Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal

For the building, see Court of Final Appeal Building.

Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal
香港終審法院
The logo features the Court of Final Appeal Building
22°16′51″N114°09′37″E / 22.28090°N 114.16035°E / 22.28090; 114.16035
Established	1 July 1997;27 years ago (1997-07-01)
Location	8 Jackson Road, Central, Hong Kong [1]
Coordinates	22°16′51″N114°09′37″E / 22.28090°N 114.16035°E / 22.28090; 114.16035
Composition method	Appointment by the Chief Executive acting in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission with Legislative Council endorsement
Authorised by	Hong Kong Basic Law Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Judge term length	Until retirement age of 70 for the Chief Justice and Permanent Judges, but this may be extended by two three-year terms, meaning retirement age can be extended to 76; no retirement age for non-permanent judges
Number of positions	One Chief Justice, at least three permanent judges and at most 30 non-permanent judges
Website	hkcfa.hk
Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal
Currently	Andrew Cheung
Since	11 January 2021

Role of the court

From the 1840s to 30 June 1997, Hong Kong was a British Dependent Territory, and the power of final adjudication on the laws of Hong Kong was vested in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. The handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China was on 1 July 1997. Based on the one country, two systems principle, Hong Kong retains a high degree of autonomy and maintains its own legal system. The Court of Final Appeal was established on 1 July 1997 in Central, Hong Kong. Since then, it has served as the court of last resort; the court has the power of final adjudication with respect to the law of Hong Kong as well as the power of final interpretation over local laws including the power to strike down local ordinances on the grounds of inconsistency with the Basic Law.

However, this power is not absolute; the court's decisions can be overturned by the Chinese government via a controversial process known as an "interpretation" via Article 158 of the Basic Law. ^{[2] [3]}

The Court of Final Appeal has no original jurisdiction; an appeal has to originate from the High Court (either from the Court of Appeal or the Court of First Instance).

Court structure

Judges

The Court of Final Appeal is made up of the Chief Justice, at least three Permanent Judges, and at most 30 non-permanent Judges who can come from Hong Kong or any overseas Common Law jurisdictions. Under the Basic Law, the constitutional document of Hong Kong, the special administrative region remains a common law jurisdiction. Judges from other common law jurisdictions can be recruited and serve in the judiciary as non-permanent judges according to Article 92 of the Basic Law; to date, Judges appointed have served in the judiciaries of England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland. Aside from the Chief Justice, there is no nationality requirement for any of the permanent or non-permanent judges.

Judicial assistants

Since 2009, under the auspices of the then-Chief Justice Andrew Li, judicial assistants have been appointed to provide support and assistance to its judges.

Registrar

Main article: Registrar (Hong Kong)

There is also a registrar attached to the Court of Final Appeal, to help with review of appeal applications and other administrative duties; the registrar is usually recruited from the district court level. The list of registrars is as follows:

1. Edward Timothy Starbuck Woolley (1997–1999)
2. Christopher Chan Cheuk (1999–2000, acting) ^[4]
3. Betty Kwan Ka-ching (2000–2002, acting) ^[5]
4. Queeny Au-yeung Kwai-yue (2002–2007, acting) ^[6]
5. Simon Kwang Cheok-weung (2014–2018; acting from August 2007 to March 2014) ^[7]
6. Wong King-wah (since June 2023; acting from September 2018 to May 2023) ^[8]

Procedure

Permitting an appeal

Whether a prospective appellant is permitted to appeal or not is determined by a panel of three Hong Kong judges, usually the Chief Justice and two other permanent judges. Should the Chief Justice or a permanent judge not be available, the other permanent judge or a non-permanent judge from Hong Kong may be called in. Non-permanent judges from other jurisdictions do not sit on such panels.

Hearing an appeal

All appeal cases are heard by a bench of five judges consisting of the Chief Justice, three permanent judges and a non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction. If the Chief Justice does not sit in an appeal, a permanent judge is designated to sit in the Chief Justice's place, and a non-permanent judge from Hong Kong will sit on the court as well. Similarly, if a permanent judge is unable to sit, a non-permanent Hong Kong judge will sit in place of that permanent judge. Technically, should a non-permanent judge from outside Hong Kong be unable to attend due to extraordinary circumstances (such as during the COVID-19 pandemic), two non-permanent Hong Kong judges may sit on the court or, or the overseas judge may sit via video conferencing.

As the role of a non-permanent judge is not a full time role, a serving High Court judge may be appointed as a non-permanent judge concurrently, such as Vice-President Robert Tang and Vice-President Frank Stock, as they were then known. This is extended only to the most eminent and senior serving High Court justices. There is no mandatory retirement age for a non-permanent judge.

Since the enactment of the National Security Law in 2020, no foreign non-permanent judges has sat during a National Security case, being replaced instead by designated Hong Kong non-permanent judges. As there is no nationality requirement regarding the judges that are eligible for designation as designated judges, it is remains unclear whether overseas NPJs have not participated because they have not been designated for such cases or because they have declined to do so. ^[9]

Current court

The Cheung Court

The Cheung Court began on 11 January 2021, when Andrew Cheung began his tenure as the 3rd Chief Justice. Currently, 14 justices serve on the Cheung Court, including the Chief Justice, 3 Permanent Judges, and 10 non-permanent judges (6 of whom are from other common law jurisdictions). It is the first court to be led by a Chief Justice who did not receive a legal degree in the United Kingdom; Andrew Cheung received his LLB from the University of Hong Kong and the LLM from Harvard Law School. It is also the first court to be led by a Chief Justice who has never taken Silk (appointed as either QC/KC or SC). Andrew Cheung has been described as a "conservative", in contrast to his relatively liberal predecessors as Chief Justice. ^{[10] [11]} Nonetheless, the Cheung court has seen a number of liberal decisions, especially in the field of LGBT rights.

