MIL Asia Pacific Publishing Engine

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

     Following is the speech by the Secretary for Justice, Mr Paul Lam, SC, at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 today (January 19):

Chief Justice, members of the Judiciary, Chairman of the Bar Association, President of the Law Society, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
 
     The Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year is not merely a ceremony. It is a unique annual event for the Judiciary to speak out on important issues; and for representatives of the legal profession from both the public and private sectors to show our support to the Judiciary and pay tribute to judges and judicial officers for their contributions.
      
     There is no question that, in the past year, as is always the case, our judges and judicial officers have performed their duties conscientiously and professionally. But most of their work would be of interest to the parties directly involved in court proceedings only, and would not receive any public attention. Court news reported in the mass and social media was focused on a small number of cases, in particular national security cases, which were considered to be of public interest. Comments and discussions on these cases are, generally, permissible because of the freedom of expression and freedom of the press. However, these freedoms do not include making unfounded accusations against the integrity of our Judiciary.
      
     It is disappointing and frustrating, though not entirely surprising, that the Judiciary has been subject to such unfounded accusations due to judgments delivered in a number of highly charged national security cases last year and recently. Worse still, some of these accusations were misrepresented as facts and used as pretext to advocate imposing unlawful sanctions against judges involved in those cases, and to put illegitimate pressures on foreign non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal to resign.
      
     One of the duties of the Secretary of Justice is to act as the guardian of public interest and the due administration of justice. This is why I feel obliged to take this opportunity to refute these unfounded accusations. This is extremely important because, unless disabused, they may undermine people’s trust and confidence in our judicial system and the rule of law in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s success as an international centre in finance, trading and other areas as well as people’s general sense of security depend very much on their perception of, and trust and confidence in, our Judiciary.
      
     Let me put things in context first. It is a fundamental principle of international law and international relations that every state has the inherent and inalienable right to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity; and to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another state. Very recent events in other parts of the world, and recent statements made by some foreign politicians concerning the territorial integrity of other countries (including ours), sound a warning bell that it will be naïve to assume that these principles will necessarily be followed. Concern over national security is anything but fanciful, and must be taken seriously.
      
     Having said that, it is not and never the national policy of China to pursue absolute security. Under the relevant national law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, national security is defined as a reference to the status in which the state’s political regime, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, the welfare of the people, sustainable economic and social development, and other major interests of the state are relatively free from danger and internal or external threats, and the capacity to maintain a sustained status of security. I would like to emphasise the word “relatively” in the phrase “relatively free from danger and internal or external threats”; it does not say “absolutely free from danger and internal or external threats”. Our country clearly recognises that it is essential to strike a balance between security and development. As explained in the White Paper titled “China’s National Security in the New Era” released on May 12 last year, China strives to achieve a positive interaction between high-quality development and high-level security, and promote mutual reinforcement and co-ordinated enhancement between opening up and security. Not only that there is no conflict between safeguarding national security and promoting development of Hong Kong by ensuring that it remains an open, free and diversified international city, maintaining national security as defined under the law indeed provides the indispensable precondition for any development to take place in a safe, stable and peaceful environment.
      
     Having regard to the significance of national security, Article 3 of the National Security Law (NSL) imposes a constitutional duty on the executive, legislature and judiciary of Hong Kong to effectively prevent, suppress and impose punishment for any act or activity endangering national security, and I quote “in accordance with this Law and other relevant laws”. In the present context, it is pertinent to note the two following sets of legal provisions which prescribe the role of the Judiciary, and shed light on how it should discharge its constitutional duty in this respect. First, under Articles 2, 19 and detailed provisions in Section 4, Chapter 4 of the Basic Law, the Judiciary is vested with, and shall exercise, independent judicial power including that of final adjudication. Second, Articles 4 and 5 of the NSL provide respectively that human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security; and that the principle of the rule of law shall be adhered to including, for example, no one shall be convicted and punished for an act which does not constitute an offence under the law, a person is presumed innocent until convicted by a judicial body, the right to defend himself or herself and other rights in judicial proceedings that a criminal suspect, defendant, and other parties in judicial proceedings are entitled to under the law shall be protected.
      
     Having regard to these two sets of legal provisions, in national security cases, as in any other type of case, the court’s duty is to conduct the proceedings fairly and properly ensuring that human rights are respected and principles of the rule of law are followed, to construe and apply the relevant laws to the evidence, and then make its decision, all done independently.
      
