Speedy interpretation and answers required in important Lai case

The participation of foreign lawyers in court cases is a fundamental feature of Hong Kong’s legal system, and has been both before and after the city’s return to China. Their expertise has made a valuable contribution to the development of the law and is a core feature of the “one country, two systems” concept. Most of these foreign lawyers are based in Hong Kong, but eminent barristers may be parachuted in from overseas for specific cases. A question has now arisen as to whether that long-standing arrangement should apply to national security cases.

The government failed to block a move by media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying to be represented by renowned British lawyer Timothy Owen at his trial. Lai is accused of colluding with foreign powers in a case due to start tomorrow. The Court of Final Appeal rejected the government’s bid on Monday. This prompted Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu to ask Beijing to issue an interpretation of the national security law. China’s top legislature is expected to ban the ad hoc admission of lawyers based overseas for national security cases.

The interpretation, which must be followed by the courts, will clarify the legal position. The passing of the national security legislation in 2020 has changed the legal landscape. Many new questions arise. Concerns have been raised, for example, that overseas lawyers might come under pressure from their own government amid tensions between China and the West.

The Court of Final Appeal deserves credit for steadfastly applying established legal principles. The ruling against the government underlines the independence of the city’s judiciary, but the ultimate power to interpret the security law lies with Beijing, as it is a national law. It is a power that should be used carefully. Any ban imposed is likely only to apply to lawyers parachuting in from abroad. Lee has suggested Hong Kong lawyers with foreign passports will still be permitted to handle national security cases.

There is room for the government to reflect on its handling of the case. It brought forward “radical” new arguments at a late stage. Officials need to better explain the rationale behind the ban. The court said parts of the government’s case required elaboration and raised many questions. Those questions must now be answered.

The interpretation should be delivered as quickly as possible. It has been almost two years since Lai was charged. An application will now be made to delay his trial for seven days.

The case, the first involving allegations of collusion, is of great importance. The way it is handled will be subjected to much scrutiny at home and overseas. But faith can be placed in Hong Kong’s independent judiciary to ensure Lai receives a fair trial.