US senators recently pushed a bill aiming to sanction Hong Kong judges handling national security cases, sparking a firm response from the HKSAR Government, which vowed to keep protecting national security undeterred and urged Washington to stop these actions. In a rare move, Court of Appeal Vice President Andrew Colin Macrae spoke out strongly at a Hong Kong Bar Association forum on August 26, branding the sanctions attempt as a curious kind of “reverse corruption.” He made it crystal clear that Hong Kong’s judges aren’t intimidated by threats—the courts remain fully independent and apply the law impartially. Macrae’s perspective is especially credible given his role in high-profile cases, including the corruption trial of former Chief Secretary Rafael Hui.
Andrew Colin Macrae, Vice President of the Court of Appeal
He challenged critics who question Hong Kong’s rule of law, asking a provocative question: across all common-law jurisdictions in Asia-Pacific or worldwide, where else do you see top government officials and billionaire property developers actually tried by jury, convicted, imprisoned, and granted proper avenues for appeal? There’s simply no precedent like it—yet some still claim the judiciary lacks independence and even propose sanctions against judges. Macrae pointedly called out this approach as “reverse corruption,” pointing out that attempts to sanction judges to influence their decisions mirror the very corruption the law aims to stamp out.
Law Over Politics: A Snapshot from the “818” Case
Macrae took the forum as an opportunity to unpack the 2023 Court of Appeal decision in the “818” water-flow procession case, which involved defendants like Jimmy Lai and Martin Lee. The court quashed several convictions for “organizing an unauthorized assembly” but upheld convictions for “knowingly taking part” in such assemblies. Macrae explained this split wasn’t political maneuvering but simply the court adhering to established common law principles and statutory language, bounded by precedents from the Court of Final Appeal. When a human-rights group described the decision as “procedural justice within a flawed system,” Macrae didn’t shy away from taking that as a compliment.
He urged skeptics to understand that Hong Kong’s courts won’t buckle under pressure—they strictly adjudicate based on law. His comments offer a reassuring message to the public: judges here remain independent and impartial, even in the face of Western political posturing.
Sanctions: More Threat Than Help to Hong Kong’s Legal System
At the same forum, former Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman Victor Dawes SC chimed in, warning that sanctions pose a systemic risk to Hong Kong’s legal framework. He highlighted the disconnect between foreign actors living in a “parallel universe” and Hong Kong’s reality, where sanctions won’t strengthen but rather weaken the rule of law. Illustrating this, he pointed out that the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, Andrew Cheung, is a Harvard Law graduate—and rhetorically asked, if sanctions hit him, who would fill that critical role?
In essence, having a senior judge like Andrew Colin Macrae, who presided over a major appeal involving prominent defendants, publicly defend Hong Kong’s judicial independence is immensely convincing. The decisions made in those cases, blending nuance and strict adherence to law, strongly counter claims of external interference or political bias. Despite threats from Western politicians, Hong Kong’s judges continue to uphold fairness, scrupulously and without fear.
Ariel
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Jimmy Lai’s latest courtroom moment comes with a blunt reality check: the “solitary confinement” narrative doesn’t look the way overseas headlines sell it. At the West Kowloon Court on Monday (Jan 12), prosecutors say Lai requested the arrangement himself—worried he’d be harassed because his case was so widely reported—and the Correctional Services Department approved it after assessment. Two judges put it in plain language: “This wasn’t imposed on him by others—it was his own request,” and “If he wants, he can stop at any time.”
Prosecutors tell the court Lai’s solitary confinement is his own choice, not something forced on him. AP file photo.
That clashes head-on with what Lai’s children tell foreign media: they describe an elderly father kept alone for more than 1,000 days in a cell “without sunlight,” with summer temperatures hitting 40℃, dramatic weight loss, weakness, discolored nails “falling off,” and rotting teeth—basically a countdown to the end. They also accuse correctional staff of blocking communion for the Catholic Lai, or even cutting off curry sauce once they learned he liked it—small details used to paint a picture of psychological breaking tactics.
In court, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau tells a very different story: solitary confinement starts with Lai’s own application. Chau says that when Lai is remanded in late 2020, he believes his case is splashed everywhere and fears trouble from other inmates, so he applies to the Correctional Services Department. The department’s report, Chau says, finds him suitable—and it reviews the arrangment monthly, asking each time whether Lai wants to continue, with Lai confirming he does.
Chau also stresses that “solitary” doesn’t mean stripped of prisoner rights under the Prison Rules. He says Lai still has social contact—family communication, letters, publications—and can take part in religious activities such as receiving communion, and that Lai has never filed a complaint about these matters. Chau adds that Lai’s daily routine includes reading, outdoor exercise, “meaningful light duty work,” and daily health monitoring.
The courtroom reality check
The defense tries to shift the focus to age and health. Senior counsel Robert Pang tells the court Lai has high blood pressure, diabetes, and eye problems; none are immediately life-threatening, he says, but at 78, solitary confinement hits harder than it would for a younger inmate. Pang frames it starkly: “Every day he spent in prison will bring him that much closer to the end of his life,” and he cites a European Committee for the Prevention of Torture report warning solitary confinement harms prisoners and is treated as punishment in prison systems.
Judge Esther Toh isn't buying the "imposed punishment" framing, and she says so on the spot. She points out that this arrangement wasn't imposed on him by others—it was his own request, then offers a pointed analogy: it's like choosing between sharing a double room with your wife or taking a single room, picking one option, and then calling it "torture." Another judge, Alex Lee, makes the practical point: "It's not an additional punishment imposed on him. He can always end it if he chooses to."
Commentary circulating among observers says those two lines from the bench puncture the overseas media storyline in one go: the claim that Lai is forcibly kept in solitary. The same commentary says Lai’s family and foreign media keep running the “sob story,” while court appearances and medical reports tendered in evidence show his health is broadly fine—and that during remand he even gains weight at one point, with fluctuations that still leave him in an obese BMI range, not the “frail and wasting” picture described abroad.