     In considering the validity of any criticism that has been made against the courts in those highly charged national security cases, the correct question to ask is whether there is any ground to support that the courts have failed to discharge their duties as I have just described. There are a number of factors which can assist us to answer this question.
      
     First, it is important to observe what happened in the course of the judicial proceedings, which were all held openly. Have the judges ever, without any good and sufficient legal reason, stopped the defendants from giving evidence or making submissions, or cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses? Has any of the judges made any inappropriate remarks indicating that they had bias or prejudice against the defendants? Did anything otherwise happen which would suggest that the defendants had not been treated fairly? I am confident that any reasonable and objective person who has attended and observed those proceedings would answer all these questions in the negative. Some might opine that the proceedings have taken a long time. I would say the time was well spent and necessary to ensure that there was a fair trial to all parties concerned.
      
     Second, it is essential to study the judgments in those cases, which is indeed what people have been asked to do repeatedly. The judgments are of utmost importance because they explained how and why the judges came to their conclusions, and in criminal cases, why they were satisfied that the defendant’s guilt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt: to be more specific, how they construed the relevant laws, what evidence and submissions they had considered, accepted or rejected and why, and how they applied the relevant laws as they understood in the light of the evidence and submissions which they had accepted. A sufficiently reasoned judgment also serves another important purpose: that is to reassure people that the courts have not taken into account any irrelevant and improper considerations. Let me ask: in those national security cases, is there anything in the judgments which would suggest that the judges have taken into account any extraneous consideration or that somehow their independence has been compromised? I am again very confident that the answer must be a resounding no. Some people may wonder why the judgments are so long, running to hundreds of pages, and might even question whether they need to be so long entailing long judgment writing time. The length of a judgment is largely dictated by the amount of evidence and submissions heard, and the complexity of the issues involved. In cases which were known to be controversial, the judges would naturally take great care to ensure that the judgments were sufficiently reasoned for reasons that I have just explained.
      
     Third, it is worthwhile to note that, in national security cases, the Government was not always the successful party. In a case involving many defendants, two defendants were acquitted after trial in May 2024, and the prosecution decided not to appeal against one of the acquittals. In March 2025, the Court of Final Appeal quashed the convictions of an offence under the Implementation Rules for the NSL. These incidents are unequivocal evidence that the Judiciary has been able to exercise, and has in fact exercised, independent judicial power in national security cases. As the unsuccessful party in those cases, the Government would naturally be disappointed. If there were reasonable grounds to appeal, we would invite the appellate court to reconsider the matter. If the judgment was final, the Government would review whether the outcome was caused by any deficiency or inadequacy in the relevant laws; and if so, would seek to amend the same. There is one critical point that I wish to add. On those occasions when the courts ruled against the Government, it would be unfair and incorrect to suspect, merely because of the outcome, that the courts might have failed to appreciate the importance of safeguarding national security and that they had not discharged their constitutional duty in this respect fully and properly.
      
     Fourth, in response to intimidation made against judges, the Judiciary has reaffirmed in various statements in the past that all judges and judicial officers exercise judicial power independently, and will continue to abide by the Judicial Oath and firmly discharge their duty in the administration of justice without any interference. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of these statements.
      
     Enough is said about national security. It is important not to lose sight of the big picture that, every year, the Judiciary handles tens of thousands of civil and criminal cases of many different types, playing a key role in resolving disputes and maintaining the law and order of society. In some of these cases, particularly those decided by the Court of Final Appeal, the courts developed important common law jurisprudence which makes significant contributions to not only Hong Kong but also the common law world in general. An excellent example is that, just 10 days ago on January 9, the Court of Final Appeal in a scholarly and landmark judgment held that it is appropriate to recognize the tort of harassment as a development of the common law in Hong Kong; however, a company cannot sue for harassment because it is incapable of suffering emotional stress even though it may seek an injunction to restrain acts of harassment directed at its officers, agents and lawyers.
      
     Apart from performing judicial duties, the Judiciary has made tremendous efforts and contributions to promote the rule of law, and enhance Hong Kong’s status as an international legal service and dispute resolution centre in other ways. On behalf of the Department of Justice, I would like to express my gratitude to members of the Judiciary for taking part in the work of the Law Reform Commission, the Working Group on Mediation Regulatory System and the Working Group on Arbitration Law Reform, as well as various capacity building programmes organised by the Hong Kong International Legal Talents Training Academy.
      
