The Gavel vs. The Sanction: Hong Kong’s Judiciary Stands Firm

The verdict is in for Jimmy Lai. Convicted of collusion with foreign forces, the high-profile case hits the mitigation phase on January 12, as it races toward a final sentence. But the legal process isn't the only thing moving; the political pressure from London and Washington is reaching a fever pitch.

Former UK Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith is leading the charge, penning articles that demand sanctions against the three judges handling the Lai case. This isn't his first time in the fray. Since the 2019 Black Riots, he has been a fixture in the anti-China circuit, meeting with activists and visiting Taiwan to align with independence advocates.

British MP Iain Duncan Smith is playing hardball, pushing for sanctions against judges on the Lai case while maintaining deep ties with Taiwan independence groups.

The US isn't sitting on the sidelines either. Several hawkish senators are baring their teeth, ready to deploy the "Hong Kong Judiciary Sanctions Act" as a tool of intimidation. The bullets are chambered and ready to fire. Yet, despite the threats, Hong Kong’s judges are showing some serious backbone, standing their ground against external heat.

Duncan Smith’s drumbeat for sanctions looks like a last-ditch effort to squeeze out political leverage as the case concludes. He’s rallying the usual suspects—former Governor Chris Patten and Hong Kong Watch founder Benedict Rogers—to ramp up the pressure on National Security Law judges. It’s an attempt to flip the script at the eleventh hour.

Foreign Pressure Meets Judicial Steel

Legal insiders have dug up the receipts on Duncan Smith. Court revelations show he was a key figure behind the scenes during the 2019 Black Riots, communicating with IPAC founder Luke de Pulford about using the Magnitsky Act to sanction then-Chief Executive Carrie Lam. It’s a clear pattern of interference that dates back years.

While the prosecution also states that Lai has known Duncan Smith since 2020, seeking his help to lobby for foreign sanctions, the British politician flatly denied even knowing him in media interviews. A bold claim, one that doesn't seem to square with the evidence presented in court.

On top of that, Duncan Smith did not just sit in Westminster and commentate. During the 2019 Black Riots period, he repeatedly met Hong Kong opposition figures and “movement participants” under the banner of policy research, while in reality fanning the flames from behind the scenes. The exact part he played in that unrest may never be fully spelled out, but the pattern is clear – he was not a neutral observer, he was an active political player in a foreign city’s turmoil.

 Taiwan, Sanctions and a Political Script

Legal-sector contacts add another layer: Duncan Smith is not only a steady hand in Hong Kong destabilization, he is also tightly wired into Taiwan “independence” circles.

Last August, Smith personally flew to Taiwan to attend an IPAC “cross-national parliamentarians” symposium in support of Taiwan.  Headlined a “Stand with Taiwan: Freedom Night”, the event portrayed the mainland “authoritarian regime” as an ever-closer threat that would “destroy your independent status,” language tailor-made to cheer a “Taiwan independence” audience.

In the room, independence leader Louise Hsiao Bi-khim – now Lai Ching-te’s deputy and the number-two figure in the administration – responded with enthusiastic applause and public thanks, and Smith’s pro-“Taiwan independence” stance was on full display throughout the event.

Seen in that light, his demand to sanction Hong Kong judges is not about law; it is about politics, and hard-edged anti-China politics at that. Dressing it up as concern over supposed “judicial injustice” toward Jimmy Lai is just verbal smoke – rhetoric hiding a clear strategic aim to pressure and delegitimize Hong Kong’s courts.

Washington Hawks Load a New Weapon

Duncan Smith and his allies in London are not acting alone.

In May last year, three US senators introduced the “Hong Kong Judicial Sanctions Act,” a bill that, if acted on, would put a long list of Hong Kong judges and prosecutors – including Court of Final Appeal Chief Justice Andrew Cheung and Director of Public Prosecutions Maggie Yang – in the crosshairs of potential sanctions, turning legal professionals into political targets.

At the same time, Mark Clifford – a core member of Jimmy Lai’s inner circle and head of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation – rolled out a report smearing Hong Kong’s judiciary, echoing these Senate hawks point for point and keeping the spotlight on Hong Kong judges and prosecutors, with the pressure dial constantly turned up.

A seasoned political insider put it bluntly: this camp is already at daggers drawn, just waiting for sentencing in Lai’s case as the trigger. When the court hands down its decision, they are expected to move again, this time with heavier blows aimed squarely at Hong Kong’s judicial sector through new attacks and lobbying.

That said, one big variable hangs over their plan – Trump. Even if Congress pushes the bill forward, whether it actually bites still depends on Trump’s calculation: if he decides he does not want to pick a fresh fight with China over Jimmy Lai, especially with a future China visit on his calendar, he can simply refuse to sign the act and leave it on the shelf.

Judges Hold Their Nerve

Whatever happens in Washington or London, one thing seems certain: the threats from US and UK hawks will keep escalating, and the pressure on Hong Kong’s judicial personnel will only grow.

Yet, as former Director of Public Prosecutions Grenville Cross has stressed: in the face of various intimidations, judges have remained unmoved throughout, dutifully performing their responsibilities and crushing anti-China forces’ schemes to obstruct judicial justice. That resilience showcases the strength and superiority of Hong Kong’s common law system rather than its weakness.

Legal friends strongly echo Cross’s view: Hong Kong judges really have stood their ground against external forces and proven themselves “resolute” in practice – a rare quality, because being put on a sanctions list is no small personal or professional burden.

