{"id":227279,"date":"2021-01-20T18:36:43","date_gmt":"2021-01-21T02:36:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/?p=227279"},"modified":"2021-01-22T16:13:29","modified_gmt":"2021-01-23T00:13:29","slug":"china-u-k-relations-fracture-amid-hong-kong-crackdown","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/2021\/01\/china-u-k-relations-fracture-amid-hong-kong-crackdown\/","title":{"rendered":"China-U.K. Relations Fracture Amid Hong Kong Crackdown"},"content":{"rendered":"

As the Hong Kong government’s crackdown on pro-democracy activists continues unabated<\/a>, relations between Beijing and London have become increasingly frayed. Areas that have previously highlighted Hong Kong’s connectivity with the West and London’s positive relationship with the former colony have become stress points, affecting the legal and financial sectors that have historically been the city’s competitive advantage.<\/p>\n

In the backdrop of these tensions is the looming date of January 31st, when the U.K. will begin accepting applications from Hong Kong’s British National (Overseas)<\/a> (BN(O)) passport holders to live and work in the U.K., providing a path to eventual citizenship for more than three million residents. Representatives of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) are meeting this week in Beijing, where they are reportedly set to discuss plans to introduce retaliatory measures<\/a> over London’s decision to offer BN(O) passport holders a path to the right of abode.<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, facing a torrent criticism from the British government, a top U.K. lawyer hired by the Hong Kong government to prosecute a group of pro-democracy activists withdrew from the case, following broad pushback against his participation. This has highlighted growing unease in London about the political prosecutions being pursued by Hong Kong’s justice department. An experienced lawyer who had previously represented the Hong Kong and British governments in high profile legal cases, David Perry QC had faced condemnation from fellow barristers as well as the U.K. government. The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour reported last week that Foreign Minister Dominic Raab had issued harsh words<\/strong><\/a> about Perry’s initial insistence on continuing with the case:<\/p>\n

Raab, interviewed by Sophy Ridge on Sky, said: \u201cI don\u2019t understand how anyone of good conscience, from the world-leading legal profession that we have, would take a case where they will have to apply the national security legislation at the behest of the authorities in Beijing, which is directly violating, undermining the freedom of the people of Hong Kong.<\/p>\n

\u201cI understand in the case of Mr Perry, in relation to the pro-democracy activists, and of course from Beijing\u2019s point of view, this would be a serious PR coup. There is no doubt in my mind that under the Bar code of ethics a case like this could be resisted and frankly, I think people watching this would regard it as pretty mercenary to be taking up that kind of case.\u201d [Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The case against pro-democracy activists that Perry was hired to prosecute centered on an August 18, 2019 protest. Hong Kong prosecutors argued that protestors had ignored police objections and incited a demonstration across the city. Organizers estimated that 1.7 million people participated in the march, which was led by pro-democracy heavyweights including Martin Lee, Albert Ho, and Jimmy Lai. What stood out most about the march was its uncharacteristic peacefulness after more than a month of increasingly violent street battles. A headline in the South China Morning Post<\/a> that weekend read: “three nights of tear gas-free protests as Hong Kong’s anti-government movement gives peace a chance.”<\/p>\n

But in April 2020, police nonetheless went forward with the arrest of 15 prominent pro-democracy activists<\/a> for “organizing and participating in unlawful assemblies.” Citing the complexity of the case, Hong Kong’s justice department decided to hire Perry as their lead counsel in January of this year. On Wednesday, the Financial Times’ Primrose Riordan reported on his withdrawal:<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Mr Perry was hired by Hong Kong authorities to prosecute a group of veteran activists including Jimmy Lai, the media mogul, and Martin Lee, who helped write the territory\u2019s mini-constitution governing its handover from British to Chinese rule in 1997. The trial was set to begin on February 16.<\/p>\n

The Hong Kong justice department said on Wednesday: \u201cMr Perry, QC, expressed concerns about such pressures and the exemption of quarantine, and indicated that the trial should proceed without him.\u201d<\/p>\n

[\u2026] Allies of Mr Perry said he was acting under the \u201ccab rank\u201d principle, whereby barristers take cases as they come up. Other lawyers, however, have argued the principle did not apply when accepting overseas cases. [Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Under the “cab-rank rule,” barristers are obligated to accept any work in any legal field in which they claim competence, a principle that is designed to ensure that no person goes unrepresented in court. But Perry’s critics argued that the cab-rank rule did not apply to foreign work.<\/p>\n

\n

A leading local lawyer however said, privately, that "it restored my faith in the English Bar."<\/p>\n

— Alvin Lum (@alvinllum) January 20, 2021<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n