to a mainland court.

“If we face this situation, then let’s transfer the case to the mainland,” he said.

How will Beijing deal with Hong Kong leader’s query about national security law?

Asked whether it would be unfair for the defendants, Tam said: “It won’t be a problem, because the transfer mechanism is already written in the law.”

Under Article 55 of the national security law, a case can be transferred to the mainland under three circumstances – it is complex because of the involvement of foreign elements; a serious situation has occurred and the Hong Kong government is unable to effectively enforce the law; and a major and imminent threat to national security has taken place.

Tam later told the Post that he was not trying to add new rules to Article 55.

“If someone really struggled to hire a local lawyer, authorities should look into why no local lawyer is willing to take this case. Maybe it’s because the case is too complex because of the involvement of foreign elements, then the national security office can refer it to the mainland,” he said.

Tam also clarified later in public he believed the likelihood of those accused in a national security case failing to get a city lawyer was slim.

A source also told the Post that given the prominence of Lai’s case, the central government wanted to minimise any risk and make sure that it was handled properly in Hong Kong first.

Tam added that if Beijing issued an interpretation on the issue, no exceptions should be made for defendants to hire foreign lawyers, or it would make the central government’s decision hard to implement.

A separate source earlier suggested that Beijing could consider the option of identifying a group of designated lawyers to handle national security cases in Hong Kong.

But Tam believed that “technical difficulties” would make this option unlikely to be decided on in the standing committee’s next meeting, expected to be held by the end of this month.

He said that, apart from relying on the standing committee’s interpretation, there were other ways to ban foreign lawyers from representing defendants in Hong Kong national security cases.

Why some experts question need for foreign lawyer ban in Hong Kong security cases

“I saw from the news that the British barrister’s work visa has expired … If the immigration director refuses to [extend or issue] visas, the barrister cannot go to court, right?” he asked.

“I’m not sure if this could be a solution too, as you may say that this would not solve the problem completely.”

Tam was referring to the Immigration Department’s refusal of Owen’s application to extend his temporary stay in the city. The department has declined to comment on individual cases.

Senior Counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah, who also sits on the government’s key decision-making body, the Executive Council, declined to comment on Tam’s suggestions.

But he highlighted that Article 55 laid out specific situations where the mainland authorities could exercise jurisdiction over a national security case and that Article 45 of the law also said that the Hong Kong courts should handle prosecutions for offences endangering national security.

He also said it would be unlikely a defendant would be unable to find a suitable local practitioner to represent him or her in the court as there were more than 1,500 barristers in Hong Kong.

Tong added the immigration authorities had an established mechanism for handling arriving travellers for visits or for work.

“If an overseas lawyer has got approval by the court, he should be able to come in,” Tong said.

“We are now hearing so many different and impractical ways of dealing with the issue. I cannot but feel that panic, fear and loathing has overtaken sense and rationality,” Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, an associate dean of the University of Hong Kong’s law faculty, said.

“There needs to be a clear appreciation of the precise concern. Only then can a targeted and proportionate response be framed. This is a deliberation that will take time and should not be rushed.”

Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, an adjunct professor in the same university’s law faculty, questioned Tam’s reasoning.

“If a defendant cannot hire a local lawyer to represent them, they should be deprived of the right to be heard by the local court. Is that the logic?” he asked.

Chan added Tam’s argument also contradicted Article 55 provisions, as inability to secure representation by a local lawyer was not one of the grounds.

He said the immigration authorities could not deny an overseas lawyer a visa if the courts had allowed them to appear in Hong Kong cases.

Additional reporting by Oscar Liu