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.

Outlines

00:00

🏢 Introduction to Dy Street Chambers and Paul Harris's Background

This paragraph introduces the setting of Dy Street Chambers, a renowned human rights law practice in Britain, and mentions key figures such as the defense team for Jimy Li and the potential future Prime Minister, K Stama. The main focus, however, is on Paul Harris, former chair of the Hong Kong Bar Council, who had to flee under duress due to accusations of sedition by the Hong Kong National Security Police. The speaker plans to interview Harris about his departure from Hong Kong in March 2022 following a tip-off about his impending arrest.

05:02

📚 Paul Harris's Departure from Hong Kong and His Initial Involvement

Paul Harris discusses the circumstances that led to his departure from Hong Kong in 2022, including the secret tip that prompted his exit. He details the abrupt end to his legal work, including high-profile cases, and the precautions he took to ensure his son's future education. Harris also recounts his experience of being called in for a formal interview by the security police, where he was considered for charges of sedition due to statements made in his book and a tweet about Hong Kong becoming a police state. Despite expecting detention, he was released after two hours, prompting an immediate departure from Hong Kong.

10:07

🌏 Paul Harris's Journey to Hong Kong and Early Years

The narrative shifts to Harris's initial move to Hong Kong in 1994, motivated by his role as the first chairman of the English Bar's Human Rights Committee. He was invited to Hong Kong to establish an independent watchdog to ensure the preservation of the rule of law post the 1997 Handover. Harris transitioned from a general civil practice in London to focusing on human rights in Hong Kong, setting up the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor and engaging in a broader legal practice due to the less specialized legal field in Hong Kong.

15:08

🏛️ The Erosion of Rule of Law in Hong Kong

Harris reflects on his early optimism about the rule of law in Hong Kong post-Handover and acknowledges the significant changes and challenges that have arisen since, particularly after 2014. He differentiates between non-political cases, where the rule of law still appears to function independently, and political cases, which have seen a marked deterioration in judicial independence. Harris cites examples of the suppression of free speech and criticism through the use of sedition charges, highlighting the case of speech therapists prosecuted for a children's book perceived as satirical.

20:10

🗳️ Political Aspirations and the Role of Foreign Judges

Harris shares his views on the resignation of foreign judges from Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal and expresses his belief that their presence is beneficial to the local judiciary. He discusses the international tensions resulting from these resignations and the impact on the rule of law. Harris also touches on his own political aspirations as a Liberal Democrat candidate, the party's stance on Hong Kong, and the broader British political landscape's lack of focus on Hong Kong issues, expressing disappointment in the major parties' approach to China and Hong Kong policy.

Keywords

💡Green Beans Media

Green Beans Media is likely the name of the media organization or show that produced the video. It is a key term as it identifies the source of the content, providing context for the viewer about the production behind the video. In the script, it is mentioned at the beginning as the host introduces the setting and purpose of the video.

💡Dy Street Chambers

Dy Street Chambers is referred to as a well-known institution and the location where the video is being filmed. It is significant as it is the workplace of notable figures in the video's narrative, such as Paul Harris and K Stama, indicating its importance in the legal field, particularly in human rights law.

💡Human Rights Law

Human Rights Law is a legal discipline that focuses on the protection of individuals' rights and freedoms. In the video, Dy Street Chambers is described as Britain's most famous human rights law practice, highlighting its role in advocating for justice and the rights of individuals, such as Jimy Li.

💡Jimy Li

Jimy Li is mentioned as a person who is being defended by the team at Dy Street Chambers in an international court trial. His case is a central part of the video's narrative, illustrating the Chambers' involvement in high-profile human rights cases.

💡K Stama

K Stama is portrayed as a likely future Prime Minister of Britain and a member of Dy Street Chambers. His mention in the script indicates the prominence of the Chambers and its members in both legal and political spheres.

💡Paul Harris

Paul Harris is a central figure in the video, introduced as a prominent lawyer who had to leave Hong Kong under duress. His interview provides insight into the political and legal challenges faced by lawyers in Hong Kong, making him a key character in the video's exploration of human rights and legal issues.

💡Sedition

Sedition is a legal term referring to actions or words that incite people to rebel against the authority of a state. In the script, Paul Harris was accused of sedition by the Hong Kong National Security Police, which led to his departure from Hong Kong and serves as a focal point in discussing the erosion of free speech and legal rights.

💡Hong Kong Bar Council

The Hong Kong Bar Council is mentioned as the organization where Paul Harris served as chair. It represents the legal profession in Hong Kong and is relevant to the video's theme as it underscores the challenges faced by legal professionals in maintaining the rule of law amidst political pressures.

💡Rule of Law

The rule of law is a fundamental principle whereby a country operates according to a set of established laws that are applied equally to all. In the video, the concept is discussed in the context of Hong Kong's legal system, with Paul Harris expressing concerns about its erosion due to political interference.