     The rule of law based on our common law system is one of the most, if not the most, distinctive and crucial advantage of Hong Kong under the principle of “one country, two systems”. Members of the Judiciary, the Department of Justice, the Bar Association and the Law Society play different roles in our legal system. We may not, and need not, agree on each and every issue. In judicial proceedings involving the Government, the Government sometimes succeeds, sometimes fails. All that said, our solidarity, courage and determination to maintain and enhance the rule of law in Hong Kong is unquestionable.
      
     Lastly, we are still in January, and the Chinese New Year of the Horse will arrive in less than a month’s time. May I conclude by wishing you all a very happy and healthy new year! Thank you!

Source: Hong Kong Information Services

Threats of sanctions, a direct affront to the rule of law, are totally unacceptable to a civilised society like Hong Kong as well as any judicial system, said Chief Justice Andrew Cheung.

At the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 today, Mr Cheung pointed out that it is unfair to name judges as targets for potential sanctions, as judges have only been performing duties in accordance with their judicial oath.

“I hope that these threats of sanctions will never materialise,” he added.

Source: Hong Kong Information Services

At the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 today, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung noted that the high-profile case of Lai Chee-ying had garnered criticism of Hong Kong’s courts and rule of law, but highlighted that the strength of the justice system lies in its adherence to the law and its openness to scrutiny.

In his speech, Mr Cheung outlined that the Court of First Instance recently concluded the criminal trial of Lai Chee-ying and his companies, resulting in their convictions for national security and conspiracy offences.

Mr Cheung made it clear that sentencing remains pending and appeals may or may not be forthcoming, adding that he will not comment on the merits of the case or make categorical assertions about the proceedings.

The Chief Justice said the Judiciary fully respects the right of individuals to express their views. However, any serious comment or disagreement intended to be taken seriously must be grounded in a careful reading of the judgment and a sincere effort to understand the court’s reasoning.

“Any suggestion that a judge would compromise their conscience or integrity for political or other extraneous considerations when hearing a case is, by its very nature, a serious one that should not be made without cogent evidence. Bald and unsubstantiated allegations of this kind merely indicate that the criticisms may themselves be influenced by political or other extraneous considerations,” he said.  

“As to sweeping comments on the state of the rule of law in Hong Kong arising from the outcome of a particular case, many of us may be forgiven for growing weary of simplistic assertions that the rule of law is dead whenever a court reaches a result one finds unpalatable.

“The rule of law in Hong Kong is far more robust and enduring than the outcome of any single case. It cannot be that the rule of law is alive one day, dead the next, and resurrected on the third, depending on whether the Government or another party happens to prevail in court on a particular day. Such a claim needs only to be stated to highlight how untenable it is.”

As regards calls to halt proceedings or prematurely release a defendant based on reasons such as occupation, background or political causes, Mr Cheung stressed that no one is above the law.

“It should be emphasised that such demands not only circumvent the legal procedures established to ensure accountability under the law, but also strike at the very heart of the rule of law itself. A foundational tenet of the rule of law is that no one is above the law, regardless of their status, occupation, office, political affiliation, personal belief or conviction, popularity, wealth, connection, or any other characteristic. The law applies equally to all, without fear or favour.”

Also speaking at the event, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam pointed out that discussions on cases which are considered to be of public interest are generally permissible because of Hong Kong’s freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

However, he emphasised in his speech that these freedoms did not include making unfounded accusations against the integrity of the Judiciary.

“It is disappointing and frustrating, though not entirely surprising, that the Judiciary has been subject to such unfounded accusations due to judgments delivered in a number of highly charged national security cases last year and recently. Worse still, some of these accusations were misrepresented as facts and used as pretext to advocate imposing unlawful sanctions against judges involved in those cases, and to put illegitimate pressures on foreign non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal to resign.”

Mr Lam added that he felt obliged to refute the unfounded accusations, to avoid undermining people’s trust and confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law in Hong Kong.

He also noted that in considering the validity of any criticism that has been made against the courts in those cases, it is important that people should observe what happened in the course of the judicial proceedings and study the judgments in the cases.

