QC pulls out of Hong Kong dissidents’ trial

After mounting pressure, British barrister who was to lead prosecution has withdrawn from team

A BRITISH barrister has withdrawn from prosecuting pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong next month, following widespread criticism of his planned involvement in the trial.

David Perry QC, who practises at the London-based 6KBW College Hill, faced pressure to pull out from an array of UK politicians over the trial next month of nine campaigners accused of organising an illegal anti-government march.

They include Jimmy Lai, the media mogul and high-profile critic of the Chinese state, Lee Cheuk-yan, the organiser of the annual Tiananmen Square vigil in Hong Kong, Martin Lee Chuming, known as the territory’s “Father of Democracy”, and “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, a veteran activist.

They have all been charged with organising and taking part in an unauthorised assembly on Aug 18 2019.

Yesterday, the Hong Kong government issued a statement that said there had been “growing pressure and criticism from the UK community directed at Mr Perry QC for his involvement in this case”. It went on: “Mr Perry QC expressed concerns about such pressures and the exemption of quarantine, and indicated that the trial should proceed without him.”

The Daily Telegraph attempted to reach Mr Perry for comment yesterday.

The development came after Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, intervened at the weekend to warn Mr Perry’s involvement in the trial would be regarded as “pretty mercenary” and a “serious PR coup” for Beijing.

Mr Raab, a former lawyer, added: “There’s no doubt in my mind that under the Bar code of ethics a case like this could be resisted.” While the “cab rank” rule ordinarily obliges barristers to accept instructions from a client if they have the appropriate experience, it does not apply to foreign work.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, and Lord Adonis, a Labour peer, had been among other parliamentarians who heaped censure on Mr Perry over his proposed role in the trial.

Last night, his decision to pull out was welcomed by MPS. Tobias Ellwood, Conservative chairman of the Commons defence select committee, declared it “absolutely right”.

He said: “This was a clear conflict of interest. How could he be a Queen’s Counsel and yet represent a state that has changed the laws Britain helped to craft and work in support of an authoritarian regime? This goes against all the ethical principles on which our judicial system is based.”

The Hong Kong government said its department of justice has instructed another counsel to prosecute the trial. The nationality of the new lawyer is unknown. It said: “Some of the illinformed criticism conflated the matter with the national security law.”

Mr Perry has taken part in a number of high-profile cases in Hong Kong and also appeared for the UK Government at the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Commission concluded its negotiations in principle on a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with China at the end of 2020. If this deal is pushed through, it will only enrich and embolden the largest human rights abuser in the world and send a message to oppressed people, including those in our native Hong Kong, that their fate is of little concern.

Members of the European Parliament still have a chance to block it. But they need to ask themselves a question: should Europe bet its future on the belief that China, an authoritarian state, with no rule of law or credibility, will be a fair player in trade and abide by international norms?

When the CAI talks began seven years ago, it may have seemed sensible to engage with an emerging superpower. Since then, however, the global landscape has utterly changed and the Communist Party’s heinous crimes have come to global attention. This has been particularly true in the past year, as Beijing-style duplicity and the silencing of whistle-blowers helped to turn Covid-19 into a global pandemic and encouraged countries to scrutinise China’s actions more closely.

Earlier this month, Hong Kong police arrested 53 pro-democracy figures, including politicians, local councillors and scholars, the biggest round-up conducted under Beijing’s new national security law thus far. This, sadly, was only the latest breach of the Sinobritish Joint Declaration which China has been undermining for years. Nor is it the first time the national security law has been used to stifle dissent.

There are signs that some countries are beginning to wean themselves off the Communist state, not least the hostile stance to China taken by the outgoing Trump administration and by many politicians in the UK. Following the imposition of the national security law, dozens of countries ended their extradition treaties with Hong Kong or scrapped the export of arms to the territory. Some imposed sanctions against government officials responsible for rights violations.

The EU itself acknowledged that the security law “is being used by the Hong Kong and mainland authorities to stifle political pluralism” in a statement released shortly afterwards. But these words have not been matched with action. If the EU seeks to aid the bully it will backfire.

Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Tibetans and the people of Taiwan are suffering, and it would be naive to expect China’s promise to ratify the International Labour Organisation’s conventions on workers’ rights, included as part of the potential EU deal, to make any difference. However, the dangers of a strong China do not stop there.

A few days after the mass arrests, it was reported that the Hong Kong government was considering prosecuting Uffe Elbaek and Katarina Ammitzbøll – Danish MPS and members of the Inter-parliamentary Alliance on China who were accused of assisting Ted Hui, an opposition politician, as he sought exile with his family in Europe. The extraterritorial remit of the security law should at last burst the bubbles of those who still want to appease Beijing.

Hong Kongers are on the frontline, fighting against the biggest authoritarian regime in the world. Involvement in the resistance has resulted in torture and imprisonment for many and forced others, such as ourselves, into exile. But we choose to believe that we are not alone.

MEPS must halt the Eu-china investment deal. Failing that, at the very least they must include strict human rights clauses in relation to Hong Kong and the Uighur population. Punitive measures have to be taken including, for instance, using the EU’S newly adopted Individual Sanction mechanism to target Chinese and Hong Kong officials responsible for the mass arrests. China should receive a clear message that there will be consequences for its actions.

We would like to end by quoting Lester Shum – one of the 53 arrested and one of our comrades. After this young politician was released from police custody, he asked the Hong Kong public: “Amid the deceiving lies of the authoritarian regime and day-to-day absurdities, can we still stand up as a kind and righteous person?” It is a question that the EU ought to ask itself as well.