Cheung assumed the role of Chief Justice in the wake of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, and immediately following the enactment of the highly controversial 2020 Hong Kong national security law. As a result, Cheung's tenure as Chief Justice has been underlaid by concerns regarding the rule of law in Hong Kong and the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary, ^[10] with a record number of overseas non-permanent judges stepping down from the court between 2021 and 2024. ^{[12] [13]} That said, during Cheung's tenure, two overseas non-permanent judges, Patrick Keane and James Allsop, have joined the CFA, and a number of other overseas non-permanent judges have also renewed their appointments. ^{[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]}

Permanent members of the court

• The Hon. Chief Justice Andrew Cheung (since January 2021; first appointed Permanent Judge in October 2018)
• The Hon. Mr. Justice Roberto Ribeiro (since September 2000)
• The Hon. Mr. Justice Joseph Fok (since October 2013)
• The Hon. Mr. Justice Johnson Lam (since July 2021)

Rulings of the Court

The Cheung Court was the first CFA bench to hear substantive final appeals arising from the 2020 National Security Law. The Cheung Court have issued landmark decisions on Hong Kong courts' competency to review acts of the national legislature, LGBT rights, the Bill of Rights, national security, the freedom of expression and assembly, the freedom of the press, and commercial law. Major decisions of the Cheung court include:

• HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying (2021): In a per curiam decision, the Court displaced the presumption of bail in common law and the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, holding that, with regard to national security offences, the NSL carves out a specific exception from the bail regime; the presumption in Article 42(2) of the NSL being that no bail should be granted. Hong Kong courts can only consider granting bail if the court finds sufficient grounds to believe that the accused would not continue to commit offences endangering national security. ^{[19] [20]}
• Secretary for Justice v Timothy Wynn Owen KC (2021): This was a leave determination of the Appeal Committee of the CFA, which arose in the context of Jimmy Lai's trial under the National Security Law and his application to be represented by Tim Owen KC, an English barrister, for which court permission is required in Hong Kong. Ruling in favour of Lai, Chief Justice Cheung together with Ribeiro and Fok PJJ granted ad hoc admission to Owen to represent Lai and rejected the Justice Secretary’s application for leave to appeal the lower courts’ rulings. The Secretary had challenged the public interest considerations supporting Owen's admission in the lower courts, but later introduced a new argument before the CFA, advocating for a blanket ban on overseas counsel in national security cases. The CFA rejected this new argument, citing the principle that new issues cannot be raised on appeal if they compromise fairness or the court's ability to adjudicate. However, the CFA decision was later controversially overturned by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China, exercising its power under Article 158 of the Basic Law.
• Q v. Commissioner of Registration (2023): In a unanimous decision jointly written by Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ, the Court held that the government's policy of requiring trans men (female to male transgender persons) to undergo full sex reassignment surgery as a necessary condition for altering gender markers on Hong Kong Identity Cards violated Article 14 of the Bill of Rights and was unconstitutional. ^{[21] [22]}
• Sham Tsz Kit v. Secretary for Justice (2023): In a 3–2 decision, the Court ordered the government to establish an alternative framework for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, with equivalent rights and obligations to marriage, within two years of the ruling. However, the court also unanimously held that same-sex couples do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry.
• HKSAR v Choy Yuk Ling (2023): In an important decision on the freedom of the press, the CFA unanimously quashed the conviction of a journalist, Bao Choy. Choy was convicted in 2021 for allegedly making false statements in her applications for vehicle registry records, used to investigate the transport of weapons linked to a controversial attack on pro-democracy protestors during the 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests. Her purpose was recorded as “[o]ther traffic and transport related matters,” which lower courts deemed false, stating her true purpose was investigative journalism. Fok PJ held that while the Commissioner for Transport was entitled to require applicants to state their purpose, the phrase “[o]ther traffic and transport related matters” could reasonably include investigative journalism related to a vehicle’s use in a crime — particularly given constitutional protections for press freedom. The Court also found it was not an irresistible inference that the Appellant knowingly made a false statement, as she could have honestly believed her purpose fit within the stated category, and thus allowed Choy's appeal. The decision was welcomed by the International Federation of Journalists, and described as a "significant ruling for press freedom" by the media. ^{[23] [24]}
• C v D (2023): In a landmark decision on arbitration law, Chief Justice Cheung, Ribeiro, Fok and Lam PJJ dismissed the appellant's challenge to an arbitral tribunal’s determination that a pre-condition to arbitrate had been satisfied. This case is the first in any Model Law jurisdiction to address at the final appellate level the extent to which courts can intervene under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law regarding pre-arbitration conditions. The Court adopted a distinction between “jurisdiction” (which courts may review) and “admissibility” (which courts cannot), holding that disputes over pre-arbitration conditions are presumptively issues of admissibility unless clear and unequivocal language indicates otherwise. Gummow NPJ dissented, rejecting the jurisdiction/admissibility distinction and arguing that all challenges should be assessed directly under Article 34(2)(a)(iii). ^[25]
• China Life Trustees v China Energy Reserve and Chemicals Group Overseas (2024): the CFA addressed the principles of Quistclose trusts for the first time, in the context of corporate insolvencies and restructurings. The case concerned US$120 million injected into SPV1 by the treasury entity of the China Energy Group to repay bonds owed by SPV2. When the funds were not used for this purpose and the Group defaulted, the CFA had to determine if the funds were held on a Quistclose trust. The Court unanimously found that such a trust existed, holding that the parties intended the funds to be used only for a specific purpose and not at SPV1’s free disposal. Ribeiro PJ clarified that an express restriction or intent to retain beneficial interest was unnecessary, while Gummow NPJ cautioned against rigid labels, emphasizing that the Quistclose trust is not a new type of trust. Cheung CJ further distinguished between the parties’ intentions and the legal consequences. ^[26]
• HKSAR v. Chow Hang Tung (2024): The Court unanimously restored Chow Hang Tung's conviction for "incitement to knowingly take part in an unauthorised assembly" for her role in the 2021 June-Fourth vigil. However, the Court was split 3–2 on whether Chow could challenge the legality of the police's ban by way of defence. ^[27] Judges Joseph Fok, Roberto Ribeiro, and Anthony Gleeson held that there is a strong presumption in favour of allowing non-constitutional ("collateral") grounds of challenge by way of defence, and it would take very clear words to deprive a defendant of an opportunity to challenge the validity of the prohibition. Constitutional challenges by way of defence would be allowed as long as the constitutionality of the prohibition is an essential element of the offence. However, the prohibition was found to be proportionate, and that section 9(4) of the Public Order Ordinance did not impose a positive duty on the Commissioner of Police to proactively devise and propose conditions to enable the public assembly to take place. ^[28]
• HKSAR v. Ng Ngoi-yee Margaret (2024): In a unanimous decision, the Court dismissed the appeals of 7 prominent democratic politicians against their convictions for "knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly" during a protest in 2019. In his concurring judgment, Lord Neuberger NPJ agreed with the main judgment's focus on the Hong Kong constitutional framework but noted that the test for proportionality in restricting fundamental rights aligns with the approach adopted by Lord Reed in the UK Supreme Court decision Abortion Services [2022] UKSC 32. ^[29]
• Nick Infinger v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority (2024): In a unanimous decision penned by Chief Justice Cheung, the Court found that the Housing Authority (HA)'s policy of excluding same-sex couples from access to public rental housing (PRH) units and the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) was unconstitutional. The Chief Justice emphasised that the HA’s policies failed the tests of necessity and proportionality, given that they completely excluded same-sex couples from public housing schemes for ordinary families. The HA provided no evidence that this exclusion would significantly impact housing availability for traditional families or their plans. Moreover, it offered no justification for why less restrictive measures, such as prioritising opposite-sex married couples or those with children while still allowing same-sex couples to apply, could not be adopted. ^[30] The decision was welcomed by Jerome Yau, co-founder of Hong Kong Marriage Equality, who told the media that “the court made it very clear that same-sex marriage is just the same as heterosexual marriage”. Hong Kong Marriage Equality called on the government to immediately end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. ^[31]

