UK says raised Jimmy Lai security law case with China
The Hong Kong media magnate has been in jail since December 2020 and awaits a long-delayed trial on security law in September.
British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has revealed that he has raised the case of imprisoned Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai with senior politicians in China and Hong Kong as the United Kingdom continued to criticize Beijing’s crackdown on the freedoms in the former British colony.
Cleverly revealed in the foreword to the UK’s latest six-monthly update on the situation in Hong Kong (pdf) that he had raised Lai’s case with Chinese Vice President Han Zheng and at “the highest level with the Hong Kong authorities” earlier this month.
He accused the government of the area of ”deliberately targeting prominent pro-democracy figures, journalists and politicians in an attempt to silence and discredit them”, adding: “Detained British Jimmy Lai with double nationality is such a figure.”
Lai, the founder of the popular but now-closed Apple Daily, is the most prominent democracy campaigner on trial under the Beijing-mandated security law. He was first arrested in 2020 and was due to stand trial last December on charges of “conspiracy with foreign forces”.
The British report, which covers the six months to December 31, 2022, noted that in November, Hong Kong’s highest court ruled that British lawyer Timothy Owen could join Lai’s defense team.
Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee subsequently appealed to Beijing and Lai’s trial was adjourned pending the decision.
On Dec. 30, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) announced Beijing’s “first interpretation” of the security law, the report said.
This month, Hong Kong passed a law giving the president a veto over foreign lawyers involved in national security matters. Lai’s trial will begin in September.
“Actions by the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities continue to erode Hong Kong’s social, legal and judicial systems,” said Cleverly.
“Powers once vested in the judiciary have been devolved to the Chief Executive. Those charged with national security no longer have the right to challenge government decisions in court.”
The UK’s report also noted recent changes to local election rules, which reduced the number of directly elected seats,
The update drew an angry rebuke from the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Commissioner’s Office in Hong Kong.
In a statement, a spokesman for the commission accused the UK of “distorting and defaming” the Chinese government’s policy in Hong Kong, “willfully attacking” Hong Kong’s national security law and the territory’s electoral system, and of ” defaming” human rights and the human rights of Hong Kong. rule of law.
“The report from the UK side criticized China’s just actions to ensure national security, made irresponsible remarks under the law about the governance of the SAR government, and made irresponsible remarks about the due process of the SAR courts,” the statement said. statement, referring to Hong Kong. under the official title of Special Administrative Region. “It has been completely reduced to a tool for political action and has no credibility whatsoever!”
The British report also said that the use of sedition laws continued to increase in Hong Kong, with people being arrested or convicted, mostly for nonviolent freedom of expression.
Press freedom also came under increasing pressure, it added, with journalists being prosecuted and some held in pretrial detention ahead of trial.
“The UK believed that China was persistently in breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration throughout this period,” the report said.
The joint statementa treaty registered with the United Nations, signed by the two countries in 1984, set out the plan for Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule.
The commission’s spokesman noted that Hong Kong, which was returned to China in July 1997, is now governed by China’s constitution and its own mini-constitution known as the Basic Law.
“The British side has no sovereignty, administration or control over Hong Kong after the return. The British side has repeatedly talked about the “Sino-British Joint Declaration” and talked about the so-called “historical responsibility”. This is pure nonsense that distorts history and legal principles!” said the statement.