The Government today strongly condemned and vehemently opposed Chris Patten's malicious slandering of the Court of Final Appeal's (CFA) judgment in an unauthorised assembly case involving Lai Chee-ying and others, and for exerting political pressure on judges.

The Government pointed out that Mr Patten's slandering remarks were made in blatant disregard of the detailed legal analysis by the CFA in its 76-page judgment and the factual background of the relevant case.

It noted that such remarks were made for the sole purpose of exerting political pressure on the CFA's judges who adjudicated the case independently in strict accordance with the law, in an attempt to influence the judicial system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and were nothing but a despicable political manoeuvre.

Mr Patten's criticisms against Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, an overseas Non-Permanent Judge (NPJ) involved in the adjudication of the appeal, were completely groundless and unjustified personal attacks aiming to smear and slander the NPJ's reputation, which fully exposed Mr Patten's malicious attempt to undermine the system of NPJ.

As a matter of fact, all the judges of the case have made very detailed legal analysis and explanations on the rulings in their judgments, such as providing authoritative expositions and modifications to the legal concept of “operational proportionality”, placing it in the well-established framework for constitutional challenges in this jurisdiction, as well as explaining clearly why, from the jurisprudential point of view, the two UK case authorities should not be followed by Hong Kong courts.

Lord Neuberger not only delivered a separate judgment which clearly explained his reasons for agreeing with the joint judgment delivered by Justice Cheung, CFA Chief Justice, and Justice Ribeiro, CFA Permanent Judge, but also presented his observations on Ziegler, Abortion Services and in other UK case authorities.

The NPJ observed that while the differences in the constitutional framework in Hong Kong and the UK do require a different approach if the court concludes that the restriction is not proportionate, they do not mandate a different approach when it comes to considering whether a restriction on the freedom of assembly is proportionate. The relevant legal perspectives bear great significance to the development of the constitutional jurisprudence in the Hong Kong SAR.

The Government highlighted that Hong Kong is a society underpinned by the robust rule of law, where citizens enjoy the freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to express his or her views on court decisions within the boundaries permitted by the law, but no one can abusively criticise or slander judges, or make baseless allegations purely out of political motives.

It added that Mr Patten deliberately ignored the judgment delivered by Lord Neuberger and maliciously accused the judge of not properly explaining the reasons for his judgment, and such an act was totally unfounded and outrageous.