💡National Security Law

The National Security Law is a legislation imposed in Hong Kong that has significant implications for civil liberties and legal practices. In the script, it is mentioned in relation to Paul Harris's tweet and the broader discussion on how such laws can be used to suppress free speech and stifle legal challenges.

💡Democratic 47 Case

The Democratic 47 Case refers to a significant legal case in Hong Kong involving multiple defendants. Paul Harris had to abandon his role as a barrister in this case due to his hasty departure from Hong Kong, illustrating the personal and professional impact of the political situation on legal professionals.

Highlights

Introduction to Green Beans Media and Dy Street Chambers, a renowned human rights law practice in Britain.

Paul Harris, former chair of the Hong Kong Bar Council, discusses his departure from Hong Kong due to accusations of sedition.

Harris received a tip-off that Beijing had ordered his arrest, prompting his departure.

Harris had to give up representing clients, including in the Democratic 47 case, before leaving Hong Kong.

He was summoned by the security police for an interview about potential sedition charges.

Harris believed his statements about Hong Kong's inability to have fair trials and his tweet about Hong Kong becoming a police state were considered seditious.

Despite expecting to be detained indefinitely, Harris was released after a two-hour interview without charges.

Harris' immediate departure from Hong Kong after his release, including the last-minute flight to Istanbul.

Harris' initial move to Hong Kong in 1994 to establish an independent watchdog for human rights.

His general civil practice in London before focusing on human rights in Hong Kong.

Harris' optimism about the rule of law in Hong Kong post-Handover and its subsequent deterioration.

Harris' view on the current state of the rule of law in Hong Kong, distinguishing between non-political and political cases.

The impact of foreign judges on the Hong Kong judiciary and the controversy surrounding their resignation.

Harris' perspective on the importance of foreign judges in maintaining the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The lack of awareness and interest in Hong Kong's situation within the UK and the role of political parties.

Harris' political aspirations as a Liberal Democrat candidate and the party's stance on Hong Kong.

The need for a more integrated approach to foreign policy, linking Hong Kong's situation with broader China-UK relations.

Transcripts

hello and welcome to green beans media

we're here standing outside the office

of the Dy Street Chambers this is a very

well-known institution it's probably

Britain's most famous human rights law

practice among its members are the main

part of the team who are defending jimy

Li in his international team in the

current court trial and perhaps more

famously it's the the home of uh K stama

who is more than likely to become

Britain's prime minister he works in

these Chambers but we're not coming here

to see K starma we are in fact here to

see Paul Harris who was chair of the

Hong Kong Bar Council very prominent

lawyer in Hong Kong who had to leave

under great duress after being accused

of sedition by the Hong Kong National

Security Police so I'm going to go

inside and we'll have a few interesting

words with

him hello Steve hi Paul nice to see you

very good to see you

too h

l following you behind

[Music]

carefully here we are

[Music]