Building

From its inception in July 1997 until September 2015, the court was located in the Former French Mission Building, in Central. ^[32] In September 2015, the court relocated to the former (until 2011) Legislative Council Building, which was originally the colonial Supreme Court (1912–1985).

List of buildings used

• Former French Mission Building (1 July 1997 – 6 September 2015)
• Court of Final Appeal Building (since 7 September 2015)

Image gallery

• 
  The Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong was housed in the Former French Mission Building until September 2015
• 
  Entrance of the Former French Mission Building
• 
  The Court of Final Appeal Building from Prince's Building
• 
  Statue of Themis, the goddess of justice, standing on the building of the Court of Final Appeal
• 
  Statues of Althea, the god of truth, and Klementina, the god of mercy
• 
  The Court of Final Appeal has been based at 8 Jackson Road since 7 September 2015; the building is the former home of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and the Supreme Court of Hong Kong
• 
  Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal building at night from Prince's Building
• 
  Plaque beside the entrance of the Court of Final Appeal

Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal
Traditional Chinese	香港終審法院
Simplified Chinese	香港终审法院
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Xiānggǎng Zhōngshěnfǎyuàn Yue: Cantonese Yale Romanization Hēung góng jūng sám faat yuhn Jyutping Hoeng1 gong2 zung1 sam2 faat3 jyun6

Chief Justices

No.	Name	Chinese name	Tenure start	Tenure end	Tenure length	Previous judicial office	Inner bar	Appointed by
1	Andrew Li Kwok-nang, CBE, GBM (Born 12 December 1948; age 76)	李國能	1 July 1997	31 August 2010	13 years and 62 days	None (Barrister in private practice) (Concurrent Deputy High Court Judge)	KC (1988)	Tung Chee-hwa
2	Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, GBM (Born 11 January 1956; age 69)	馬道立	1 September 2010	10 January 2021	10 years and 132 days	Chief Judge of the High Court	KC (1993)	Donald Tsang
3	Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, GBM (Born 24 September 1961; age 63)	張舉能	11 January 2021	Incumbent	4 years and 13 days	Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal		Carrie Lam

Permanent Judges

No.	Name	Chinese name	Replacing	Tenure start	Tenure end	Tenure length	Previous judicial office	Inner bar	Appointed by
1	Henry Denis Litton, GBM, CBE (Born 7 August 1934; age 90)	烈顯倫	Inaugural	1 July 1997	13 September 2000 [a]	3 years and 75 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal	KC (1970)	Tung Chee-hwa
2	Charles Arthur Ching, GBM (7 October 1935 –30 November 2000; aged 65)	沈澄	Inaugural	1 July 1997	6 October 2000	3 years and 98 days	Justice of Appeal	QC (1974)
3	Syed Kemal Shah Bokhary, GBM (Born 25 October 1947; age 77)	包致金	Inaugural	1 July 1997	24 October 2012	15 years and 116 days	Justice of Appeal	KC (1983)
4	Patrick Chan Siu-oi, GBM (Born 21 October 1948; age 76)	陳兆愷	Litton	1 September 2000 [b]	20 October 2013	13 years and 50 days	Chief Judge of the High Court
5	Roberto Alexandre Vieira Ribeiro, GBM (Born 20 March 1949; age 75)	李義	Ching	1 September 2000 [c]	Incumbent	24 years and 145 days	Justice of Appeal	KC (1990)
6	Robert Tang Kwok-ching, GBM, SBS (Born 7 January 1947; age 78)	鄧國楨	Bokhary	25 October 2012	24 October 2018	6 years and 0 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (Concurrent Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal)	KC (1986)	Leung Chun-ying
7	Joseph Paul Fok (Born 24 September 1962; age 62)	霍兆剛	Chan	21 October 2013	Incumbent	11 years and 95 days	Justice of Appeal	SC (1999)
8	Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, GBM (Born 24 September 1961; age 63)	張舉能	Tang	25 October 2018	10 January 2021 [d]	2 years and 78 days	Chief Judge of the High Court		Carrie Lam
9	Johnson Lam Man-hon (Born August 1961; age 63)	林文瀚	Cheung	30 July 2021	Incumbent	3 years and 178 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal

