Critics of Hong Kong court judgments must at least stick to the facts – or be found guilty of playing politics

Ronny Tong says Chris Patten and other politicians who accuse our judges of making ‘political judgments’ in high-profile cases, like the recent sentencing of pro-independence activist Edward Leung, must take off their own tinted glasses

Reading Time:4 minutes

Published: 12:04pm, 17 Jun 2018Updated: 7:37pm, 17 Jun 2018

There is a burning question on a lot of people’s minds these days: why do politicians want to attack Hong Kong’s judiciary and undermine our rule of law?

Some say the answer is “simple”. Some politicians think that, to fight for democracy in Hong Kong, they must attack the system; to attack the system, they must break the law; and, since the judiciary is standing on the side of the law, the judiciary is standing on the side of the enemy. Since the enemy is evil, the judiciary must be, too.

That is the “logic” of their behaviour. One would have thought they should at least keep to the facts.

At the opening of the legal year in January, our chief justice, Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, warned that people with strong views on political and other issues were making “unwarranted criticisms” against Hong Kong’s rule of law.

At the recent appointment ceremony for senior counsel, Chief Justice Ma again reminded us that “it is the task of the courts to adjudicate on ... different points of view and they do so in accordance with the law, legal principles and the spirit of the law”. In so doing, “their views, political or otherwise, or any other aspect, do not enter into it”.

Critics of Hong Kong court judgments must at least stick to the facts – or be found guilty of playing politics

Ronny Tong says Chris Patten and other politicians who accuse our judges of making ‘political judgments’ in high-profile cases, like the recent sentencing of pro-independence activist Edward Leung, must take off their own tinted glasses

Watch: Chief Justice underscores importance of Hong Kong’s common law system