The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress can issue the sixth interpretation of the Basic Law. Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Media, has been authorized to hire a British Queen’s Counsel to defend the case of suspected violation of the ‘Hong Kong National Security Law’. Chief Executive Li Jiachao, who is also chairman of the National Security Committee of the SAR, said yesterday that he will suggest the central government ask the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress to interpret the law to clarify whether lawyers without a qualifications can handle national security cases. Decisions must be made.
Li Zhiying was accused of collusion with 6 senior executives of Next Media and “Apple Daily” and 3 companies in colluding with foreign forces and violating the “Hong Kong National Security Law”. The Attorney General had previously objected to his hiring of Tim Owen, QC, to represent his defence, and last week asked the Final Court to appeal. Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheung Ju-neng, Permanent Justices Li Yi and Fok Zhaogang yesterday issued a written ruling rejecting the application. The ruling said that when the Justice Department appealed to the Final Court, it proposed a new point of view that was very different from the original process, emphasizing that cases involving the “National Security Act” should be barred from involving lawyers from the ‘overseas except in special circumstances.
The ruling pointed out that the Justice Department said that the employment of foreign lawyers in “national security law” cases could lead to or obtain “foreign or foreign powers interfering in the affairs of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,” or that the Justice Department should bar anyone from attempting to use legal process to harm national security. The prior appeals process has not been explored and the lack of supporting evidence has not been accepted by the Court of Final Appeals as a reason for the acceptance of the appeal. Furthermore, in the Justice Department’s statement, it was not mentioned that Li Zhiying’s case involved state secrets and that overseas lawyers could not fulfill their duty of confidentiality.
The Court of Finals says the justice secretary’s new views lack substantive support
The Court of Finals said that the positions in question had not previously been mentioned or argued in the lower courts and found that the Attorney General had not established an adequate basis for granting leave to appeal. ultimately, a new point of view without substantial support was proposed. According to the principles enunciated in the previous cases, the appeal should not be granted if the appellant puts forward new arguments that have not been discussed in the first instance and in the Court of Appeal in the last instance of the appeal. The trial judge’s ruling also responded to the concerns raised by the Justice Department, stating that the refusal to grant permission to appeal is only for individual cases and will not set a precedent. The Appellate Committee of the Final Court stressed that the court will resolutely safeguard national security in accordance with the provisions of the National Security Law.
Li Jiachao stressed that the interpretation of the law does not target the nationality of foreign lawyers
Article 65 of the National Security Law states that the power to interpret laws rests with the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Li Jiachao said that he will propose to the central government to submit to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress to explain and clarify the original intention and purpose of the legislation, as well as whether lawyers or lawyers who do not have full local professional qualifications can participate in the handling cases that endanger national security in any form. He also pointed out that at present it is impossible to rule out that foreign lawyers or lawyers must comply with the state, commercial and personal secrets confidentiality rules of the National Security Law and are not subject to manipulation by foreign governments. He stressed that this interpretation is aimed only at overseas lawyers or barristers who do not have any local qualifications, not their nationality. Li Zhiying’s case was originally scheduled to start trial the next day (December 1), but Li Jiachao said yesterday that the Justice Department will apply to postpone the trial.
Li Jiachao reiterated that defendants under the “National Security Law” can still choose lawyers who have all the qualifications in Hong Kong to represent them. Asked whether the proposed interpretation of the law is “lose or win,” Li Jiachao pointed out that the National Security Council had held a meeting and decided, after examining the reasons, that if the Justice Department’s authorization to appeal is rejected, it should propose an interpretation of the law, qualifying it as an appropriate and necessary decision. He stressed that he had complied with the court’s final ruling and also affirmed the Justice Department’s job to discuss the case with the court. However, the impact of this incident is far-reaching. The request for interpretation is in line with Hong Kong’s interests and the constitutional order: it is a prudent and serious decision.
Central Government Requests Hong Kong Government to Report on Implementation of “National Security Law”
After the Final Appeal Court yesterday rejected the Justice Department’s request for permission to appeal, Li Jiachao took the initiative to meet with the media in the evening and explained that the central government had sent him a letter a few days ago requesting a report on the performance by the RAS of its duties under the National Security Act. Li Jiachao said that a meeting of the National Security Council has been convened and a report will be submitted as soon as possible after resolving the relevant situation, including the request for legal interpretation. He said that national security risks are complex and changing, and latent acts involving collusion with foreign forces abroad are more likely to occur, so it is not easy to prevent damage to national security in China and overt pressure on communities foreign entrepreneurs.
The Hong Kong and Macao affairs office subsequently issued a statement, fully affirming and strongly supporting Li Jiachao’s law interpretation request, and also stressed that the Hong Kong court approval of the council of the British Queen to represent the case violated the legislative spirit and legal logic of the “National Security Law” and prevented, blocked and punished activities that endangered national security contrary to regulations. The liaison office also issued a statement supporting Li Jiachao’s request for an interpretation of the law, stressing that firmly safeguarding national security is Hong Kong’s constitutional responsibility for the rule of law and the bottom line it must be observed.
