No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
Two serving members of the House of Lords are under fire for serving on Hong Kong’s top court – despite China imposing ever-tightening control over the province.
House of Lords members David Neuberger and Leonard Hoffmann – both former senior British judges and now crossbench peers – serve as foreign judges on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal, despite growing calls for them to stand down as the region rounds up democracy activists and journalists.
Judges there must swear allegiance to Hong Kong, which was previously a largely-autonomous zone of China following its handover from the Brits in 1997.
Now, however, Beijing is exerting enormous influence over governance there – not least through the draconian National Security Law passed five years ago this June.
It means that the two still-serving British peers on the court swear allegiance both to the British Crown as Lords, and to an area under the grip of the Chinese Communist Party.
Last August, Lord Neuberger stood down as chair of a legal advisory board to an international media freedom coalition he founded, after he sat on the court panel which unanimously dismissed a bid by British Hong Konger Jimmy Lai and six other pro-democracy activists to overturn their convictions for taking part in a peaceful protest in August 2019. However, he and Lord Hoffman still serve on that same panel – and remain voting members of the House of Lords.
Don’t miss a story
Dual Allegiance
A May 2024 report by the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation highlighted that the Chinese authorities on the mainland have the power to “interpret” the Basic Law and National Security Law, allowing it to overturn supposedly “final” decisions of the Court of Final Appeal.
“Beijing has repeatedly used this power to interfere with court rulings. Additionally, the Beijing-appointed Chief Executive has authority over judicial appointments and promotions, a power that has been used to ensure that the Courts reward those who support the regime and sideline those who do not,” the campaign group points out.
When approached by Byline Times, Lord Neuberger denied there is a conflict between his dual allegiances, and doesn’t believe he needs to register under Britain’s new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, which is designed to track agents of foreign influence.
But the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation says conflicts of interest are “not hypothetical”, as China and Hong Kong are often discussed in the House of Lords. In November 2022, the Lords debated the question of “what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of allegations of human rights abuses in China.”
“The debate repeatedly invoked the ongoing human rights abuses in Hong Kong—some of which the Lords who are Overseas [judges] had directly participated in,” the foundation argues.
They argue these judges provide a veneer of international legitimacy for Beijing’s tightening control over Hong Kong.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
House of Lords rules permit members to work for foreign states – and merely require them to disclose that work and income. They are not told to share what cases they rule on, and nor is their salary published by the Lords authorities.
The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation (CFHKF), in its report last year, claimed that Lord Hoffmann was “instrumental” in reinstating the conviction of a man “only accused of filming others who were following a police officer.”
“A panel of the Court including Lord Hoffmann ruled that a person can be convicted of unlawful assembly without ever intending to take part in the unlawful assembly,” the report said.
The report from CFHKF last year pointed to another potential conflict of interest, over recent requirements in the House of Lords to disclose pay from foreign governments.
“During the chamber’s debate over the rule change in 2021, Lord Neuberger stood to oppose the new disclosure rule. He noted how it might affect his role as an international arbitration lawyer but did not disclose the more notable and potentially controversial effect the rule would have on him: requiring him to disclose his salary and benefits from the Hong Kong government,” the report claimed.
On his pay, Lord Neuberger told this newspaper: “I am paid the equivalent of just under £40,000 every time I sit as a Non-Permanent Judge (NPJ) of the Court of Final Appeal for a 4-week stint, which is about once every 15 months.”
Asked if he was planning to sign up to Britain’s new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, he added: “I do not believe that I am obliged to register.”
The 90-year-old Lord Hoffmann’s term on the Hong Kong court was extended by the country’s hardline pro-China leader only this January for another three years. Lord Neuberger (77) is set to serve until February 2027.
Democracy Crackdown
Their roles are especially controversial as British national and Hong Kong resident Jimmy Lai has spent over 1,600 days in detention under the region’s clampdown on free journalism.
Lai founded Apple Daily, a newspaper advocating freedom of speech. The Free Jimmy Lai campaign argues his “staunch criticism of the Chinese government and support for democratic movements led to his arrest in 2020 under the National Security Law.” Closing arguments for his long-running trial are scheduled for August 2025.
Amnesty International research published to mark the five year anniversary of the National Security Law – which triggered huge protests – shows that over 80% of 225 analysed Hong Kong criminal cases involved “wrongful” criminalisation, with 90% of defendants denied bail.
Misinformation on ECHR Fuels ‘Hostility, Mistrust, and Bad Law’ Warns Human Rights Group
Amnesty argues successive UK Governments ‘created the system they now condemn’
Hong Kong is described as only “partly” free by international watchdog Freedom House, with the non-profit noting: “The implementation of the National Security Law (NSL) in 2020 has amounted [to] a multifront attack on the “one country, two systems” framework.