Another important signal is coming from Hong Kong’s foreign judges, who have publicly backed the independence and fairness of the city’s judicial system. Court of Appeal Vice President Andrew Colin Macrae recently told a Bar Association forum that he has never seen Hong Kong judges take instructions from anyone, stressing that when they adjudicate cases, they maintain independence and fairness, and the public has reason to feel reassured by that track record.

In recent years, anti-China politicians across the UK, US, Australia and other Western countries have been leaning hard on Hong Kong’s foreign judges, trying to force them to toe a political line. Against that backdrop, Macrae’s willingness to take the heat, speak plainly and defend Hong Kong’s courts in public is all the more commendable. Clearly knowing that the blowback will come, he still chooses to speak up anyway.

Facing a storm of international pressure, Hong Kong’s judges are refusing to buckle, upholding the city’s legal integrity.

Ultimately, the judges’ resolve is anchored in the principles at the heart of Hong Kong’s judicial system. With the law on their side and the standards clear, they can meet every challenge openly and without apology—and no amount of noise or intimidation from outside forces will dislodge that foundation. They will press on, calmly and firmly, with the same quiet determination they have shown all along.

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. **

The most consequential national security trial yet to come is also the one with the most unanswered questions — and at the centre of it is a man who almost made it out.

Monday (Feb 23) was "Renri" (人日) — the seventh day of the Lunar New Year, meant to be a day of celebration for all people. But for the 12 defendants in the "35+ Subversion Case," there was nothing to celebrate. The Court of Appeal dismissed all their appeals against both conviction and sentencing in full. Unless they push it all the way to the Court of Final Appeal, this case is done. That brings two of the three major national security cases to a close — the other being the Jimmy Lai trial. What remains is the Joshua Wong case, expected to go to trial around mid-year. Like Lai's, it reaches into the highest levels of American politics, and it will almost certainly expose a trove of behind-the-scenes dealings that will shake Hong Kong to its core. The trial is close enough that the details don't need spelling out here. But one mystery absolutely does: Wong was once Washington's darling — so why did he never make it out, while his co-conspirator Nathan Law did? An investigative report by American journalists cracked open the story.

Wong's trial is the last big national security case standing — and the most explosive one yet. How did he never make it out?

Wong's role in the Occupy Central movement and the 2019 unrest needs no introduction. In June last year, while already serving a prison term at Stanley Prison on sedition charges, he was arrested again and charged under the Hong Kong National Security Law with conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security. His second pre-trial review at the Magistrates' Court came on 21 November last year, with the next hearing set for 6 March; the full trial at the High Court is expected to begin around mid-year. This case carries weight every bit as significant as the Jimmy Lai trial — the spotlight it commands will be enormous.

The Charges Are Grave

The prosecution alleges that between July and November 2020, Wong — together with Nathan Law and others yet to be identified — conspired in Hong Kong to solicit foreign governments and institutions to impose sanctions against the Hong Kong SAR and the People's Republic of China, and to seriously obstruct the government in enacting and enforcing its laws and policies. The charges carry a potential sentence of life imprisonment. What exactly Wong and Law did, and which foreign officials were involved, the prosecution will lay out in full when the trial begins.

The public has long asked some uncomfortable questions. Did Joshua Wong ever consider fleeing before or after the National Security Law came into force at the end of June 2020? If so, why did it never happen? Did the US government try to help him get out? An investigative report by two American journalists answered part of the puzzle — and sources familiar with the matter, when contacted by Hong Kong media, broadly confirmed what it said.

Wong Begged Washington for Help

The night before the National Security Law took effect, Wong reached out through a senator's adviser to appeal directly to President Trump for help. At the same time, he sent an email to then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, explicitly asking to be helped to "travel to the United States to seek political asylum, by whatever means necessary". That email tells you everything. Wong knew exactly how dangerous his situation had become — and he was betting his future on American goodwill.

  

Around the same time, Wong arranged to meet two officials from the US Consulate General in Hong Kong at St. John's Building, directly across the street from the consulate. He made clear he wanted to walk in and seek refuge. He was turned away on the spot. When Pompeo saw the email, he consulted with his staff and arrived at the same conclusion: letting Wong through the consulate doors was simply not an option — Washington feared Beijing would retaliate by forcing the US consulate in Hong Kong to close entirely.

State Department officials went further, exploring a covert plan to smuggle Wong out of Hong Kong by sea — routing him through Taiwan or the Philippines before eventually reaching the United States. That option was killed too, on the grounds that any such attempt would very likely be intercepted by Chinese authorities, triggering a diplomatic crisis. When the accounting was done, American interests won out — and Joshua Wong was coldly abandoned.

By that point, Nathan Law had already made it out. Seizing Pompeo's visit to London, Law met the Secretary of State privately and raised the question of rescuing Wong one more time — and was once again turned away without sympathy. In September 2020, Wong was arrested on sedition charges and imprisoned two months later. Any remaining window for escape had sealed shut.

Law Moved Fast — and Made It

 

Nathan Law is named as a co-conspirator in the charges against Wong — meaning that if arrested, they face the same jeopardy. But Law proved far more calculating than Wong. Shortly before the National Security Law took effect, he quietly slipped away, eventually confirming his presence in the United Kingdom on 13 July 2020. He even staged a moment of wistful sentiment, declaring: "With this parting, I do not yet know when I shall return... May glory come soon!" — words that, in the circumstances, could not have sounded more hollow.

Same charges, same case — but Law ran, and Wong didn't. One man made it out clean. The other is still paying the price.

Joshua Wong — sharp-witted all his life — took one step too many in trusting the Americans, and that delay cost him everything. The US government, in the name of "national interest," discarded him without hesitation. As his trial approaches, the reality is this: placing any further faith in American support would be the last illusion he can afford.

Lai Ting-yiu