Subscriptions
Read our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
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 o