tim's experiment

Oh, the irony! On one page of this morning’s newspapers, another irritating lecture from a Beijing bigwig about the importance of the rule of law, and the need for Hong Kong people diligently to observe the restrictions designed to ensure that the arrival of universal suffrage does not disturb our imperial rulers. And on another page, the law flouted, and flouted by the current example of the sort of leader Beijing officials thing we ought to choose.

Let us be more specific. The Beijing bore is vice president Li Yuanchao, of whom we can confidently assert that he would not recognise the rule of law if he found it floating in his bath. This was a “don’t do as I do; do as I say” moment. Business as usual. Meanwhile in Hong Kong our lovely Lufsig was appearing at the opening of a publishers’ conference. Mr C.Y. Leung paid fulsome tributes to the importance of free media, a piece of infrastructure which he believes we still possess. He then ill-advisedly moved on to consider the attack on former Ming Pao editor Kevin Lau. Nothing to worry about there because, as the Standard quoted, “the assailants and others were quickly apprehended on the mainland and turned over to the Hong Kong police.” The version of Mr Leung’s words in the Post is slightly different but just as illegal.

Illegal? Yes indeed. Every beginning reporter learns, and over the years many of them have heard it from me, that once someone has been arrested judicial proceedings have begun, and it is a serious offence to imply in speech or writing that the persons arrested are guilty … or for that matter innocent. I do not know whether the two persons arrested on the mainland are the assailants or not but in either case they are entitled to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. It is scandalous that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR should express an opinion on this important point while the trial or trials are still pending. Normally one would expect to see the newspapers prosecuted for reporting it, but I fancy under the circumstances everyone is going to pretend it never happened, or pretend that there is nothing wrong because we know the pair are guilty anyway, or pretend that this is an irrelevant little legal point and it is not in the public interest to pursue the matter.

As we move on towards Occupy Central, though, this is going to bring a little problem. Can a Chief Executive lecture us all on the importance of the rule of law while carelessly breaking it on other occasions? This is not just a matter of an illegal vine trellis or two, after all. The offence this time is called contempt of court and people are occasionally jailed for it. I suspect if the Secretary for Justice had said what Mr Leung said then half the legal profession would be baying for his resignation. But as it is Mr Leung himself who has dropped the legal brick I wonder whether anyone will bother. It is already clear that he doesn’t care what we think.