Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, a former president of the UK Supreme Court, has come under scrutiny for his continued service as a judge on Hong Kong’s highest court amid growing concerns over the territory’s legal environment following Beijing’s intensified restrictions on political freedoms. Pro-democracy advocates have criticised his role as contradictory, given the recent developments in Hong Kong’s judiciary and human rights record.
The controversy centers notably on decisions such as the 2024 ruling that upheld the conviction of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen and newspaper publisher, for participating in an unauthorized 2019 assembly. Lai subsequently received a 20-year prison sentence under national security laws for alleged collusion with foreign forces, a verdict many have denounced as disproportionately harsh and politically motivated, targeting peaceful pro-democracy activism.
Critics highlight the apparent contradiction between Neuberger’s judicial position in Hong Kong and his role as a patron of Prisoners Abroad, a British charity dedicated to supporting the welfare and human rights of British citizens imprisoned overseas. Neuberger has stated he does not perceive a conflict between these roles. Additionally, he remains president of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, an organisation that promotes the rule of law and human rights on a global scale.
Further complicating the debate, Lord Sumption resigned from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal two years ago, expressing grave concerns that the city was transforming into “a totalitarian state” and warning that the judiciary was increasingly compromised by the political pressures imposed by Beijing. Lord Hoffmann, another former UK judge, continues to serve on the same court, raising questions about the responsibilities of British jurists in the current climate.
The situation reflects broader tensions affecting legal professionals and institutions. Recently, various legal bodies, including the Law Society, criticised China for failing to honour commitments to protect lawyers and safeguard the independence of the legal sector, which they say undermines the rule of law in Hong Kong.
Some voices call on British judges serving in Hong Kong to reconsider their positions, arguing that their presence inadvertently lends legitimacy to a legal system undergoing significant transformation under Chinese influence. Others suggest that resignations by prominent figures like Neuberger could signal a stand against perceived erosions of judicial independence in the territory.
As the debate continues, those involved face complex questions about the balance between engagement and endorsement, and the role of judiciary members amid Hong Kong’s evolving political and legal landscape.