Canaries or Colonials? The Reduced Prominence of the ‘Overseas Judges’ on Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal

Abstract

Abstract Typically one member of a sitting panel of Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal is a senior jurist drawn from another common law jurisdiction. In the Court's early years, these ‘overseas judges’ were responsible for writing approximately one quarter of the lead opinions across a vast range of cases. This article demonstrates, however, that this practice has changed. The overseas judges now write a smaller share of lead opinions and no longer write lead opinions related to issues of fundamental human rights or the relationship between Hong Kong and the rest of China. This article suggests this change has been made for good reason. Though valid questions about the legitimacy of the role of the overseas judges can be made, they also continue to perform a valuable communicative role regarding the status of Hong Kong's judicial independence under the ‘one country, two systems’ framework. A recent rise in attacks on overseas and other ‘foreign’ judges in Hong Kong can be understood as part of a broader project that seeks to constrain the role of the independent judiciary. By continuing to invite overseas judges to sit on the Court of Final Appeal but reducing their public prominence, the Court has sought not only to reduce avenues for attacks on the legitimacy of particular decisions, but to protect the autonomy and independence of the judiciary more broadly.