List of non-permanent judges

Current non-permanent judges from Hong Kong

No.	Name	Chinese name	Tenure start	Tenure length	Previous judicial offices	Inner bar	Appointed by
1	Frank Stock, GBS (Born 15 June 1945; age 79)	司徒敬	1 September 2010	14 years and 145 days	Deputy High Court Judge (1991) Judge of the High Court of Justice/Court of First Instance (1992–2000) Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal (2000–09) Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (2009–14)	KC (1985)	Donald Tsang
2	Syed Kemal Shah Bokhary, GBM (Born 25 October 1947; age 77)	包致金	25 October 2012	12 years and 91 days	Judge of the High Court of Justice (1989–93) Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal (1993–97) Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal (1997–2012)	KC (1983)	Leung Chun-ying
3	Patrick Chan Siu-oi, GBM (Born 21 October 1948; age 76)	陳兆愷	21 October 2013	11 years and 95 days	Judge of the District Court (1987–91) Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court (1991–92) Judge of the High Court of Justice (1992–97) Chief Judge of the High Court (1997–2000) Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal (2000–13)
4	Robert Tang Kwok-ching, GBM, SBS (Born 7 January 1947; age 78)	鄧國楨	25 October 2018	6 years and 91 days	Deputy District Judge (1982) Deputy High Court Judge (1986) Recorder of the High Court of Justice/Court of First Instance (1995–2004) Judge of the Court of First Instance (2004–05) Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal (2005–06) Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (2006–12) Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal (2010–12) Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal (2012–18)	KC (1986)	Carrie Lam

Current non-permanent judges from other common law jurisdictions

No.	Jurisdiction	Name	Chinese name	Tenure start	Tenure length	Prior most senior judicial role	Inner bar	Appointed by
1	United Kingdom	The Lord Hoffmann, GBS	賀輔明勳爵	12 January 1998	27 years and 12 days	Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (1995–2009)	PC (1977)	Tung Chee-hwa
2	United Kingdom	The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, GBS	廖柏嘉勳爵	1 March 2009	15 years and 329 days	President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2012–17)	PC (1987)	Sir Donald Tsang
3	Australia	William Montague Charles Gummow, AC	甘慕賢	29 July 2013	11 years and 179 days	Justice of the High Court of Australia (1995–2012)	KC (1986)	Leung Chun-ying
4	Australia	Robert Shenton French, AC	范禮全	31 May 2017	7 years and 238 days	Chief Justice of Australia (2008–17)
5	Australia	Patrick Anthony Keane, AC	祈顯義	6 April 2023 [33]	1 year and 293 days	Justice of the High Court of Australia (2013–2022)	KC (1988)	John Lee
6	Australia	James Leslie Bain Allsop, AC	歐頌律	24 May 2024 [34]	245 days	Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia (2013–2023)	SC (1994)

Former non-permanent judges from Hong Kong

No.	Name	Chinese name	Tenure start	Tenure end	Tenure length	Prior most senior local judicial role	Inner bar	Notes	Appointed by
1	Sir Denys Tudor Emil Roberts, KBE, SPMB	羅弼時爵士	28 July 1997	27 July 2003	6 years and 0 days	Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1979–88)	QC (1964)	Inaugural justice	Tung Chee-hwa
2	Sir Alan Armstrong Huggins	赫健士爵士	28 July 1997	27 July 2003	6 years and 0 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (1980–87)		Inaugural justice
3	Sir Derek Cons	康士爵士	28 July 1997	27 July 2006	9 years and 0 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (1986–93)		Inaugural justice
4	William James Silke	邵祺	28 July 1997	27 July 2009	12 years and 0 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (1987–94)		Inaugural justice
5	Kutlu Tekin Fuad	傅雅德	28 July 1997	27 July 2009	12 years and 0 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (1988–93)		Inaugural justice
6	Gerald Paul Nazareth, CBE, GBS	黎守律	28 July 1997	27 July 2012	15 years and 0 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (1994–2000)	QC (1981)	Inaugural justice
7	John Barry Mortimer, GBS, SPMB, OBE	馬天敏	28 July 1997	27 July 2015	18 years and 0 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (1997–99)	KC (1971)	Inaugural justice
8	Sir Noel Plunkett Power, GBS	鮑偉華爵士	28 July 1997	19 November 2009	12 years and 115 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (1997–99)		Inaugural justice; died in office
9	Art Michael McMullin	麥慕年	28 July 1997	27 July 2003	6 years and 0 days	Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal (1979–86)		Inaugural justice
10	Philip Gerard Clough	郭樂富	28 July 1997	27 July 2006	9 years and 0 days	Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal (1986–92)		Inaugural justice
11	Neil Macdougall	麥德高	28 July 1997	27 July 2003	6 years and 0 days	Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal (1993–95)		Inaugural justice
12	Henry Denis Litton, GBM, CBE	烈顯倫	14 September 2000	13 September 2015	15 years and 0 days	Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal (1997–2000)	KC (1970)
13	Charles Arthur Ching, GBM	沈澄	7 October 2000	30 November 2000	55 days	Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal (1997–2000)	QC (1974)	Died in office
14	Robert Tang Kwok-ching, GBM, SBS	鄧國楨	1 September 2010	24 October 2012	2 years and 54 days	Vice-president of the Court of Appeal (2006–12)	KC (1986)	First NPJ appointed permanent judge	Sir Donald Tsang
15	Michael John Hartmann, GBS	夏正民	1 September 2010	31 August 2016	6 years and 0 days	Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal (2008–12)

