Hong Kong Law Society and Bar Association Defend Court Decision Against Beijing Attack
The Bar Association and even the conservative Law Society issued statements defending a Hong Kong court's ruling that the mask ban issued last month by the city government was unconstitutional.
November 27, 2019 at 03:30 PM
3 minute read
The Law Society of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Bar Association are publicly defending a Hong Kong court's decision that has come under attack from the Chinese government, with the Law Society warning that "nothing should be said or done that will undermine, or will be perceived to undermine, judicial independence and the rule of law".
The statement by the Law Society, the city's usually conservative professional body for solicitors, was issued following an attack by China's National People's Congress on a Hong Kong court ruling that overturned a controversial mask ban. The ban, which prohibits the wearing of masks during public assemblies, was passed in October after Carrie Lam, Hong Kong's chief executive, enacted emergency powers that allowed her to bypass the territory's parliament. Demonstrators have worn masks throughout the protests to avoid police identification.
But the Hong Kong court ruled last Friday that the ban was incompatible with what is called the Basic Law – Hong Kong's mini-constitution. That did not sit well with the government in Beijing. China's National People's Congress issued a statement saying only the National People's Congress Standing Committee, the nation's top legislative body, had the power to decide whether Hong Kong laws complied with the Basic Law.
In addition to the Hong Kong Law Society, the Hong Kong Bar Association – the professional body for barristers – issued a statement in response to China's insistence that only it had the power to decide whether a Hong Kong law was constitutional.
"The courts in Hong Kong have previously struck down unconstitutional laws. There was no suggestion previously that the courts cannot do so," the bar association said in a statement. "As has been held by the Court of Appeal, Hong Kong courts must apply the letter and spirit of the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights and it is their 'duty' to strike down unconstitutional laws. Indeed, for a court not to decide any case which argues that a legislative provision is contrary to the Basic Law is to fail to uphold the Basic Law, which every judicial officer has sworn to do."
The Hong Kong government on Monday appealed the court decision overturning the mask ban and the High Court agreed to grant a one-week suspension of the ruling. The court has now extended the suspension until next month, allowing the ban at least temporarily to remain in effect. The court is expected to issue a decision on December 10.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRivals Seize Opportunity as A&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells Vacate South Africa
5 minute readSwiss Lawyers Sanctioned by U.S. Treasury Over Russia Denounce 'Political' Accusations
3 minute readExclusive: Mayer Brown Shutters Mexico City Office, Lawyers Scatter
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250