The same principles of law apply in national security cases as in others and the Judiciary is firmly committed to upholding basic rights while safeguarding national security, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung said today.

Speaking at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2025, Mr Cheung noted that the introduction of the Hong Kong National Security Law, complemented by local legislation enacted pursuant to Article 23 of the Basic Law, has brought with it cases that attract heightened attention due to their political sensitivity.

“The presumption of innocence, the requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the right to a fair trial are all essential safeguards that remain firmly in place. Indeed, they are specifically affirmed under Article 5 of the National Security Law as well as section 2 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.”

Noting that tension often exists between protecting basic rights and safeguarding national security, the Chief Justice said the Judiciary is firmly committed to upholding both.

He outlined that the protection of basic rights involves a delicate balancing act between individual freedoms and collective security as well as between the rights of the person and the responsibilities of the state, adding that striking the right balance can be challenging and the outcomes in individual cases may be contentious at times.

“Nor is the interpretation or application of newly enacted statutory provisions always straightforward. However, it is one thing to disagree with a legal provision or a court decision in applying it, but entirely another to suggest that the justice system has been undermined by political expectations or societal atmosphere.”

Pointing out that national security cases only form a small fraction of the courts' work, Mr Cheung acknowledged concerns about the recent departures of some overseas non-permanent judges from the Court of Final Appeal (CFA).

“The orchestrated harassment and pressures to which some of our overseas judges have recently been subjected are as deplorable as they are indicative of how politicised the office of an overseas non-permanent judge on the Court has now become.

“And it is this broader context, reflective of the underlying geopolitical tensions, that must inform an impartial observer's understanding of the current situation.”

Stating that it was unfortunate some of the judges felt unable to continue their service, Mr Cheung said their decisions ought be respected and that the CFA continues to include highly esteemed overseas and local non-permanent judges, and their continued participation alongside their full-time colleagues speaks to the enduring strength and resilience of the Court.

“Far more important than all of this, the Judiciary is broader than any individuals.

“Judges come and go. But our system is built on legal principles, judicial precedents, and a robust structure that will continue to function.”

Also speaking at the event, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam noted that the participation of eminent foreign judges in the work of the CFA not only benefits Hong Kong but also the common law world.

He said it was most regrettable that there were attempts from overseas to exert improper pressures on foreign judges to dissociate themselves from the Hong Kong court.

“These attempts pose a threat to not only the rule of law in Hong Kong but also the development of common law in general. The Government is in full support of the Judiciary in its continuous efforts to appoint and retain foreign Non-Permanent Judges in future.”