Former non-permanent judges from other common law jurisdictions

No.	Jurisdiction	Name	Chinese name	Tenure start	Tenure end	Tenure length	Prior most senior judicial role	Inner bar	Notes	Appointed by
1	New Zealand United Kingdom	The Lord Cooke of Thorndon, ONZ, KBE	顧安國勳爵	28 July 1997	27 July 2006	9 years and 0 days	Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (1996–2001)	PC	Inaugural justice	Tung Chee-hwa
2	Australia	Sir Anthony Frank Mason, GBM, AC, KBE	梅師賢爵士	28 July 1997	27 July 2015	18 years and 0 days	Chief Justice of Australia (1987–95)	KC (1964)	Inaugural justice
3	New Zealand	Sir Edward Jonathan Somers	沈穆善爵士	28 July 1997	3 June 2002	4 years and 311 days	Judge of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (1981–90)	PC	Inaugural justice; died in office
4	Australia	Sir Daryl Michael Dawson, AC, KBE, CB	杜偉舜爵士	1 September 1997	31 August 2003	6 years and 0 days	Justice of the High Court of Australia (1982–97)	KC (1971)
5	United Kingdom	The Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead	李啟新勳爵	12 January 1998	11 January 2004	6 years and 0 days	Second Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (2002–07)	PC
6	Australia	Sir Francis Gerard Brennan, AC, KBE, GBS	布仁立爵士	28 July 2000	27 July 2012	12 years and 0 days	Chief Justice of Australia (1995–98)	QC (1965)
7	United Kingdom	The Lord Millett, GBS	苗禮治勳爵	28 July 2000	27 May 2021	20 years and 304 days	Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (1998–2004)	PC	Died in office
8	New Zealand	Sir Johann Thomas Eichelbaum, GBE	艾俊彬爵士	28 July 2000	27 July 2012	12 years and 0 days	Chief Justice of New Zealand (1989–99)	QC (1978)
9	United Kingdom	The Lord Scott of Foscote	施廣智勳爵	28 July 2003	27 July 2012	9 years and 0 days	Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (2000–09)	PC
10	United Kingdom	The Lord Woolf, CH	伍爾夫勳爵	28 July 2003	27 July 2012	9 years and 0 days	Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (2000–05)	PC
11	New Zealand	Sir Ivor Lloyd Morgan Richardson, PCNZM	韋卓善爵士	28 July 2003	27 July 2009	6 years and 0 days	President of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (1996–2002)	PC
12	Australia	Michael Hudson McHugh, AC	馬曉義	1 July 2006	30 June 2012	6 years and 0 days	Justice of the High Court of Australia (1989–2005)	KC (1973)		Sir Donald Tsang
13	New Zealand	Sir Thomas Munro Gault, KNZM	高禮哲爵士	1 July 2006	19 May 2015	8 years and 323 days	Justice of the Supreme Court of New Zealand (2004–06)	QC (1984)	Died in office
14	United Kingdom	The Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, GBS	華學佳勳爵	1 March 2009	16 November 2023	14 years and 261 days	Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2009–13)	PC	Died in office
15	Australia	Anthony Murray Gleeson, AC, GBS	紀立信	1 March 2009	29 February 2024	15 years and 0 days	Chief Justice of Australia (1998–2008)	KC (1974)
16	United Kingdom	The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony	簡嘉麒勳爵	30 June 2011	29 June 2020	9 years and 0 days	Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2009–17)	PC
17	United Kingdom	The Lord Collins of Mapesbury	郝廉思勳爵	30 June 2011	5 June 2024	12 years and 342 days	Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2009–11)	PC	Resigned mid-term [35]
18	United Kingdom	Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, KG, GBS	范理申勳爵	1 October 2012	30 September 2024	12 years and 0 days	President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2009–12)	PC		Leung Chun-ying
19	Australia	James Jacob Spigelman, AC	施覺民	29 July 2013	2 September 2020	7 years and 36 days	Chief Justice of New South Wales (1998–2011)	KC (1986)	First NPJ to resign mid-term [36]
20	United Kingdom	The Lord Reed of Allermuir	韋彥德勳爵	31 May 2017	30 March 2022	4 years and 304 days	President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2020–)	PC	Resigned mid-term [37]
21	United Kingdom	The Baroness Hale of Richmond, DBE	何熙怡女男爵	30 July 2018	29 July 2021	3 years and 0 days	President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2017–20)	PC	First NPJ to not renew term	Carrie Lam
22	Canada	Beverley Marian McLachlin, CC	麥嘉琳	30 July 2018	29 July 2024	6 years and 0 days	Chief Justice of Canada (2000–17)	PC
23	United Kingdom	Lord Sumption, OBE	岑耀信勳爵	18 December 2019 [38]	4 June 2024	4 years and 170 days	Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2012–18)	KC (1986)	Resigned mid-term [35]
24	United Kingdom	Lord Hodge	賀知義勳爵	1 January 2021 [39]	30 March 2022	1 year and 89 days	Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2020–)	PC	Resigned mid-term [37]

Number of non-permanent judges from each common law jurisdiction

Traditionally, all overseas non-permanent judges came from three common law jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. In 2018, Beverly McLachlin—the former Chief Justice of Canada—became the first Canadian (and, along with Baroness Hale, one of the first two women) to be appointed to the CFA. ^[40]

Jurisdiction	Current	Former	Total
United Kingdom	2	12	14
Australia	4	6	10
New Zealand	0	5	5
Canada	0	1	1
Total	6	24	30

Controversies

Article 158 interpretation

The controversial power of final interpretation of "national" law including the Basic Law is vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China (NPCSC) by virtue of Article 158 of the Basic Law and by the Constitution of the PRC; however, "national" laws which are not explicitly listed in Annex III of the Basic Law are not operative in Hong Kong. Since 2020, Article 158 interpretations may also be applied to the Hong Kong national security law. ^[41]

Article 158 delegates such power to the courts of Hong Kong for interpretation while handling court cases. Although this arrangement has attracted criticism of "undermining judicial independence", an interpretation by the NPCSC does not affect any court judgments already rendered. This practice is highly controversial as it contradicts the power of final adjudication; the first time an interpretation occurred in 1999, all five judges (including the Chief Justice, all three permanent justices and one non-permanent justice) involved in the case of Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration reportedly considered quitting the top court in protest. The judges ultimately did not quit, as "the justices feared they would be replaced by less independent or competent jurists." ^[42]

The Central Government of China's power to interpret—in essence overturn—the CFA's rulings has led the CFA to be nicknamed the "Court of Semi-Final Appeal" by people such as former Hong Kong Bar Association chairman Martin Lee KC SC, veteran activist-investor David Webb, human rights lawyer Mark Daly, as well as the general public. ^{[43] [44] [45] [46]} The term "Court of Semi-Final Appeal" was first officially referenced to by then-Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung as far back as 1999. ^[47]

