Judge Robert French has stepped down from his role on Hong Kong’s highest court, the Court of Final Appeal, marking a significant change in the jurisdiction’s judiciary. Appointed in 2017, Judge French is a former Chief Justice of Australia’s High Court. His resignation comes as international concern continues to grow over the effects of the national security law enacted by Beijing in 2020.
Judge French’s departure marks a significant addition to the expanding list of overseas jurists who have recently resigned from the Hong Kong judiciary. The national security law criminalizes any act that it categorizes as secession, subversion, or terrorism. It’s fueled thousands of arrests and fears over the rule of law in the once-stable former British colony. Since its introduction, the number of overseas judges on the Court of Final Appeal has declined sharply from a peak of 15 to just five.
Declining Overseas Jurist Presence
This mass exodus of international judges began soon after the imposition of the national security law. Consequently, six out of eighteen foreign judges have resigned before serving out their terms, while four others decided not to seek renewal of their appointments. Judge French’s resignation effective immediately was initially scheduled to last until May 2026. Yet, he ultimately chose to end his term early under these dire circumstances.
The judiciary asserts that Judge French’s resignation will have no impact on the administration of the courts. That was before the entire climate of the judiciary radically shifted.
“I reject the proposition that [overseas judges] are somehow complicit,” – Judge Robert French
His comments reflect a growing concern among jurists about their roles in a legal system increasingly perceived as compromised.
Judicial Landscape Under Pressure
First, the Hong Kong government maintains that the national security law is essential for establishing order. This move is in response to the protests that exploded across the country in 2019. To most of the legal community, its implementation represents a serious, if not existential threat to judicial independence.
Judge French’s comments give the impression that his position, as well as those of other judges abroad, had turned into “arguably cosmetic.” This atmosphere is an allusion to the waning power that nonlocal magistrates maintain over the courts in Hong Kong’s outline. Even more high-profile advocates, including British judge Jonathan Sumption, have made quite similar arguments. They express concern that the veneer of Hong Kong’s rule of law is “deeply eroded.”
The departure of Judge French adds to the growing list of prominent legal experts who have distanced themselves from Hong Kong’s judicial system. This disturbing trend affects not only the safety of specific appointments. It further reflects growing momentum across the city for a paradigm-breaking approach to administering justice.
Future Implications for Hong Kong’s Judiciary
With Judge French’s exit, the once energetic majority of overseas judges further erodes. As the crisis continues to unfold, these are critical questions to ask regarding the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong. Will it continue to protect the rule of law as political pressure mounts?
The Court of Final Appeal is operating today with dramatically reduced numbers of overseas judges. This drastic decision leaves us with very grave doubts about the racial and gender diversity and neutrality of its decisions in such a key judiciary hub. The changing landscape may raise new complications for would-be judges of appointment. It further muddies the waters of those who are calling for an independent judiciary in Hong Kong.
Leave a Reply