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

The following is issued on behalf of the Judiciary:

Following is the full text of the speech delivered by Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 today (January 19):

Secretary for Justice, Chairman of the Bar, President of the Law Society, Fellow Judges, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Hong Kong Judiciary, I extend a very warm welcome to all of you to the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year. This significant occasion serves as a timely reminder to our community of the vital role an independent judiciary plays in upholding justice and the rule of law. It also offers an opportunity to reaffirm the core values on which our legal and judicial institutions are founded.

The Judiciary’s work over the course of 2025 is set out in detail in its Annual Report, published electronically today. In particular, I have provided an overview of the key areas of work undertaken during the past year in the Welcome Remarks. This allows me, in this year’s speech, to devote attention first to some fundamental principles essential to the rule of law and judicial independence, which have been brought into focus by a recent case, before turning to another topic concerning the constitutional roles of the different branches of government in the protection of rights.

The long criminal trial of Mr Jimmy Lai and his companies before the Court of First Instance of the High Court has recently concluded, resulting in their convictions for national security and conspiracy offences. Sentencing remains pending, and appeals may or may not be forthcoming. As expected, the outcome of this high-profile trial has attracted significant international attention and commentary. Also as expected, given the prevailing geopolitical tensions, some of these responses have been critical not only of the prosecution and verdicts, but also of the courts and the rule of law in Hong Kong generally.

It is important to emphasise at the outset that the legal process remains ongoing. The defendants retain the rights to appeal. Any alleged errors, whether legal, procedural, or evidential, will be considered by the Court of Appeal, should an appeal be lodged. For obvious reasons, I will not comment on the merits of the case or make categorical assertions about the proceedings. The appropriate forum for resolving any such issues remains the judicial process itself. However, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a number of general matters of importance.

To begin with, we fully respect the right of individuals to express their views. Few court decisions please everyone. Rather, the strength of our justice system lies in its adherence to the law and its openness to scrutiny. In this respect, it is no different from those in other developed common law jurisdictions. However, a comment or a criticism is only as meaningful as it is informed. Any serious comment or disagreement intended to be taken seriously must be grounded in a careful reading of the judgment and a sincere effort to understand the court’s reasoning.

Hong Kong’s Basic Law and general laws, along with the national security laws, all guarantee the independence and impartiality of the courts, and the right to a fair trial. They require that court decisions be based on the evidence and legal arguments presented, and not on extraneous considerations or public pressure.

These fundamental principles govern all criminal proceedings in Hong Kong. Save for narrow and well-defined exceptions, all criminal trials are conducted in open court, in accordance with established rules of criminal procedure and evidence. Members of the public, as well as the press, are permitted to attend hearings without undue restriction. Invariably, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Both the prosecution and the defence are entitled to call witnesses, tender documentary and other forms of evidence, and make legal submissions. Unless they choose to represent themselves, all defendants are legally represented at trial, either by privately instructed lawyers or by those funded through the public purse. A defendant may, if they wish, give evidence in their own defence. If they choose not to do so, the prosecution may not comment on that fact, and certainly no adverse inference may be drawn from it to establish guilt. Unless the case is tried before a jury, all verdicts are accompanied by reasons. These typically explain the charges, summarise the prosecution’s case and the defence, describe the evidence adduced, and set out the court’s reasoning for its findings and conclusion. This transparent process, which is followed in all criminal trials with necessary adaptations where appropriate, ensures accountability and enables full and meaningful appellate review where required.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it should be noted that court decisions are subject to appeal or review in accordance with the applicable procedures. I have every confidence that the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Court of Final Appeal will, as always, act with integrity and professionalism in handling any appeals or reviews.

Under the Basic Law, the courts, as the judicial organ of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, are under a constitutional duty to hear and determine all cases that are properly brought before them. They concern themselves only with the law and the evidence, not with any underlying matters of politics, policies or other non-legal considerations. As professionals, our judges take seriously the Judicial Oath to administer justice fairly and impartially. Any suggestion that a judge would compromise their conscience or integrity for political or other extraneous considerations when hearing a case is, by its very nature, a serious one that should not be made without cogent evidence. Bald and unsubstantiated allegations of this kind merely indicate that the criticisms may themselves be influenced by political or other extraneous considerations.

