大律師公會前主席夏博義，首次披露接受國安處警誡會面後離港原因｜Paul Harris reveals for the first time the reason for leaving HK.

Summary

In this insightful interview, Paul Harris, former chair of the Hong Kong Bar Council, discusses his abrupt departure from Hong Kong in 2022 after being accused of sedition by the National Security Police. Harris, who left amidst an ongoing case, reflects on the state of the rule of law in Hong Kong, distinguishing between civil and political cases, and shares his views on the diminishing independence of Hong Kong's judiciary. He also touches on the international implications and the British political landscape's awareness of Hong Kong's situation.

Takeaways

• 🏛 Paul Harris, a prominent lawyer from Hong Kong and former chair of the Hong Kong Bar Council, was forced to leave Hong Kong in March 2022 due to accusations of sedition by the Hong Kong National Security Police.
• 📚 Harris had to abandon his ongoing cases, including representing Helena Wong and lamu Ting in the Democratic 47 case, after receiving a tip-off that Beijing had ordered his arrest.
• 🗣️ Harris was questioned by the security police about statements he made in his book and on Twitter, which they considered seditious, but he was not charged and was allowed to leave Hong Kong.
• 🌏 Harris moved to the UK and is now standing for office as a Liberal Democrat candidate, aiming to raise awareness about the situation in Hong Kong.
• 🤔 The interview discusses the current state of the rule of law in Hong Kong, with Harris suggesting that while civil and non-political cases may still be tried fairly, political cases and freedom of speech are under siege.
• 📉 Harris believes that the presence of foreign judges in Hong Kong contributes positively to the rule of law and that their departure would be a significant step towards a totalitarian state.
• 😔 There is a perceived lack of interest and awareness about Hong Kong in the UK, which Harris finds disappointing, especially considering the potential impact on British foreign policy.
• 🗳️ The Liberal Democrats have shown more concern for Hong Kong than other major parties, but Harris acknowledges the challenges in making Hong Kong a high priority issue in British politics.
• 🔗 Harris suggests that linking the observance of the Joint Declaration in Hong Kong to other issues involving China could be a more effective approach in British foreign policy.
• 🏛️ The interview takes place outside Dy Street Chambers, known for its human rights law practice and notable members such as the potential future Prime Minister of Britain.
• 📈 The conversation highlights the ongoing international tension and the challenges faced by judges in Hong Kong who are trying to uphold justice amidst political pressures.

Q & A

What is the significance of Dy Street Chambers in the context of the video?

Dy Street Chambers is a well-known institution in Britain, particularly famous for its human rights law practice. It is also the workplace of K stama, a prominent figure likely to become Britain's prime minister, and the location where Paul Harris, a prominent lawyer, worked before he had to leave Hong Kong.

Why did Paul Harris have to leave Hong Kong?

Paul Harris had to leave Hong Kong under duress after being accused of sedition by the Hong Kong National Security Police. He received a tip-off that Beijing had ordered his arrest, prompting him to leave the city.

What was the reason behind Paul Harris's initial move to Hong Kong in 1994?

Paul Harris moved to Hong Kong after being asked to set up an independent watchdog to ensure the promises in the joint declaration were kept, focusing on the rule of law and human rights in the city.

How did Paul Harris's work in Hong Kong differ from his previous work in London?

In London, Paul Harris was involved in a general civil practice with no human rights work, whereas in Hong Kong, he was able to focus on human rights law due to the city's Bill of Rights and the many cases that arose from it.

What was the nature of the case that prevented Paul Harris from leaving Hong Kong immediately?

Paul Harris was involved in a significant ongoing personal injury case that he had to finish before he could leave Hong Kong.

What were the two main reasons the Hong Kong National Security Police considered Paul Harris's actions as seditious?

The two reasons were a statement in his book about people demonstrating against the Fugitive Offenders bill due to concerns about fair trials in China, and a tweet he posted stating that Hong Kong had become a police state, which they interpreted as stirring up hostility towards China.

How did Paul Harris feel about the situation in Hong Kong regarding the rule of law after his departure?

Paul Harris believes that while the rule of law is still present in non-political civil cases, it is under siege in areas related to political crimes and free speech, with the National Security Law being used to suppress normal debate and criticism.

What was the impact of foreign judges resigning from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal on the rule of law in Hong Kong?

The resignation of foreign judges, who were of high caliber and contributed positively to the rule of law, could potentially lead to a further deterioration of the legal system and move Hong Kong closer to a totalitarian state.

What is Paul Harris's view on the role of foreign judges in maintaining the rule of law in Hong Kong?

Paul Harris believes that foreign judges can make a positive contribution to the rule of law in Hong Kong and that their presence can assist local judges through their high standard of legal reasoning.

How does Paul Harris perceive the level of awareness and interest in Hong Kong issues within British politics?

He finds the level of awareness and interest in Hong Kong issues to be disappointingly low, with the Liberal Democrats showing more concern than other parties, but still not making it a high priority in British foreign policy.

What is Paul Harris's stance on the potential impact of foreign judges leaving the Hong Kong judiciary?

He believes that their departure would be a significant step towards a totalitarian state and would harm the legal system, emphasizing that once they leave, they are unlikely to return.