The Hong Kong government does not have to secure a ruling from Beijing on whether overseas lawyers should be barred from the city’s national security cases, a senior adviser has said.
The comments on Thursday from Executive Councillor Ronny Tong further fuelled speculation about whether China’s legislature would rule on the issue after being invited to do so by Chief Executive John Lee.
The city’s government says that former pro-democracy newspaper publisher Jimmy Lai should not be allowed to retain a British barrister in his upcoming national security trial, in which he faces a possible life sentence.
Any interpretation of the security law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), while welcome, would be overkill in handling the issue, Tong, who is a barrister, told Commercial Radio.
Tong said the matter could also be dealt with by amending the city’s Legal Practitioners Ordinance and he personally opposed any blanket ban on lawyers from overseas appearing in security cases.
Lee sought Beijing’s help after Hong Kong’s top court rejected the government’s final attempt to block the appearance of King’s Counsel Timothy Owen in Lai’s trial. The justice department maintains that the use of overseas lawyers can, in itself, endanger state secrets.
The chief executive has invited Beijing to “clarify” whether foreign lawyers – excluding those who are qualified to practise regularly in Hong Kong – are allowed to take part in any form in such cases.
King’s Counsel are the British equivalent of senior counsel in Hong Kong and require permission to appear in the city’s courts.
The trial has since been adjourned to September next year, as the court awaits a decision from the NPCSC on whether it would issue an interpretation.
The issue was not on the agenda for a committee meeting scheduled for December 27-30, according to state news agency Xinhua.
Tam Yiu-chung, the city’s outgoing sole delegate to the NPCSC, said on Monday he did not know why the matter was not on the agenda. While the meeting would be “a better opportunity” to deal with the issue, he thought “it would be best” if Hong Kong could take the matter in its own hands.
The chief executive, asked whether he had received a response from the central government, said on Tuesday he believed that the city’s courts could handle the issue, and it was not appropriate to make any comment at that stage.
Tong said on Thursday that while the legislative interpretation was not on the agenda released last week, it could be added later.
The national security law does not bar foreign counsels from handling cases in Hong Kong, but Tong said he would welcome an interpretation from the NPCSC.
“However, why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?” said Tong, who added that the problem could also be solved by amending the Legal Practitioners Ordinance to set out clearer conditions on when an overseas lawyer could take part in national security cases.
The executive councillor said he opposed a blanket ban on overseas counsels in national security cases, as even Chinese people could be disloyal to the country.
“Hong Kong has a lot of barristers holding foreign passports. Are we banning them from handling these cases as well?” asked Tong.
Tong added that he hoped that Beijing’s interpretation, if issued, would not overturn the ruling made by the Court of Final Appeal. Previous NPC interpretations had not overturned existing rulings and had only applied to future cases.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
