There is a Western saying: "You look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye." This proverb fittingly describes Sam Townend, Chairman of the British Bar Association, who recently criticized the rule of law in Hong Kong. In his address at the commencement of the British legal year, Townend refrained from addressing domestic issues, instead focusing his sharp critique on Hong Kong. He claimed that the rule of law in Hong Kong has been eroded by “unchecked executive control”, suggesting that the administration had overridden the judiciary. Despite his stern rhetoric, he failed to provide any concrete evidence to substantiate his claims. Legal professionals were taken aback by his remarks, immediately recalling the "Rwanda controversy" staged by the British government just a month earlier. In that incident, the British government exerted political pressure on the judiciary, compromising human rights principles to authorize the controversial “Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration)” act.
In its efforts to curb illegal immigration, the British government launched the "Safety of Rwanda" initiative—a scheme that could serve as a textbook example of poor legal practice. Over recent years, the increasing influx of illegal immigrants led senior Conservative Party members to devise a plan to transfer them to Rwanda by means of substantial acceptance fees payable to Rwanda. This arrangement, essentially a form of human trafficking, treats refugees in a dehumanizing manner. While British officials frequently criticize the human rights situation in Hong Kong, the Rwanda act is a blatant example of the UK’s own disregard for human rights.
The act, which treats refugees as scum, faced widespread legal challenges and was ultimately brought before the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the government’s appeal, ruling that the transfer of migrants to Rwanda was illegal. The judge cited Rwanda's poor human rights record, declaring it could not be considered a "safe third country," and highlighted the risk of migrants being returned to their countries of origin or facing inhumane treatment in Rwanda.
In light of this judicial obstacle, the British government was forced to temporarily suspend the plan. However, under intense pressure due to the immigration crisis and wielding the Conservative Party’s parliamentary majority, the government pushed through legislation declaring Rwanda a "safe country." This legal provision effectively compelled the courts to align with the new legislation, preventing them from ruling the transfer of migrants to Rwanda as illegal in the future.
The Conservative government aggressively defended the "Rwanda Act," rejecting all parliamentary amendments until it passed. This manoeuvre demonstrated the overwhelming power of the executive branch, compelling the judiciary to submit to what some have described as an “iron fist” of executive authority. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared that flights transporting migrants to Rwanda would commence within ten weeks to swiftly resolve the situation.
Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, condemned the legislation, stating that it "undermines the ability of British courts to review refugee removal decisions" and "seriously impedes the rule of law in the United Kingdom." He further warned that it could establish a dangerous precedent on the global stage.
UK legal professionals have since questioned Townend: Why did he not criticize the British government’s actions, which clearly exemplify “executive overreach” and severely undermine the rule of law? Instead, he launched “empty attacks” against Hong Kong, alleging that its rule of law had been supplanted by executive power without offering any evidence.
One legal expert noted that this is not an isolated case. There has long been a “hawkish” faction within the British political elite that has exhibited hostility towards China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as seen during the trial of the LAI Chi-ying case. Several British judges appointed as non-permanent judges of Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal have faced intense backlash, with some resigning or retiring early under pressure. It appears that Townend, influenced by this faction, has now joined the chorus of critics targeting Hong Kong.
My legal colleagues and I would very much appreciate it if a journalist were to ask Mr. Townend for his opinion on the British government’s “Rwanda controversy.” Is this not a prime example of the executive undermining judicial independence, as he claims? If so, perhaps he should first address domestic concerns before criticizing Hong Kong.
Lai Ting Yiu
What Say You?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