Paul Harris you you you left uh Hong

Kong about what two and a half three

years ago what were the circumstances in

which you felt obliged to leave I left

in March

2022 I finished my term as chair of the

Hong Kong bar in January

2022 and I received um

information uh via a secret Channel a

tip off that I had to leave because

Beijing had ordered my

arrest and when I got that information I

knew I had to go and I sold my car I

gave up the lease on my flat and I had

to return uh my briefs including

representing Helena Wong and lamu Ting

in the Democratic 47 case so they were

deprived of their Barrister and I got

ready to go I couldn't go at once

because I had a big ongoing case a

personal injury case and I planned to

leave around the 6th of March on the

28th of February the security police

rang me and said we want to interview

you please come to the security police

headquarters tomorrow morning I thought

at that point that I was going to be

detained

indefinitely I moved money around to

make sure my son's school fees could be

paid even if I was in prison and I told

a few people who needed to know what I

thought was going to happen to me and I

arranged for two lawyers to come with me

not because I didn't know the law but

because I wanted people to know I'd gone

in if I didn't come

out we went along to Wai to the police

headquarters and I was told told this is

a formal interview under caution we are

considering charging you with

sedition and it was a video recorded

interview under caution and there seemed

to be two things that they considered

were

seditious one was that in my book my

worldwide history of Street

demonstrations uh which finishes with a

chapter about Hong Kong I had said that

people demonstrated Against The Fugitive

offenders bill because they didn't want

to be extradited to China because they

couldn't get a fair trial there and that

statement they considered to be

seditious in the sense of stirring up

hostility to China to want to overthrow

the regime that's what sedition

means and the other one was that I when

the national

security law was

imposed I before that I used to tweet on

Twitter and I sent a tweet saying I'm

not tweeting anymore because Hong Kong's

become a police state and saying that

was also going to be sedition and I

definitely did say those things and I

make no apology for saying them uh they

are not sedition in any civilized

country um I was not expecting to be let

out I had a prison pack I had a

toothbrush and change of clothes and so

on but after about 2 hours uh the

officer said uh well those are all my

questions you're free to go so you so

you weren't actually charged at that

point I wasn't charged no and I said

well I'm planning to travel in the next

few days am I free to leave Hong Kong

the officer said at this moment you

are and I came out I looked at my two

friends they said you've got to go this

minute I went and saw my junior in my

personal injury case which still had one

day of hearing but video hearing and she

said you've got to go this is more

important than your duty to the court I

went home I packed two suitcases went to

the

airport um my ex-wife and my son came to

see me off at the airport and I got the

last seat on a flight to

Istanbul and I didn't know whether I'd

be able to leave until the plane took

off

[Music]

do you want to be back to

home

or uh

[Music]

Hong

um

or uh so

[Music]

or uh

[Music]

[Music]

and let me just roll back quite a bit

because you came to Hong Kong I think it

is in

1994 what made you do that

I was the first chairman of the English

bars human rights committee it's a

long-established institution with its

own budget its semi-autonomous from the

bar and we decided to just concentrate

on helping judges and lawyers who were

being persecuted for doing an honest job

or who might be persecuted for doing an

honest job and one thing was Hong Kong

1997 can we do anything to make the rule

of law survive and while I was chairman

of the bar human rights committee Martin

Lee and sitto came to see me in London

and uh said expressed their concern so I

did a a mission to Hong Kong in

1993 and a lot of people said we need

this independent Watchdog to make sure

the promises in the joint declaration

are kept and then someone said why don't

you come here and set it up you set up

that Committee in London you you've got

form you know for setting up this kind

of thing

and I didn't immediately say yes but I

thought about it and eventually that's

what I did and that was how I came to

Hong Kong so when you came to Hong Kong

you

were just doing human rights type of law

or or general practice not at all in

London I was doing a general civil

practice with no human rights work my

work on the bar human rights committee

was like a second unpaid job um

and I realized if I went to Hong Kong I

could do human rights work because Hong

Kong had a Bill of Rights which was new

then and people were working out what it

meant and there were a lot of cases and

so when I came to Hong Kong I did a lot

of that but I did a lot of other things

too because Hong Kong's not so

specialized and I did set up the

independent Watchdog which was Hong Kong

human rights monitor Hong yankun gamat

[Music]

[Music]

uh

[Music]

[Music]

