Last week, on December 20, British author and former UK Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption sparked fresh debate with a column in The New Statesman. He criticized the trial of a Hong Kong businessman and media tycoon, Jimmy Lai, who was found guilty of conspiring to collude with external forces and conspiracy to publish seditious materials.
Sumption isn't just any commentator: until June 2024, he served as a non-permanent judge at Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal. His public comments have ignited a conversation about the role of retired judges and the three red lines they must not cross.
Though retired, judges carry the weight of their former office. They’re seen as living symbols of justice, so guidelines and unwritten norms urge them to stay neutral. Experts highlight three core red lines:
- 🚩 No involvement in partisan politics
- 🚩 No interference with ongoing cases
- 🚩 No actions that undermine judicial independence
Sumption’s critique, many argue, crossed these boundaries by commenting on an active case and challenging the impartiality of the judiciary. Critics say that public disagreements like this can chip away at public trust in court independence, especially when former judges critique the very system they once served.
As this debate unfolds, it shines a light on how retired judges can balance sharing legal insights with preserving the impartial image of the courts. For young news fans, it’s a reminder: even after retirement, the robes of justice come with lasting responsibilities.
What do you think? Should retired judges speak freely on sensitive cases? Drop a comment and let us know! 💬✨
Reference(s):
The Sumption case: An accomplice in undermining judicial independence
cgtn.com
