HK Bar Association rides a steep political swell
(2 Nov) Philip Dykes: We are not anti-government. This is to defend human rights and the rule of law as well as the Basic Law
The Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement will soon stretch into its sixth month. … "Everyone's attention is no longer restricted to the Extradition Law Amendment Bill. After all, this Bill is unlikely to affect you directly. However, there are some more pressing issues of public concern that have surfaced in this movement," said Philip Dykes, Chairman of Hong Kong Bar Association. …
“As the proverb says, the Extradition Law Amendment Bill is the last straw that broke the camel’s back. This is a result of the culmination of public discontent with the Hong Kong government over the years.
“Regrettably, the government failed to engage early in dialogue with the protesters. Neither did they commit to address their concerns to re-open the political pathways to achieve universal suffrage. If the government had talked to the protesters early and address their requests for an independent investigation into police conduct, this could have been settled long ago.” Dykes stated plainly: “the deteriorating situation is due to non-action of the government.”
The public regard Dykes and the Bar Association under his leadership as more forthcoming and outspoken with a strong stance when dealing with the government. He and many legal professionals have always stressed that lawyers deal with the laws and not politics. Nevertheless, Dykes admits although many issues are legal issues, they at the same time carry political connotations. In the midst of recent grave political conflicts, it is inevitable that the Bar Association will be drawn into the storm regardless of its efforts to distance law from politics. …
Is the Bar Association silent on protester violence?
Dykes disagreed that the Bar Association is silent on protester violence. In an earlier internal letter to Bar Association members, he presented a list of condemnation statements issued in the last few months on: the 12th June conflicts at Admiralty; the destruction inside Legislation Council building on 1st July; attempts at end of August to paralyse the airport and public transport services such as the MTR; and a member of the public abusing a Senior Public Prosecutor in court in September. Only that the police’s disproportionate use of force towards peaceful protesters and the media was also criticised in many of these statements to urge the HK government to break its silence and engage in dialogue with the protesters. The statements also highlighted that in addition to law compliance, the rule of law is more about an accountable government whose power can be checked by an independent judiciary. …
Dykes disagreed with Edwin Choy, Vice Chairman of the Bar Association, that the Association was not strong enough in condemning protester violence. “If you repeat weekly: ‘we condemn violence’, ‘we condemn violence’, you sound like a dysfunctional tape recorder.” …
Dykes: Police abuse of power does greater harm to the rule of law than unlawful assemblies
Dykes stressed that regardless of whom the Bar Association condemns, be it the government, police or the protesters, there is only one objective – that is to defend the rule of law. The rule of law is undermined not by what the government has claimed. A few hundred protesters coming out to set fire to and destroy properties would not, as it claims, destabilise the rule of law.
“You may say the protesters have ‘breached’ the law. The ‘rule of law’ is that when the protesters are arrested and taken to court, they have legal representation and a fair trial. If convicted, they will be sentenced as appropriate.”
Dykes pointed out that upholding the rule of law does not stop at demanding the public to obey the law. “Upholding the rule of law requires a government willing to take accountability and respect citizen rights.”
“Compared to citizens partaking in an unlawful assembly, what causes greater potential damage to the rule of law is the abuse of power by the police without them being held accountable.”
In Dykes’ view, legal professionals expecting a higher standard on the government and the police force does not amount to a double standard. This is certainly not anti-government. This is but to safeguard the Basic Law and human rights.
“The Bar Association has a responsibility to defend the rule of law, Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Basic Law. When we see anyone infringing the Basic Law and the human rights law, we will speak out,” said Dykes.
“If we do not speak out, the government will only be more heavy-handed next time. This is our responsibility. This is not anti-government but to uphold the Basic Law and citizens’ rights and freedom under the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
“The Basic Law is not there to make the work of the government easy. It is there for the Hong Kong people.”
Dykes has faith in judicial gatekeeping amidst repeated questions on police’s abuse of power. …
The credibility of the police has been tarnished in recent social unrests. Government executives seem unable and have no intention to keep police power at bay. As more and more cases are being brought to court, the public switch their focus from the police onto the judiciary, bringing out another question: Can we trust the courts being able to effectively monitor the police?
In many recent cases involving protesters, the Attorney General concealed the identity of witness police officers in the charge sheets on the ground to protect them. The courts are also requested to issue orders to keep police officers’ identity anonymous and to issue gag orders. The Hong Kong Police Force has gone as far as to apply to court for injunctions to prohibit disclosure of personal data of police officers and their families. Injunctions to bar public access to information on electoral registers, inter alias, have been granted. All these indicate that public concerns are not ungrounded.
Dykes would not comment further on the above cases as they are now in the hands of the court. He agreed that it is unusual for the Attorney General to conceal police officers’ identities in charge sheets. He also understands why the public have such concerns. Yet, he deems that on the whole, the public can still trust the legal system. …
Dykes anticipated greater pressures on the courts from both sides as more controversial protest cases are being trialed, and verdicts and sentences passed. As for legal professionals, their utmost duty is undoubtedly to safeguard the independence of the judiciary.
“I believe many have the same view as mine. We are facing an immense crisis. Many systems that we once perceived as credible under the Basic Law can now become very vulnerable, such as freedom of speech and freedom of movement. My top concern is always ‘the jewel in the crown’, which is our judicial system.” …
Dykes is still of the view that the root cause for the paralysis in governing lies in politics. Political problems must be resolved by political means.
Source: Stand News, 2 November 2019