Hong Kong Watch Patron Lord Patten of Barnes responds to Hong Kong Court rejecting final appeal of Jimmy Lai and six other democrats

Today, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal unanimously upheld the convictions of “participating in an unauthorised demonstration” for Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee, Margaret Ng, Albert Ho, Lee Cheuk-yan, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Cyd Ho. Some of the democrats have been held in jail, while others have been remanded on bail, since the time of the alleged unauthorised demonstration in 2019.

The demonstration at the root of the case was a peaceful march against the Hong Kong police’s use of force, which involved 1.7 million people marching without violent incident from Causeway Bay to Central, in August 2019.

In August 2023, the seven democrats successfully overturned related convictions on the charge of allegedly organising the demonstration. However, convictions linked to their participation in the demonstration were upheld, and now, their final attempt at appealing has been denied.

The defence cited two UK Supreme Court decisions on the proportionate restriction of fundamental rights. However, these citations were rejected by the Court of Final Appeal, on the grounds that “UK cases should not be followed in Hong Kong”.

Lord Patten of Barnes, the last Governor of Hong Kong and a Patron of Hong Kong Watch, said:

“The final verdict denying the appeal of the convictions of Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee and five other democrats for participating in an “unauthorised” demonstration in 2019 reveals the rapidly deteriorating state of the rule of law in Hong Kong, as the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law continue to be ripped to shreds.

This unjust verdict is made worse by the fact that Lord Neuberger, a former head of Britain’s Supreme Court, was a party to this decision. This is particularly surprising since when he was a member of the judiciary in Britain, Lord Neuberger was keen to establish that the English Common Law could accommodate fundamental aspects of human rights protection. 

He was also always keen that judges should be keen to explain their reasoning. In this case, perhaps some of his views on the law changed between the first class waiting room at Heathrow and the arrival terminal of Hong Kong International Airport.”

The outcome of this high-profile case will carry weight in determining the fate of other similar appeals from peaceful pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. As such, it is highly concerning that relevant decisions on human rights protections and proportionality in UK common law have been rejected as applying to the city.

黎智英等七人8.18流水式集會案終極敗訴 香港監察贊助人彭定康勳爵批英籍法官為不公裁決背書

2019年8月18日，現已解散的民陣在維園舉行「流水式集會」，事後黎智英、李柱銘、吳靄儀、何俊仁、李卓人、梁國雄和何秀蘭被裁定「組織未經批准集結」和「參與未經批准集結」兩罪成立。七名民主派人士上訴後獲撤銷「組織集結」定罪，另就「參與集結」定罪提出終極上訴，終審法院今日一致駁回上訴。

上訴方援引英國最高法院兩宗判決，爭議定罪有否相稱限制基本權利。不過，終審法院法官駁回爭議，裁定香港法庭不應跟隨英國案例。

香港監察贊助人、前香港總督彭定康勳爵（Lord Patten of Barnes）表示：

「黎智英、李柱銘和其餘五名民主派人士就參與2019年『未經批准』示威集會的定罪提出上訴，最終被駁回，裁決揭示了香港法治狀況迅速惡化，《中英聯合聲明》和《基本法》持續被撕成碎紙。

前英國最高法院院長廖柏嘉勳爵（Lord Neuberger）有份參與判決，令這宗不公正裁決雪上加霜。廖柏嘉勳爵任職英國司法機構時，熱衷於確立英國普通法能夠顧及人權保障的基本層面，他的決定因而特別令人驚訝。

他也一直強調，法官應該熱衷於解釋推論。在這宗案件中，也許他對法律的部分觀點在從希斯路機場頭等艙候機室，前往香港國際機場入境大堂的途中，發生了變化。」

這宗案件的結果將左右其他和平民主示威者提出類似上訴的命運。相關判決涉及英國普通法中人權保障和相稱性，但被指不適用於香港，令人非常憂慮。