Litton sinks teeth into ruling saga

To interpret, or not to interpret? That is the question.

This is not a question begging an answer from William Shakespeare's Prince Hamlet, but political figures like Tam Yiu-chung.

It follows Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu's controversial request for the National People's Congress Standing Committee to interpret the law over the ad hoc admission of British barrister Tim Owen as the defense lawyer in the trial of Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying.

Lai is facing several conspiracy counts under the national security law. The trial, slated to begin this month, has been postponed to September 2023.

Tam is the only person from Hong Kong who is privileged to have a say at the NPC standing committee.

The development has been bizarre from the moment Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok and quite a few others in the establishment scrambled to pile pressure on the court to refuse Owen's admission as Lai's defense lawyer.

It culminated in Lee's law interpretation request to Beijing that is still pending.

Surprisingly, the situation has been curious of late.

Saying he is keen to hear the response from Beijing, the chief executive revealed that his request is supported by various central government bodies including the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, the central government's liaison office here and the national security office in the SAR.

With the support of these major offices, the outcome should be a foregone conclusion.

Tam is due to attend the standing committee meeting next week and, curiously, it is still unclear if the important issue will be discussed - at least not in the agenda that has been revealed to the public so far.

Tam was among the numerous people to speak in favor of law interpretation. Now, he seems to be softening the tone.

Is he signaling that the central government may be having second thoughts on the matter and would need more time to consider the pros and cons of Lee's request? If this were the case, Lee may have put Beijing in a dilemma.

As said before, the request has raised the stakes to sky high for all.

It would be welcome if Beijing were having second thoughts as perhaps it should when stakes are incredibly high.

Even if retired Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton may have raised the eyebrows of critics, it is timely for him to warn in a lengthy letter that this could put Hong Kong's judicial independence under existential threat if the lawful act of a High Court judge under common law could be rendered unlawful by the national security law.

Litton says he is alarmed that what was a purely case management matter has been blown up into a "cause celebre" with far-reaching unforeseen consequences.

Obviously, the ex-CFA judge is not alone in disputing the interpretation request - so does one of Lam's predecessors, Elsie Leung Oi-sie.

In the end, to interpret or not to interpret will be a political judgment and the sad thing is that, when politics get into the way of a judicial matter, it causes harm regardless of the outcome.