news

[Global Network Report] According to Hong Kong Orange News on August 16, the five judges of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of Final Appeal unanimously rejected the appeal of Jimmy Lai and seven others for knowingly participating in an illegal assembly on August 18, 2019, and upheld the original verdict. Liao Bojia, an overseas non-permanent judge who participated in the case, was recently criticized by Chris Patten, and the British Independent also criticized Liao Bojia for "hypocrisy". Liao Bojia issued a statement today (16th) through relevant groups to refute, saying that the duty of a judge is to try cases according to the law.

Liao Bojia's profile picture is from Hong Kong media

According to the report, Liao Bojia said that as a Hong Kong judge, he, like judges elsewhere, hears cases according to the law, although the rulings can send people to jail or keep them in jail.

The Hong Kong SAR government responded to the incident earlier, strongly condemning Patten's malicious slander of the Court of Final Appeal's judgment and his wanton personal attacks on Liao Bojia. A spokesman for the SAR government said that Patten's smearing remarks clearly disregarded the detailed legal analysis and factual background of the case in the 76-page judgment of the Court of Final Appeal, and were purely aimed at exerting political pressure on the judges of the Court of Final Appeal who strictly conduct independent trials in accordance with the law, attempting to influence the judicial system of the Hong Kong SAR, which is a despicable political operation.

Orange News reported that the Hong Kong judiciary also stated that judges of all levels, including non-permanent judges from overseas, have a constitutional duty to strictly perform judicial duties in accordance with the judicial oath, that is, to judge cases impartially and independently based on the law and evidence. The judiciary said that when judges handle cases that have attracted public and even international attention, they must demonstrate a high degree of professionalism and faithfully cite relevant laws to make judgments based on the evidence before them. Anyone or the media can, of course, criticize the court or judge's decision or reasoning if they have sufficient reasons. However, criticism or personal attacks based purely on one's own political stance or dislike of the decision without asking about the reasoning of the decision can only be regarded as a political statement or expression of stance, and there is no other meaning.