In practice, however, the power of interpretation has been used sparingly: as noted by Grenville Cross, since the Basic Law came into effect in 1997, the Central Government has issued only five interpretations up to 2022—approximately once every five years and five months—and none have involved criminal matters. Since the enactment of the NSL, there has been only one interpretation. ^[48] Kemal Bokhary, a former Permanent Judge (and now Non-Permanent Judge) of the CFA known for his liberal opinions, has remarked: “The very fact that there’s an interpretation [from Beijing] shows you that the court is independent. Because if the courts are not independent, then they could just be told quietly behind the scenes what to do, and they would do it. But everybody knows that’s not how it works in Hong Kong.” ^[49]

Below is a list of Article 158 interpretations to date:

Basic Law interpretations

• 1999: Right of abode in Hong Kong
• 2004: Modifying the process of electoral reforms regarding the election of the Hong Kong Chief Executive (Basic Law Article 45 and 2005 Hong Kong Chief Executive election)
• 2005: Dealing with an incomplete term of a Chief Executive
• 2011: State immunity and the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts ^[50]
• 2016: Legislative Council oath-taking controversy

National security law interpretations

• 2022: Granting the Chief Executive power to bar foreign lawyers (barristers and solicitors qualified in a jurisdiction outside of Hong Kong, regardless of nationality) from Hong Kong national security law cases (Jimmy Lai's hiring of Tim Owen KC); first interpretation of the Hong Kong national security law and first interpretation relating to foreign lawyers. ^[41]

Kemal Bokhary replacement

In 2012, Permanent Judge Kemal Bokhary—known as a leading liberal and dissenting voice on the Court—did not have his tenure extended past the mandated retirement age of 65. His replacement, however, was then-already 65-year-old Robert Tang, who was even older than Bokhary but was seen as more conservative; this appointment was described as a "surprise" by the SCMP. ^[51] Bokhary himself has said that he believes his tenure was not extended due to his "liberal judgments". ^[51]

Hong Kong National Security Law

Designated national security law judges (2020)

Overseas non-permanent judges have so far not taken part in full hearings of national security cases brought before the CFA. This was first evidenced in HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying , where two local non-permanent judges (Stock NPJ and Chan NPJ) sat instead of the usual combination involving one overseas NPJ. Although Chief Justice Andrew Cheung has clarified that there is "no nationality requirement regarding the judges that are eligible for designation as designated judges" and that foreign judges are allowed to hear national security cases, British non-permanent judges on the CFA have come under increasing pressure to refrain from participating. According to The Times, Cheung’s remarks "will ratchet up pressure on the eight British judges to quit their positions on the court." It is unclear, however, whether overseas NPJs have not participated because they have not been designated for such cases or because they have declined to do so. ^[9]

Regarding local judges, as of 2024, two non-permanent justices (Bokhary NPJ and Tang NPJ) have still not sat in on any national security law cases. Again, it is unclear whether this is because they have not been designated, or simply have not been scheduled to sit in on a national security case.

Resignation of non-permanent judges (since 2020)

No non-permanent judge from overseas jurisdictions had ever quit the Court mid-term before the enactment of the National Security Law. In September 2020, then-non-permanent judge James Spigelman resigned in response to China's controversial National Security Law being imposed on Hong Kong, but Spigelman did not elaborate further. ^[52] In March 2022, both Lord Reed and Lord Hodge resigned as non-permanent judges, citing the National Security Law leading to the judges being unable to "continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression, to which the Justices of the Supreme Court are deeply committed", whilst emphasising at the same time that "[t]he courts in Hong Kong continue to be internationally respected for their commitment to the rule of law". ^{[37] [53]}

In November 2022, Lady Hale—who had refused to renew her tenure on the Court in 2020—suggested that British judges should leave the CFA, stating, "...there's going to come a stage where [British judges] are asked to apply and enforce unacceptable laws, and some of us might think that that stage has already come." ^[54]

On 6 June 2024, Lord Sumption and Lord Collins resigned as non-permanent judges, with Lord Collins stating that it was "because of the political situation", but that he "continue[d] to have the fullest confidence in the court and the total independence of its members". ^{[35] [55]} Sumption more explicitly stated that Hong Kong was "slowly becoming a totalitarian state". ^[56] In response to these resignations, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam SC downplayed the importance of non-permanent judges, said that, "... the credit for the fact that Hong Kong has a high level of rule of law largely goes to our local judges; it is not the case that losing a few non-permanent judges will deal a heavy blow to our rule of law." ^[57] Lord Sumption then further reiterated that his remarks were not said lightly, and also stated, “I have no desire to engage in a slanging match with the Chief Executive [John Lee], and certainly not with the Chief Justice [Andrew Cheung], for whom I have the greatest respect." ^[58]

On the other hand, since the enactment of the National Security Law, Australian judges Patrick Keane and James Allsop have joined the CFA as non-permanent judges (on 6 April 2023 and 24 May 2024 respectively). Former UK Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger (who first joined on 1 March 2009) renewed his appointment in February 2024, maintaining that he still believed Hong Kong’s judiciary was independent, and its legal profession “thriving and able”. ^{[59] [60]} Likewise, Justices William Gummow and Robert French both renewed their appointments in July 2022 and May 2023 respectively. ^{[61] [62]} On 10 January 2025, Lord Hoffmann (who has been a member of the CFA since 1998) extended his term for another three years, just days after delivering a CFA judgment concerning the limitation period for fiduciaries and unauthorized profits. ^{[18] [63]}

Overseas counsel for national security defendants (2023)

On 28 November 2022, the CFA – composed of Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, and permanent judges Robert Ribeiro and Joseph Fok – granted ad hoc admission to Tim Owen KC to defend Jimmy Lai at his trial on charges contrary to the National Security Law, and rejected the Hong Kong Justice Secretary's leave application to appeal the ruling of the lower courts on this.