“The territory’s most prominent pro-democracy figures have been arrested under its provisions, and NSL charges or the threat of charges have resulted in the closure of political parties, major independent news outlets, peaceful nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and unions.”
A 2021 electoral overhaul also permitted mainland authorities to vet candidates and imposed other provisions that “ultimately ensure Beijing near-total control over the selection of Hong Kong authorities”, the group adds.
And as of May this year, 326 people had been arrested on suspicion of acts or activities “endangering national security” since the National Security Law was enacted, according to the Hong Kong Free Press (whose journalists are reportedly under increasing pressure, including from seemingly-targeted tax audits). Around 80 have been imprisoned.
Under Pressure
Former UK Supreme Court president Baroness Hale has suggested the Beijing-imposed National Security Law has “taken over” Hong Kong’s previously independent Basic Law.
Several senior foreign judges have resigned from Hong Kong’s court under pressure, citing concerns over human rights.
Last June, two British judges resigned from Hong Kong’s top court, with one citing the political situation in the former colony, as reported by the Guardian.
Lawrence Collins and Jonathan Sumption, former UK supreme court justices, stood down with one referring to Beijing’s clampdown in his statement. “I have resigned from the court of final appeal because of the political situation in Hong Kong, but I continue to have the fullest confidence in the court and the total independence of its members,” Lord Collins said.
In 2022, Robert Reed, then-president of the UK supreme court, and his colleague Patrick Hodge, also quit the Hong Kong bench over fears of endorsing a regime that seemed to have “departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression”.
The crackdown has been widely criticised by human rights and legal groups. But this is the first time still-serving British Lords – both former judges – serving on Hong Kong courts have come under such scrutiny.
Lord Neuberger told Byline Times, via a spokesperson: “I have not had a proper opportunity to consider whether to answer [all] points” related to criticism of his role.
‘Kick Them Out’
Mark Sabah, Director at the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, told this newspaper: “Members of the House of Lords, who swear allegiance to the Crown, should not be able to take on roles on foreign courts where they need to swear allegiance to another entity or leadership. This conflict alone puts into question their judicial independence and suggests the Lords’ Code of Conduct itself requires reform.
“No common law judge can claim to be unaware that Hong Kong authorities have cracked down on basic rights, including media freedom, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech, while continuing to undertake politically motivated prosecutions that have led to the detention of hundreds of pro-democracy advocates, including of Lord Neuberger’s fellow British citizen, Jimmy Lai.
“Judges sitting on the CFA [Court of Final Appeal] in Hong Kong are driven by money and greed and should face exclusion from the Lords rather than dragging the legal system and the upper chamber into disrepute.
“The fact that Lord Neuberger last year resigned as Chair of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom rather than from his position on the CFA in Hong Kong says everything you need to know about his motivations.”
Polluting Water and Fossil Fuel Bosses Are Being Put Under Citizen’s Arrest for Causing a ‘Public Nuisance’
Activists accuse rogue water bosses of “knowingly putting the public at risk”
Asked to comment on British peers swearing allegiance to Hong Kong, a spokesperson for the House of Lords told this newspaper: “We cannot comment on the oath-taking requirements of another institution.”
When questioned whether it was acceptable for peers to work for foreign states, they added: “Members of the House of Lords are permitted to be employed by a foreign state but must register such work and the income received in the course of that work.” The income received for that work is not published.
Lord Neuberger also works for Singapore’s International Commercial Court as an international judge. Like Hong Kong, Singapore is described as only “partly” free by Freedom House, noting that it has been dominated by one leader and party since 1959. “The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association,” Freedom House notes.
As well as being the founder (until recently, chair) of the International Bar Association’s ‘High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom’, Lord Neuberger was until this January a director of Prisoners Abroad. Last August, the charity, which defends Brits incarcerated around the world – put out a statement on Lord Neuberger, saying: “As a UK charity, Prisoners Abroad’s mission is to protect the health, welfare and human rights of British citizens detained abroad. Our trustees are each personally, and collectively, committed to that mission.
“As a charity, we do not judge on whether someone is guilty or innocent.”
In the joint statement, Lord Neuberger said at the time: “My role as a judge in Hong Kong, like the role of a judge anywhere, is to decide cases that come before me according to the law.”
Asked whether he is no longer a director due to his role deciding on whether to lock up democracy activists in Hong Kong, a spokesperson told Byline Times: “Lord Neuberger has long been an advocate for Prisoners Abroad as a charity and he came to the end of his 7-year tenure as a trustee in January 2025.”
Lord Hoffman did not respond to a request for comment.
Got a story? Get in touch in confidence on josiah@bylinetimes.com
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
