US sanctions on Hong Kong judges may ‘result in Beijing taking over trials’

A member of Hong Kong’s Basic Law Committee has warned that Beijing could “in theory” take over national security trials in the city if the United States advances a bill to sanction judges, rendering such cases “beyond the capacity” of local courts to try. Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, also a lawmaker, on Monday maintained that it was the best option for cases to be handled by the city’s courts although it was difficult to determine how foreign sanctions might change the situation. The Basic Law Committee advises the central government on the city’s mini-constitution. But local observers expressed doubt over Leung’s remarks, noting that existing sanctions had so far had little impact on Hong Kong officials, and such a drastic move could prompt Western politicians to respond with more sanctions. American lawmakers Young Kim and Jim McGovern introduced the bipartisan Hong Kong Sanctions Act in the US Congress on Friday, less than a week after Donald Trump returned to the White House for his second and last term. The bill, largely modelled on a similar legislative proposal introduced in November 2023 that has since expired, would require the US president to assess whether to sanction certain Hong Kong officials who are deemed to have violated human rights. Among the 48 people listed in the bill are 29 judges and magistrates, including Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung and three permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal. Seven Court of First Instance judges, five district judges and five magistrates are listed. Leung, who is also a law professor at City University, said the bill showed US politicians were “completely ignorant” of the national security law that came into force in June 2020. “According to Article 55 of the Hong Kong national security law, particularly complex cases that are beyond the capacity of the Hong Kong courts to try, or those that are subject to extremely exceptional circumstances such as the current situation of a continuously high degree of foreign interference, could be transferred to the mainland courts,” she said. “They must know that by constantly putting pressure on the Hong Kong courts, they are actually increasing the possibility of [Beijing] referring these cases to the mainland for trial.” All national security trials under the Beijing-decreed law have been tried in Hong Kong, including that of former media boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who faces two conspiracy charges of collusion with foreign forces and a third of conspiracy to print and distribute seditious publications. But the law also states that Beijing’s Office for Safeguarding National Security in the city can take over cases under three circumstances, such as when the “involvement of a foreign country or external elements” makes it “difficult” for Hong Kong authorities to exercise jurisdiction. Such a transfer of jurisdiction to mainland authorities might also occur when “a serious situation” renders the Hong Kong government unable to effectively enforce the law, or a “major and imminent threat to national security has occurred”. Leung told the Post a transfer of jurisdiction was “just a theoretical discussion” and “it was currently impossible to determine” how sanctions imposed by a foreign government could develop into circumstances where national security trials had to be taken over by mainland courts. “In reality, I believe that the Hong Kong courts will insist on completing the relevant cases. I personally also think that it is the best option for the relevant cases to be completed by the Hong Kong courts,” she said. International relations expert Wilson Chan Wai-shun said whether and when the Congress could clear the sanction bill would depend on a range of factors, such as developments in Hong Kong that raised eyebrows in the West. “If the trial of a national security case is transferred to the mainland due to external political pressure or the intervention of external forces, I think the impact will cause a big trigger in the West [to act further on the city],” he said. He said another key factor would be how prominent the Hong Kong issue stood in potential talks between leaders in Washington and Beijing. Veteran China watcher Johnny Lau Yui-siu expressed scepticism that sanctions imposed by the US would make any difference to the Hong Kong courts. He noted that it had been business as usual for top officials such as Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu since they were placed under US sanctions more than four years ago. “If a judge becomes a designated national security law judge, he should have made all the calculations, such as whether his children and family will be affected, and whether he has any property in the United States, right?” he said. Lau also noted that sanctions on Hong Kong officials had remained a “side issue” in the bigger Sino-US relationship, and he expected the United States to show some restraint on broadening its targets considering the country’s vast economic and political interests in the city. A total of 1,390 US firms had set up regional headquarters or local offices in Hong Kong as of June 2024, compared with 1,273 a year earlier. Law Society president Roden Tong Man-lung, citing a 2023 statement issued in the wake of the previous US Congress bill, maintained that any attempt to exert pressure by sanctioning a judge based on the type of case was an affront to the rule of law.

US sanctions on Hong Kong judges may ‘result in Beijing taking over trials’

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Basic Law Committee member Priscilla Leung says US bill shows American politicians are ‘completely ignorant’ of the national security law

Basic Law Committee member Priscilla Leung says US bill shows American politicians are ‘completely ignorant’ of the national security law