As to sweeping comments on the state of the rule of law in Hong Kong arising from the outcome of a particular case, many of us may be forgiven for growing weary of simplistic assertions that the rule of law is dead whenever a court reaches a result one finds unpalatable. The rule of law in Hong Kong is far more robust and enduring than the outcome of any single case. It cannot be that the rule of law is alive one day, dead the next, and resurrected on the third, depending on whether the Government or another party happens to prevail in court on a particular day. Such a claim needs only to be stated to highlight how untenable it is.

As regards calls that are sometimes heard to halt proceedings or prematurely release a defendant, based on reasons such as occupation, background, or political causes, it should be emphasised that such demands not only circumvent the legal procedures established to ensure accountability under the law, but also strike at the very heart of the rule of law itself. A foundational tenet of the rule of law is that no one is above the law, regardless of their status, occupation, office, political affiliation, personal belief or conviction, popularity, wealth, connection, or any other characteristic. The law applies equally to all, without fear or favour. Those who are genuinely committed to upholding the rule of law must also be committed to allowing the courts to do their work according to established legal processes and without interference.

As to the threats of sanctions that have been made from time to time against our judges, it is clear that however these threats are framed, they are, in substance, attempts to interfere with judicial independence by means fundamentally at odds with the rule of law. Intimidation and threats are no different from bribery and corruption, they being, in truth, two sides of the same coin. Both are means of subverting justice, and have absolutely no place in a civilised society governed by the rule of law.

I would now turn to a different topic concerning the respective constitutional roles of the Judiciary, the Executive, and the Legislature in the protection of rights. It is, without doubt, an important aspect of any constitutional framework.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is established by the Basic Law pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution. In matters of fundamental rights, the Basic Law, along with the constitutionally entrenched Hong Kong Bill of Rights, provides a legal framework within which all public authorities must act.

I will first start with the courts. Their constitutional function is to adjudicate independently, applying legal principles to the facts before them and making reasoned decisions. In a constitutional or public law case, where it is alleged that the Government has breached or failed to protect a certain right, the court must carefully consider the claim by reference to the right asserted and any other related or competing rights or interests, the existing case law, the evidence adduced, and the justifications put forward in defence of the subject matter under challenge. If a case for breach is not made out, it is dismissed, usually with costs. If the case is established, the court must so hold and determine what remedies, if any, should be granted. In some instances, a legislative provision or administrative rule may be reinterpreted to eliminate the offending part, where possible. Where that proves infeasible, the court may have to strike down the provision or rule altogether, rendering it of no further legal effect. In other cases, the court may simply grant a declaration, that is, a formal court statement of the legal position concerning the rights, obligations or status of the parties, or other relevant matters. In all cases, the court’s decision must be accompanied by clear reasons. Parties and stakeholders alike, as well as the public, are entitled to understand how the law has been interpreted and applied.

Courts exercise great care in granting legal remedies in constitutional and public law cases. Often, they leave room to the Government to determine, in accordance with the rule of law and principles of good governance, how best to fulfil its constitutional or public law duties. Judicial restraint in this context reflects constitutional discipline and a recognition of institutional limits. Courts administer justice by applying the law. They seek neither to govern nor to legislate. In fashioning remedies, courts strive to uphold both the substance of the rights at issue and the proper division of constitutional functions.

Before turning to the Executive, it is important to say something about the finality of judgments on the interpretation of a provision in the Basic Law or of a right guaranteed by it. When the Court of Final Appeal gives judgment on such a matter, its interpretation represents the authoritative statement of the law, subject only to any interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and then only in prescribed and exceptional circumstances. The Court’s interpretation binds all: the public, the Administration, and the Legislature, including individual members. This upholds the design of the Basic Law, which vests the power of final adjudication in the Court of Final Appeal. To say that an interpretation of the final Court is binding on all is simply to recognise what the Basic Law expressly provides regarding final adjudication. Respecting the Court’s judgment is simply respecting the Basic Law.

People are, of course, entitled to hold different views on controversial matters. They may also express disagreement with a judgment. But disagreement with a final judicial interpretation does not provide a legal basis to depart from it. The constitutional space for debate lies not in reopening a judicially concluded matter, but in determining how best to conform our system to what is protected under the Basic Law as finally interpreted by the Court, taking into account all legitimate and relevant considerations.

