TRIAL MAY BE DELAYED BY ‘AT LEAST A MONTH’

Analysts’ remarks on Lai case come as city leader seeks Beijing’s interpretation of legislation, with NPC Standing Committee set to meet in December

The need to wait for Beijing’s decision on the role of foreign lawyers in national security cases could defer Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s trial by at least a month unless special meetings are called, according to analysts.

The founder of now-defunct tabloid newspaper Apple Daily won his Court of Final Appeal bid yesterday to have British King’s Counsel Timothy Owen represent him at his trial on Thursday, when he faces charges of sedition and collusion with foreign forces under the Beijing-imposed national security law.

But shortly after the ruling, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu said he had asked the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, Beijing’s top legislative body, to decide whether such an appointment should be permitted given the need to safeguard national security.

Lee also said the justice secretary would seek an adjournment of Lai’s trial. The media tycoon was first charged in December 2020, months after the national security law was put in place.

The chief executive said: “I trust this matter will be addressed as soon as possible. It will be appropriate for the secretary for justice to seek an adjournment to the actual trial and we should proceed to do that.”

The next meeting of the standing committee is on December 30, according to Tam Yiu-chung, Hong Kong’s sole delegate to the body. Tam is one of the city’s pro-establishment hardliners who had spent the past week calling for the interpretation.

Tian Feilong, an associate professor at Beihang University’s Law School in Beijing and director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, believed it could be done despite the short time frame as the NPC chairman had the power to convene an interim meeting of its standing committee “if there is a special need”.

He called Lai’s case “highly influential” while the Court of Final Appeal judges’ ruling based on a local legal angle “is likely to trigger Beijing to step in” and was “not good for Hong Kong’s judiciary independence”.

Three Court of Final Appeal judges yesterday cited technical grounds in dismissing the secretary for justice’s last-ditch attempt to overturn the permission granted to Owen to join Lai’s defence team.

The seemingly frivolous court procedure has touched the nerves of some of the city’s most hardline Beijing loyalists over the past week, fuelling worries that lawyers practising overseas would be given access to top state secrets.

They believe Lai’s preliminary win over this point may become a precedent letting other foreign lawyers work in national security cases in the city in the future.

University of Hong Kong legal scholar Albert Chen Hung-yee spoke of two possible outcomes coming from the court at the government’s request to adjourn.

“The court can adjourn the case or the case can continue with Tim Owen until an interpretation is issued by Beijing,” Chen said, speaking of the scenario when Beijing decides to ban foreign-registered lawyers once and for all in national security cases.

The scholar, who specialises in Chinese and international law, argued the city court would have full discretion to do so as the trial would “involve an interpretation of the national security law”.

One thing that will make the process of the national security law interpretation less convoluted is that the matter is not required to go through a Hong Kong-based committee advising on Basic Law in the way an interpretation on the mini-constitution does, according to Chen.

Article 65 of the national security law stipulates that the power of interpretation of the legislation shall be vested in the standing committee.

Pro-Beijing heavyweight Maria Tam Wai-chu, also a lawyer, said the court was likely to adjourn the case to avoid a waste of resources should the interpretation later cause the trial to terminate halfway and restart.

A barrister, who prefers to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the topic, said Lai would suffer financial loss and also be at a disadvantage for being told last minute he would not be able to access the barrister whom he had paid for and who had been handling his case all along.

He feared the incident would cause the outside world to view the city’s legal system negatively.

“We will have no comments,” said Lai’s legal team, when asked about its next move.