so you you've been in Hong Kong you were

there just before the Handover you were

there

in the early years of um the resumption

of

sovereignty did you that time think that

the rule of law could be maintained yes

I did there was uh quite a lot of

optimism in the first years after the

Handover because before the Handover

there were a lot of pessimists and a lot

of frightened people people saying you

know you you're going to prison as soon

as the Handover happens and uh you know

or you'll be chucked out and uh this

joint declaration it won't last 6 months

it's just a fig Leaf to allow Britain to

get out I didn't think

so

and for really up

until at least

2014 there was a feeling Hong Kong's got

its own system the system is stable it

does have the rule of law it doesn't

have full democracy but it does have

free speech

and there was a feeling that could

continue

indefinitely and now here we are um you

you left is there such a thing as rule

of law in Hong Kong in your

opinion in some areas I think if you

have a non-political type of case

particularly a civil case there Pro

there is rule of law that I think is

still there so your view of the current

situation is that if you separate the

law into two sections the Civil bit

still seems to be functioning as a as an

independent Judicial System the rest of

it isn't is that what you're saying um

again nonpolitical

crime you know if you are a if you're a

thief or um you um you punch someone or

you murder someone you know I think

there will not be a great difference in

the way the trial is done from the way

it would have been done over the years

up till now but I think what has

happened is there's been a massive focus

on uh so secession subversion sedition

uh collusion with foreign forces um and

this has really been used to suppress

normal debate and free speech and any

sort of criticism on whatever level of

the Communist Party Line I think

particularly bad case was the case of

the speech therapists the um the five

speech therapists who published this

children's book which was we we'd

probably call it a satire or a cartoon

it had the Hong Kong people as sheep and

um the Chinese Communist party as wolves

and it had cartoon type illustrations

and they were they were prosecuted for

sedition and and given quite long prison

sentences to me that is not the rule of

law I the reason I'm pressing you on

this is I I always thought that there

was an argument to be made that if the

well is poisoned if the well of the rule

of law is poisoned there won't really

ultimately be any bar barriers to how

far that that poison can spread I think

I agree with that and that's another way

of saying what I just said about things

are continuously deteriorating

judges who are trying to do justice are

in a very hard position at the moment

there are plenty still left trying to do

that um but if they decide something

that Beijing doesn't like Beijing

reinterprets we saw that with choice of

council for Jimmy lie um he chose Tim

Owen from London uh very appropriate and

suitable uh King's

Council and uh it went up to the highest

court and they said um Mr O he's

entitled to choose Mr Owen there's no

rule that because Mr Owen's not Chinese

he can't represent him and it was just

overturned in fact that's a part of the

basic law that the defendant is entitled

to the Council of their own choice not

AB

yes but the um situation

now has come much more into

International tension because of the

resignation of some of these foreign

judges who sat on the court of final

appeal court of appeal rather I I'm just

wondering first of all do you think they

should have resigned earlier no I don't

when I was chairman of the bar I

strongly opposed their resignation at

that time Lisa nandy uh the labor

politician was pushing hard for them to

resign and it looked as if they might be

forced to and I spoke to the English Bar

Council by video and said no this is

totally harmful this will just make the

system collapse quicker and uh that

carried the day at that point and the

way I look at it preventing harm is a

form of doing good and simply by being

there and giving honest judgments they

were preventing harm someone put it to

me rather well when I discussed this

issue they said to me your former

clients who are in jail awaiting trial

in the Democratic 47 case you can be

certain they all want the foreign judges

to stay but what evidence is there that

the presence of the foreign judges made

any difference well you'd have to weigh

all you'd have to look at all the cases

it works on two levels it's not

necessarily just the um the verdict the

decision it's

also the effect on

standards these foreign judges are the

very top of the tree when it comes to

judges they're former presidents of the

UK Supreme Court the Canadian Supreme

Court and so on and their caliber of

legal reasoning is very high

and this is a good it it assists the

local judges so I was very sorry to see

them go I fully understand that there

comes a point at which you cannot stay

without becoming complicit in things

that you shouldn't um I am not and I

fear we will reach that point but I

don't actually think we've reached it

quite yet we have one of them this

Canadian judge who who has in fact

resigned um who has issued this rather

interesting statement about how the rule

of law is flourishing in Hong Kong and

is impeccable and all the rest of it

well I haven't seen Beverly mclin's

statement I I think she's the person

you're talking about

um and they are all different and I

would not go so far as to say it is

flourishing I would say it is under

siege but I wouldn't go so far as Lord

suion went recently and said that it was

becoming totalitarian and he therefore

he couldn't

stay um Lord suion swung around very

fast because just a couple of years ago

he was saying he saw nothing wrong at

all and he was

continuing and I think the position is

really in between his two positions

things have been

deteriorating but

um I believe those foreign judges can

and sometimes do make a positive

contribution to the rule of law and I

think it's good if they stay once

they've gone they'll never come back uh

and once they've gone that'll be a big

step towards a totalitarian state

m

[Music]

[Laughter]

[Music]

do you in the course of your if you like

your British um political life do you

sense there's much interest in Hong Kong

much awareness well far much less than I

would like of course there are lots of

Hong Kong people here now and no one

knows exactly but somewhere between 160

and 200,000 and there are some towns

where there are quite a lot of Hong Kong

people and Hong Kong is an issue but on

the whole it isn't and people know very

little about it and this is rather

depressing but they never did know much

about it some people do know but it's

not as widely known as it should be I

mean you're running for office at the

moment as a a liberal Democrat candidate

I think it's fair to say the liberal

Democrats have more about Hong Kong in

their Manifesto than any of the other

parties

but do you think Hong Kong will ever

become a high priority issue in British

foreign policy I'd like that's exactly

what I'd like to see happen but uh it

will be a fight uh liberal Democrats

have very long record Patty ashtown you

probably know when the Bing Massacre

happened in 1989 he went to Hong Kong

and he joined the demonstrators in the

street and he felt very strongly about

this he was a Chinese speaker and he

made it high priority for him I I worked

with him a bit in the last year of his

life about Hong Kong in

2018 um the lib Dems won't change about

Hong Kong they do care about it and that

will continue um but there won't be the

government to be bled well unless there

is some fluke of the electoral system um

that but the two major

parties um there are individuals in the

conservative party who speak out about

Hong Kong the the government publishes

its little six-monthly report detailing

anything that's going wrong but what

they don't appear to do is to link Hong

Kong and the joint declaration to other

issues involving

China what I think might achieve more is

a linkage across policy if China wants a

joint investment project or want some uh

favor from Britain in another area the

British government should would say well

we're willing to do that but you must

observe the joint declaration in Hong

Kong and specifically you must not

charge people with offenses because they

support democracy but it hasn't happened

with the conservatives and on the labor

side I detect no interest at all in Hong

Kong and labor party is more than likely

to become the next government so that's

right I find this very disappointing uh

um

they're not they don't seem all that

interested in foreign policy apart from

one or two hot button

issues

um I'd like to try and do something to

change that but uh you know there are

limits to what one person can do well

Paul Harris thank you very much indeed

there's limits to what we could all do I

think thank you Steve

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

this is perfect right great the last one

felt better yeah last one is yeah