Within hours of the CFA's decision, chief executive John Lee announced that the Government would seek an interpretation under Article 158 to overturn the CFA's decision (as well as overturning the decisions by the Chief Judge and the Court of Appeal). This was roundly condemned by legal pundits, including Elsie Leung and Lord Pannick KC. Even before the interpretation, the Immigration Department withheld Owen's work visa, contrary to what the CFA had ruled. ^[64] This decision was criticized by leading barrister Lord Pannick KC, who frequently represents the Hong Kong Government in court, and also questioned by Jonathan Kaplan KC, another British King's Counsel who frequently appears in Hong Kong courts. ^{[65] [66]}

Ultimately, Owen was replaced by Marc Corlett KC, a New Zealand King's Counsel but who had gained admission to the Hong Kong bar in 2020. Corlett was widely seen as a "like-for-like" replacement for Owen, and showed that overseas specialist lawyers would need to be admitted full-time to the Hong Kong bar before being allowed to participate in national security trials. ^[67]

Proposed United States sanctions on Hong Kong judges (2023)

The United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) released a report on 12 May 2023 suggesting sanctions be placed on 29 hand-picked Hong Kong national security judges (which includes the Chief Justice and 3 Permanent Judges), saying, "As participants in this system, judges appointed to handle national security cases contribute to these systemic violations." ^[68]

This suggestion was rejected by both the Hong Kong Bar Association and the judiciary, stressing that, "...there is no basis at all to call into question the integrity and independence of Hong Kong judges, whose selection, appointment and discharge of their constitutional role and duties are, and must remain, free from any political considerations and interference." ^{[69] [70]}

Lord Sumption criticised the proposal to sanction Hong Kong judges as "an idea that is crude, counterproductive and unjust", adding that "[m]ost of them are honourable people with all the liberal instincts of the common law". ^[71] Grenville Cross also condemned the move, pointing out that the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2023 ranked Hong Kong 23rd globally, ahead of the United States, which was ranked 26th. He further noted that foreign non-permanent judges — including those who have left the Court, such as Lord Sumption, Baron Collins of Mapesbury, and Beverley McLachlin — have consistently defended the independence and integrity of the local judges of the Court of Final Appeal. ^{[72] [73]}

Maria Yuen nomination saga

In June 2021, Justice of Appeal Maria Yuen was recommended for appointment as a permanent judge by the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission. However the promotion was rejected by pro-Beijing legislators. The legislators, who by protocol accept the recommendations of the commission, claimed that she might be influenced by her husband, former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, whose defence of Hong Kong's judicial independence they considered unpatriotic. ^[74]

See also

• Hong Kong portal
• Law portal

• Law of Hong Kong
• Judiciary of Hong Kong
• Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal
• Permanent Judges of the Court of Final Appeal
• High Court (Hong Kong)
• Chief Judge of the High Court of Hong Kong
• Supreme Court (Hong Kong)

Notes

1. Justice Litton began pre-resignation leave on 1 August 2000.
2. Took office before the retirement of his predecessor, Litton PJ; hence the number of active PJ's was briefly more than the usual 3.
3. Took office before the retirement of his predecessor, Ching PJ; hence the number of active PJ's was briefly more than the usual 3.
4. Became the 3rd Chief Justice.

