Grounds for Demand:

• Ground 1: Judicial Overreach—Unlawful Ratification of Criminal Sedition as a National Security Offense
• Ground 2: Judicial Abdication—Systematic Evasion of Constitutional Review Duty
• Ground 3: Judicial Defiance—Flouting Binding Free Speech Protections Against Sedition

Demand for Resignation:

A. Grave Judicial Misconduct

The judicial misconduct detailed in this Complaint—exceeding constitutional authority, evading constitutional review, and disregarding protections for thought and expression—constitutes a grave and systemic breach of duty by Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, Permanent Judges R A V Ribeiro, Joseph Fok, and Johnson Lam, and Non-Permanent Judge Patrick Chan (collectively, “the CFA Panel”).

This breach meets the standard for grave misconduct under Tsang Yam-kuen [2019], which defines a knowing and wilful breach of public duty undertaken with awareness of serious consequences. The CFA Panel’s unparalleled expertise in the Basic Law and HKBOR underscores the wilful nature of their actions. By violating the Judiciary’s Guide to Judicial Conduct (2022)—which mandates independence, impartiality, and integrity—their actions have irreparably damaged public trust in the judiciary.

By knowingly undermining Hong Kong’s constitutional safeguards, the CFA Panel has discredited themselves as judicial officers. Their continued presence on the Court is untenable. They must resign to restore judicial integrity and accountability.

B. A Profound Failure of the CFA’s Constitutional Mandate Under “One Country, Two Systems”

This misconduct is not a judicial error—it is a profound betrayal of Hong Kong’s constitutional order, enshrined in the Basic Law and guaranteed by the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework, the Basic Law establishes Hong Kong’s autonomy, common law tradition, and entrenched rights protections.

As the apex constitutional court under Basic Law Article 82, the CFA has a non-delegable duty to defend this framework by invalidating laws or acts that violate constitutionally protected rights. This duty is especially critical in national security cases, where the judiciary serves as the last line of defence against political encroachment.

Yet in Tam Tak Chi [2025], the CFA Panel abdicated this responsibility. They ratified an unconstitutional sedition regime without legislative basis, shielded it from constitutional scrutiny, and elevated colonial-era precedents above binding post-Handover jurisprudence. Their ruling endorsed speech crimes that criminalise dissent and political opinion without harm or incitement to unlawful acts, reducing the Basic Law’s guarantees to hollow fictions.

This collapse cannot be overstated. Tam Tak Chi [2025] is the first substantive national security case adjudicated by the CFA and a pivotal free speech ruling. It sets a dangerous precedent for all HKNSL-era jurisprudence. Unlike prior CFA decisions addressing designation, bail, mitigation, or law enforcement under HKNSL Article 43 Implementation provisions, Tam Tak Chi [2025] dismantled freedom of thought and opinion protected under Articles 15 and 16 of the HKBOR, with no rational or constitutional justification.

Free expression is the cornerstone of all other rights—the “gateway right” enabling public assembly, political participation, judicial accountability, and press freedom. Without it, all other liberties collapse. As the UN Human Rights Committee has consistently affirmed, an open press and free discourse are indispensable to democracy and the rule of law. By endorsing sedition laws that criminalise mere opinion and sentiment, the CFA has not just suppressed dissent—it has extinguished the civic oxygen essential for a functioning society.

This ruling strikes at the heart of what once made Hong Kong a global city. The destruction of free expression, press freedom, and political discourse has transformed Hong Kong from a city governed by law into one ruled by fear. No financial hub, however sophisticated, can survive the death of free speech. Tam Tak Chi [2025] is the judicial obituary of a free Hong Kong.

C. Undermining Oversight by Overseas Non-Permanent Judges

The deliberate exclusion of Overseas NPJs from Tam Tak Chi [2025] enabled this systemic failure. By reclassifying sedition offences under the Crimes Ordinance as HKNSL offences (Ground 1), the CFA Panel ensured no Overseas NPJ would preside, removing a critical safeguard: external scrutiny and oversight grounded in international legal standards. This exclusion undermined the CFA’s global credibility.

This omission is particularly egregious given the past contributions of Overseas NPJs:

• Sir Anthony Mason NPJ, former Chief Justice of Australia, co-authored Ng Ka Ling [1999], Ng Kung Siu [1999], and Leung Kwok Hung [2005], establishing doctrines of generous interpretation of rights, narrow interpretation of restrictions, and the protection of political opinion.
• The Honourable A M Gleeson KC NPJ, former Chief Justice of Australia, co-authored Chan Chun Kit [2022], caution against criminalising intent without actus reus; Chow Hang Tung [2024], affirming that statutory provisions inconsistent with fundamental rights entrenched by the Basic Law “must give way”; and Tsang Yam-kuen [2019], defining grave misconduct in public office.
• Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury NPJ, former President of the UK Supreme Court, co-authored Hysan Development [2016], establishing the proportionality test, and Lee Cheuk Yan [2024], more comprehensively circumscribing the proportionality test and reaffirming Hong Kong courts’ power in enforcing the Basic Law’s supremacy.

Among them, Lord Neuberger remains an active Overseas NPJ, yet his deliberate exclusion from Tam Tak Chi [2025]—engineered by design, not statute—denied the case his rigorous scrutiny and oversight. This deliberate sidelining tarnishes the Overseas NPJ system, a cornerstone of the CFA’s global standing, and erodes the Court’s distinction from courts in authoritarian jurisdictions.

The resignation of the Honourable Lord Jonathan Sumption, a former Overseas NPJ, in June 2024 underscores the seriousness of these failings. In his Financial Times op-ed (The rule of law in Hong Kong is in grave danger, 10 June 2024), he wrote:

“The rule of law is profoundly compromised… The National Security Law was imposed… to crush even peaceful political dissent.”

Lord Sumption’s resignation, driven by the HKNSL’s chilling effect, highlights the constitutional collapse now reflected in Tam Tak Chi [2025].

D. A Final Call to Accountability

Complaint #1 (9 March 2024) and Joinder Complaint #1A (31 October 2024) warned the CFA Panel of their constitutional failures. These warnings were ignored, and in Tam Tak Chi [2025], the Panel deepened its misconduct—shielding sedition laws, suppressing constitutional questions, and upholding laws that criminalise dissent.

This Complaint, Joinder Complaint #1B, is the final reckoning. The CFA has abandoned its role as the guardian of rights. Its highest judges have undermined the rule of law and irreparably damaged public trust in the judiciary. They must step down.

If the judges named herein believe the allegations are unfounded or their actions defensible, they are invited to respond publicly within 30 days. Failure to do so by 22 May 2025 will confirm the charges and forever mark this Court as complicit in dismantling Hong Kong’s constitutional governance.

Respectfully,

Chi-Sang Poon, PhD (潘志生博士)
Hong Kong Resident (Overseas)
Principal Research Scientist, MIT (Retired)
Date: 22 April 2025