The responsibility for compliance, and for taking remedial steps, ordinarily rests with the Executive. Naturally, most decisions that give rise to constitutional or public law challenges, whether concerning welfare, immigration, taxation, or public administration, are executive in nature. The Executive operates the policies and systems that govern our society. It is typically the respondent in judicial review proceedings. And it has both the duty and the capacity to bring its policies and systems into compliance. Depending on the facts, remedial measures may involve revising administrative policies and guidelines, modifying existing systems and procedures, re-allocation of resources, and, where primary legislation is required, introducing a bill supported by policy reasons and, where appropriate, public consultation. This duty flows directly from the rule of law and the constitutional imperative to uphold the Basic Law, including its protection of fundamental rights.

The Legislature, in turn, exercises a distinct and constitutionally protected role. Its members are elected to scrutinise, debate, and enact legislation. They do so under an oath to uphold the Basic Law. That oath establishes a constitutional framework but does not dictate how members must vote in relation to individual bills. Courts are careful not to intrude upon the legislative process, and fully respect the legislative discretion that the Legislature enjoys.

Some have sought to explain this judicial restraint by drawing comparisons with the United Kingdom, where Parliament is sovereign. It is, in many ways, a natural reference point, but not an equivalent model. In the United Kingdom, the constitution is largely unwritten, political in nature, and, crucially, Parliament is supreme. No court can strike down an Act of Parliament. No institution, including the judiciary, has the authority to dictate what Parliament must, or must not enact. The legal authority of Parliament is absolute, and its enactments are binding regardless of content.

Hong Kong’s constitutional order is different. Our constitutional framework is written and legal in nature. All public authorities, including the Legislature, exercise their powers under the Basic Law, which itself derives from the Constitution. The Basic Law defines the scope and limits of institutional authority. Within that framework, the courts are tasked with interpreting and applying the Basic Law with finality. Subject to and within the legal parameters set by the Basic Law itself, it is for the Executive to propose legislation where required, and for the Legislative Council to consider and enact it as it deems appropriate. In this way, our system preserves both constitutional discipline and space for legislative discretion.

In practice, what emerges is a constitutional division of labour, with each branch of government operating within its constitutional role. Even on occasions when consensus between them proves elusive, at least for the time being, the system does not grind to a halt. The court’s judgment stands as a vindication of the affected individuals’ rights and triggers the Executive’s duty of compliance under the law. As a result, incompatible administrative rules may fall away, and governmental policies and practices may evolve. New measures may emerge to alleviate the position. The resulting picture may not be perfect or seamless, but it reflects meaningful constitutional progress. And that, too, forms part of the constitutional model established under the Basic Law.

By definition, controversial matters attract divergent views. Public confidence in the rule of law need not be affected by the presence of differing perspectives on these matters between the branches of government. Far more important is the respect each shows to the other and their respective constitutional roles. With each branch maintaining its role and a robust respect for the rule of law, we believe that even complex, multi-dimensional issues can, in time, be worked through with both principle and practicality.

Last but by no means least, every one of us in the Judiciary shares in the deep sorrow felt throughout our community in the wake of the tragic fire that occurred in Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po last November. This horrific incident resulted in a devastating loss of life, inflicted great suffering on only too many families, and caused extensive damage to homes and property. As the community moves forward, our thoughts remain with those affected, as they work to recover and rebuild in the aftermath of this tragedy, supported by many across our society.

For its part, the Judiciary has announced measures to expedite and prioritise legal proceedings arising from the tragic fire. A task group led by the Chief Judge of the High Court has been established to oversee handling of cases across all court levels. In addition, a support team has been set up to manage probate matters and liaise with relevant departments. Probate-related fees for deceased victims will be waived, with other fee concessions to be considered on a case by case basis. The Judiciary will continue to draw on support from the legal profession, as appropriate.

It only remains for me to wish you and your families good health and a peaceful year ahead. Thank you.

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

     The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) announced today (January 19) that services for the disposal of the dead will be suspended on Lunar New Year’s Day (February 17).

     A spokesman for the FEHD said, “All cemeteries and crematoria offices of the Department will be closed on Lunar New Year’s Day. No coffins will be accepted for burial at public cemeteries and no cremations will be undertaken at public crematoria.

     ​”Cremation services and burial services will resume normal operations on February 18.”