UK Bar Chairman’s Ruthless Remarks on Hong Kong Judiciary, ignoring its own ‘Rwanda Farce’

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?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Fugitive Nathan Law, after losing support in the UK, recently traveled to Taiwan, where he received backing from pro-independence groups and was seen with a local woman. However, his most pressing issue now is not the Hong Kong police’s cross-border pursuit but rather allegations of sexual assault involving a former female assistant from several years ago. The scandal has continued to gain traction, with members of the pro-democracy "Yellow Camp" openly criticizing him, significantly damaging his reputation. In an apparent attempt to address the issue, Law posted on social media yesterday, vaguely alluding to past incidents that might have caused "embarrassment" to the "involved party." He characterized it as a misunderstanding, denying any "violent intimate behavior."

Political insiders who reviewed his statement argue that this is merely a rhetorical maneuver. They point out that the assistant, who is the alleged victim, confided in members of the Yellow Camp at the time, and there are multiple witnesses. Despite Law’s attempts to explain, they believe he cannot fully exonerate himself. Furthermore, as the victim has not publicly disclosed the incident, it remains a metaphorical time bomb that could detonate and ruin Law’s reputation at any moment.

The alleged incident reportedly took place during Law’s peak period when he served as Chairman of the now-dissolved Demosistō and as a member of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. At the time, he employed a female assistant, referred to here as "X," known for her linguistic skills and international engagement. In 2018, during a visit to Belgium, Law allegedly acted inappropriately towards X after consuming alcohol. According to sources within the Yellow Camp, X later confided in a close friend, but Law dismissed her claims, accusing her of seeking fame and attention.

Since X chose not to make the matter public, it gradually faded from public view. However, a month ago, the Hong Kong Democratic Committee suddenly severed ties with Law without explanation. Rumors soon surfaced suggesting the decision was linked to the sexual assault allegations, reigniting the controversy. The scandal even reached Oxford University, which cited Law’s misconduct as the reason for rejecting his application to a master’s program. The controversy then spread further, becoming a focal point of discussion among both the pro-democracy ("Yellow") and pro-establishment ("Blue") factions.

This controversy has significantly tarnished Law’s image and dealt a severe blow to his political career. His recent social media post appears to be an attempt to frame the incident as a "misunderstanding." In his statement, he acknowledged that he may have mishandled past relationships but insisted he had "never engaged in any intimate conduct against someone’s will or with violence." This statement suggests that some form of interaction occurred with X, but he claims it was consensual rather than non-consensual. In a previous interview with the online media outlet Notus, he described the encounter as "romantic."

A political insider remarked that in many sexual assault cases, men often claim that the other party was "willing," but judges rarely accept such defenses without credible testimony from the victim and corroborating evidence. Therefore, Law’s one-sided defense is seen as unconvincing.

Law also claimed in his post that he had engaged in "friendly and positive communication" with the "involved party" at the time and had kept relevant records. However, he added that he would not publicly clarify the matter unless absolutely necessary, citing multiple complicating factors. Political observers criticize this as another example of his "rhetorical maneuvering," suggesting he wants to appear as though he has evidence proving his innocence but is either unwilling or unable to disclose it, thereby creating an image of being unjustly accused.

In closing, Law issued an apology to X, expressing regret for any embarrassment or misunderstanding he may have caused her in the past. He also invited her to contact him directly to resolve any lingering issues. Political insiders interpret this as his attempt to downplay the incident as merely a "misunderstanding" and to reach a settlement with X.

The same insiders suggest that Law’s eagerness to address the scandal stems from his understanding that these sexual assault allegations are a severe threat to his career. Despite his efforts, his explanations remain weak, and the stigma of sexual misconduct continues to haunt him. They conclude that the unresolved allegations are like a ticking time bomb, poised to destroy his reputation completely when it explodes.

Lai Ting Yiu