References

1. "Court Services & Facilities – Court of Final Appeal". Government of Hong Kong. 9 January 2015. Archived from the original on 30 March 2015. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
2. Archived 16 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine
3. Archived 4 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine
4. "Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Former Registrars – Mr Christopher CHAN Cheuk". www.hkcfa.hk. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
5. "Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Former Registrars – Ms Betty KWAN Ka-ching". www.hkcfa.hk. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
6. "Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Former Registrars – The Honourable Madam Justice Queeny AU-YEUNG Kwai-yue". www.hkcfa.hk. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
7. "Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Former Registrars – Mr Simon KWANG Cheok-weung". www.hkcfa.hk. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
8. "Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Current Registrar". www.hkcfa.hk. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
9. Ames, Jonathan (2 February 2022). "British judges ready to enforce national security law in Hong Kong" . Retrieved 8 December 2024.
10. "Seasoned jurist Cheung steps up as Hong Kong's new chief justice amid political turmoil and pressure from Beijing | South China Morning Post". 13 January 2021. Archived from the original on 13 January 2021. Retrieved 19 December 2024.
11. "Hong Kong's next chief justice Andrew Cheung will have to deal with several cases involving key constitutional disputes | South China Morning Post". 25 March 2020. Archived from the original on 25 March 2020. Retrieved 19 December 2024.
12. "UK's Nicholas Phillips steps down as Hong Kong's top court judge". archive.is. 30 September 2024. Retrieved 19 December 2024.
13. "Hong Kong Chief Executive confirms overseas judges will continue sitting on top court". www.jurist.org. 20 June 2024. Retrieved 19 December 2024.
14. Doherty, Ben (23 October 2024). "Australian judge's speech met by protest over his role in Hong Kong's appeal court". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
15. "Term of non-permanent CFA judge extended" . Retrieved 8 December 2024.
16. "Terms of non-permanent CFA judges extended" . Retrieved 21 December 2024.
17. "Term of non-permanent CFA judges extended" . Retrieved 21 December 2024.
18. "Term of non-permanent CFA judge extended". www.info.gov.hk. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
19. "HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying (FACC No. 1 of 2021)". Legal Reference System. Judiciary of the HKSAR. Retrieved 23 February 2022.
20. "HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying". Global Freedom of Expression. Retrieved 19 December 2024.
21. tanner (9 February 2023). "Transgender appellants win appeal in Q, Tse Henry Edward v Commissioner of Registration [2023] HKCFA 4". Tanner De Witt Solicitors, Law Firm Hong Kong. Retrieved 19 December 2024.
22. "Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII)". www.hklii.hk. Retrieved 19 December 2024.
23. "Hong Kong: Bao Choy wins appeal / IFJ". www.ifj.org. 6 June 2023. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
24. Leung, Candice Chau and Hillary (5 June 2023). "Top Hong Kong court clears journalist convicted over 2019 Yuen Long attack documentary". Hong Kong Free Press HKFP. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
25. "Judgment". Hong Kong Judiciary. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
26. "Judgment". Hong Kong Judiciary.
27. Lee, James (25 January 2024). "Top HK court overturns Tiananmen vigil activist's acquittal". Hong Kong Free Press HKFP. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
28. "Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII)". www.hklii.hk. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
29. "Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII)". www.hklii.hk. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
30. "Judgment". Hong Kong Judiciary. Retrieved 21 December 2024.
31. "Hong Kong top court upholds rulings protecting inheritance, housing rights for same-sex couples". The Guardian. 26 November 2024. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 11 January 2025.
32. "Finance Committee – Public Works Subcommittee (Papers) 8 Nov 95". Government of Hong Kong. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
33. "Appointment of non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction of the Court of Final Appeal". Government of Hong Kong. 3 April 2023.
34. "Appointment of non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction of the Court of Final Appeal".
35. Ho-Him, Chan; Ring, Suzi (6 June 2024). "Former top UK judges resign from Hong Kong court amid China crackdown". Financial Times. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
36. "REVOCATION OF APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE FROM ANOTHER COMMON LAW JURISDICTION OF THE HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL" (PDF).
37. "Role of UK Supreme Court judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – update". 30 March 2022.
38. "Appointments of non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction of the Court of Final Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court".
39. "Appointment of non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction of the Court of Final Appeal". HK Government. 23 December 2020. Archived from the original on 23 December 2020.
40. Chung, Kimmy (30 May 2018). "Baroness Hale and Beverly McLachlin become first female judges to join Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal despite 'national interest' concerns". South China Morning Post.
41. Chau, Candice (8 January 2023). "Explainer: Beijing's first interpretation of Hong Kong's national security law". Hong Kong Free Press.
42. "All city's top judges 'considered quitting'". South China Morning Post. 8 September 2011.
43. Lee, Martin (21 May 2000). "RTHK "Letter to Hong Kong"".
44. Daly, Mark (2013). "A human rights lawyer's perspective". 9 – A human rights lawyer's perspective from Part II – The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Cambridge University Press. pp. 207–222. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511894763.012. ISBN   9781107011212.
45. Webb, David (16 October 2019). "ERO: one judicial review, two judges".
46. "Court undermined by reinterpretation". 9 March 2002.
47. Leung, Elsie (18 May 1999). "Speech by Secretary for Justice".
48. Cross, Grenville. "Court of Final Appeal: Overseas judges must prioritize service over politics" . Retrieved 8 December 2024.
49. "'City's judges independent despite Beijing's power to interpret Basic Law'". South China Morning Post. 31 January 2019. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
50. "The decision by the Court of Final Appeal to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress regarding the controversy of state immunity raised in the debt litigation of the Democratic Republic of Congo" (PDF). LegCo.
51. Ng, Kang Chung (5 November 2012). "Former judge Bokhary: 'I was ousted for being too liberal'". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 30 October 2016.
52. "Australian judge quits Hong Kong court, citing national security law". Reuters. 18 September 2020. Archived from the original on 18 September 2020.
53. "Role of UK Supreme Court judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – update" . Retrieved 8 December 2024.
54. "Lady Hale suggests 'time has come' for British judges to leave Hong Kong court". Scottish Legal News. 17 November 2022.
55. Grundy, Tom (6 June 2024). "Two UK judges quit Hong Kong's top court". Hong Kong Free Press. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
56. Grundy, Tom (10 June 2024). "Lord Sumption: Hong Kong 'slowly becoming a totalitarian state,' says UK judge who quit city's top court". Hong Kong Free Press. Retrieved 15 June 2024.
57. Tse, Hans (20 June 2024). "Hong Kong's rule of law hinges on local rather than foreign judges, justice chief Paul Lam says". Hong Kong Free Press.
58. Singh, Dippy (11 June 2024). "Hong Kong judge drama continues to unfold".
59. Doherty, Ben (23 October 2024). "Australian judge's speech met by protest over his role in Hong Kong's appeal court". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
60. "Term of non-permanent CFA judge extended" . Retrieved 8 December 2024.
61. "Terms of non-permanent CFA judges extended" . Retrieved 21 December 2024.
62. "Term of non-permanent CFA judges extended" . Retrieved 21 December 2024.
63. "Judgment". legalref.judiciary.hk. Retrieved 11 January 2025.
64. "Media tycoon Jimmy Lai's trial adjourned to Dec 13, Hong Kong Immigration withholds visa extension for his lawyer". HKFP. 1 December 2022.
65. Pannick, David (5 December 2022). "Hong Kong media trial is crunch time for its rule of law". The Times.
66. "修例通過 外狀打國安案須特首批 或涉複雜案件審批不設時限 有議員促說明準則制衡權力". Ming Pao. 11 May 2023.
67. "Hong Kong tycoon Jimmy Lai's legal team joined by 'specialist' New Zealand lawyer seen as replacement for barred Briton Timothy Owen". South China Morning Post. 20 December 2023.
68. Pang, Jessie (12 May 2023). "China condemns U.S. report calling for sanctions against Hong Kong security judges". Reuters.
69. "Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association Response to the US Congressional-Executive Commission Staff Research Report May 2023 calling for sanctions on Hong Kong Judges" (PDF). HKBA. 12 May 2023.
70. "Judiciary responds to media enquiries". 12 May 2023.
71. Sumption, Jonathan (10 June 2024). "The rule of law in Hong Kong is in grave danger". Financial Times. Financial Times. Retrieved 7 December 2024.
72. Cross, Grenville. "Court of Final Appeal: Overseas judges must prioritize service over politics" . Retrieved 7 December 2024.
73. Cross, Grenville. "WJP Rule of Law Index 2023: Empirical research validates HK judiciary" . Retrieved 7 December 2024.
74. Hong Kong pro-Beijing legislators intervene in judicial appointment, Financial Times , by Primrose Riordan, 23 June 2021

External links

• Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal