The Hong Kong Bar Association (HKBA), with its approximately 1,700 members, has a long and distinguished pedigree. It was founded in 1949 and set itself clear objectives.
It was established “to consider all matters affecting the profession and the administration of justice, and to take such action thereon as it deems proper”.
The HKBA’s specific objectives, which are overseen by its governing council, include such things as maintaining the honor and independence of the bar and defending it in its relations with the Judiciary and the executive; upholding the independence of the Judiciary, the rule of law, the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and the administration of justice; the promotion of law reform; the prescribing of rules of professional conduct, discipline and etiquette; and the furtherance of good relations and understanding between the bar and the Judiciary, the Department of Justice, and the public.
After 1997, the HKBA also played an important role in supporting the “one country, two systems” policy. In addition to promoting it globally, it also developed constructive relations with legal entities on the Chinese mainland.
Some of the HKBA’s council chairmen subsequently enjoyed successful judicial careers, including Henry Litton (1971), Charles Arthur Ching (1975) and Robert Tang Ching (1988). Others, like Sir Oswald Victor Cheung (1966), Ronny Tong Ka-wah (1999), and Paul Lam Ting-kwok (2017), distinguished themselves in public service.
They all shared a determination to remain focused on the association’s primary objectives and avoid distractions. However, there have been occasions, fortunately rare, when the HKBA’s leadership has lost its way, leading to a loss of credibility and influence.
During the social disorder of 2019-20, the HKBA became politicized and was seen as an extension of the antiChina Civic Party (dominated by barristers). This had unfortunate consequences, locally and nationally.
During the chairmanship of Philip Dykes (2018-2021), the HKBA was kept at arm’s length by the Hong Kong authorities and shunned by legal personnel in the Chinese mainland, which was unsurprising.
In 2019, the HKBA made common cause with political malcontents (and, by extension, their Western backers) in various areas. For example, they opposed the government’s fugitive surrender proposals, denounced the Hong Kong Police Force when it combated the street violence, and antagonized the central authorities (notwithstanding their great restraint throughout the insurrection).
Although it was canny enough to go through the motions by condemning the depredations of the mobs, its pronouncements were seen as hollow. On Oct 12, 2019, things came to a head when the HKBA council’s deputy chairman, Edwin Choy Wai-bond, resigned in despair.
He deplored its failure, under Dykes’ leadership, to convincingly denounce the protesters’ violence, which few could deny. Given that there had been destruction “far beyond the boundaries set by the law”, the mealy-mouthed responses of the HKBA were unacceptable.
He revealed, moreover, that most council members were “reticent to state, with unequivocal clarity, that both the rioters and those who proffer excuses on their behalf should be condemned”.
Choy also regretted the damage caused to the HKBA’s relations with legal bodies on the Chinese mainland. Moreover, while contacts with the rest of China ceased under Dykes, he developed legal links elsewhere.
He even contacted the American Bar Association over the national security legislation that was being formulated in 2020. When Dykes departed in 2021, he denounced the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), and things then went from bad to worse.
Instead of stepping back from the precipice, the HKBA chose as Dykes’ successor a British lawyer-politician, Paul Harris, who was sponsored by Martin Lee Chu-ming (founding chairman of the Democratic Party).
Harris had earlier founded Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, an activist group largely funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (funded through the US Department of State).
He was also a Liberal Democrat Party councilor in the United Kingdom (a party that opposed the NSL and sought sanctions against Hong Kong officials).
With this political baggage, it beggared belief that the HKBA thought Harris was in any position to restore its standing after the Dykes years. Indeed, at his first media briefing, he announced that he wanted to have the NSL “modified” by Beijing.
He was “particularly concerned” over some of its provisions, including those that confer exemptions on staff of the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, allow criminal suspects, in exceptional circumstances, to be tried elsewhere, and enable three judges to try a national security case in lieu of a jury in some situations, such as where jurors face danger.
As if this was not bad enough, Harris condemned the arrests of 53 national security suspects on Jan 6, 2021, accusing the police of abusing the law and deliberately intimidating “the democratic movement” (43 of those arrested were subsequently convicted of plotting to subvert State power, 31 after pleading guilty).
When this triggered a backlash, the HKBA was forced to explain that Harris had spoken in his “personal capacity” and that it was “not a political organization”, although the damage had been done. Although it is not uncommon for HKBA council chairmen to seek a second term, Harris stood down after only a year.
Shortly after his term ended, he was invited to assist the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police Force with its inquiries. Only hours after being interviewed, he hastily packed his bags and decamped for the United Kingdom, telling Reuters he was on his “way to see my mother in England”.
Be that as it may, he then joined Doughty Street Chambers in London, a hotbed of China-hostile activity. It is, for example, home to national security suspect Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s “international legal team” headed by Caoilfhionn Gallagher, and also to Baroness Helena Kennedy, a Hong Kong Watch patron (and previously “external adviser” to the infamous “Uyghur Tribunal”).
Standing as a Liberal Democrat, Harris sought a seat in Parliament in the UK’s 2024 general election (he was roundly defeated in the Aldershot constituency).
After the catastrophic Dykes-Harris era, the HKBA realized it could be finished if things did not change. Therefore, on Jan 20, 2022, it elected its new chairman, Victor Dawes, a commercial lawyer, who immediately signaled a change of direction.
He said the rule of law was “not a political concept” and made clear that political issues were not something the HKBA “should handle or discuss”. This was music to the ears of everybody who valued its role at the heart of the legal system, and Dawes spent the next three years restoring its credibility and increasing its influence.
He finished his third term on Jan 23, 2025, when a new chairman was elected, and the HKBA is back in business. It has resumed its historic responsibilities; for example, making positive contributions to the Article 23 legislation (national security laws) consultation exercise in 2024.
Its voice is now again heard respectfully on legal issues, positively influencing the development of the “one country, two systems” policy. It is also having an impact nationally.
Although, after 1997, the HKBA made annual visits to Beijing to exchange views and provide briefings for legal officials, these ended after Dykes, following a politically charged election, assumed office in 2018.
This was unfortunate for both sides, and Dawes set about restoring trust. In 2023, he led a delegation to Beijing to meet legal officials, and relations are now, to his credit, back on an even keel.
After last month’s visit, he said “frank” discussions had been held over the local situation following the enactment of the Article 23 legislation, and the association’s thoughts were undoubtedly appreciated by its hosts.
Dawes’ contributions in other areas have also been invaluable. Apart from leading by example and setting the right tone for his members, he has stoutly defended the Judiciary from irresponsible foreign criticisms, urged the authorities to exercise their national security powers in a “considered and proportionate manner”, encouraged transparency, provided briefings about Hong Kong’s situation to business (and other) organizations, and traveled to foreign parts to explain how the “one country, two systems” policy is operating. Although it is a pity he is departing, the HKBA is again taken seriously, and everybody should be grateful to him.
The lesson to be learned from the DykesHarris era is that, if it is to serve Hong Kong effectively, the HKBA must be focused, trusted, and faithful to its core functions.
The rule of law suffers when it is marginalized and irrelevant, and it must never again operate as a quasi-political party. The incoming chairman, Jose-Antonio Maurellet, a corporate law specialist and arbitrator (and part-time judge), served as one of Dawes’ two deputies, and helped him to fulfill his agenda.
He will undoubtedly bring his own strengths to bear and build upon the foundations he has helped to lay. Maurellet has said he will continue supporting the rule of law and judicial independence, as well as explaining Hong Kong’s legal system abroad (including its role as an international dispute resolution center).
He also envisages strengthening relations between the bar and lawyers elsewhere, and providing common law education in other parts of China. In other words, Maurellet is picking up where Dawes left off, and will ensure continuity.
He has outlined a positive agenda that will benefit Hong Kong and enhance the HKBA’s standing in the rest of the country. Although turbulence is always possible, there is every reason to suppose he will be more than equal to any challenges that may come his way.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
