View source for Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal

{{Short description|Final appellate court of Hong Kong}}
{{For|the building|Court of Final Appeal Building}}
{{More citations needed |date = June 2009}}
{{Use Hong Kong English|date=April 2019}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2024}}
{{Infobox high court
|court_name = Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal 
|native_name = {{lang|zh-HK|香港終審法院}}
|image = HongKongCourtOfFinalAppeal.svg{{!}}class=skin-invert
|imagesize = 180
|caption = The logo features the [[Court of Final Appeal Building]]
|established = {{Start date and age|df=yes|1997|07|01}}
|location = 8 Jackson Road, [[Central, Hong Kong|Central]],<br />Hong Kong<ref name="address">{{cite web |url = http://www.judiciary.gov.hk/en/crt_services/pphlt/html/cfa.htm#9 |title = Court Services & Facilities – Court of Final Appeal |publisher = Government of Hong Kong |date = 9 January 2015 |access-date = 20 June 2015 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150330035954/http://www.judiciary.gov.hk/en/crt_services/pphlt/html/cfa.htm#9 |archive-date = 30 March 2015 |url-status = dead }}</ref>
|coordinates = {{Coord|22.28090|N|114.16035|E|format=dms|region:HK_type:landmark|display=inline,title}}
|type = Appointment by the [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong|Chief Executive]] acting in accordance with the recommendation of the [[Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission]] with [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Legislative Council]] endorsement
|authority = [[Hong Kong Basic Law]] <br /> Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
|appeals = 
|terms = Until retirement age of 70 for the Chief Justice and Permanent Judges, but this may be extended by two three-year terms, meaning retirement age can be extended to 76; no retirement age for non-permanent judges
|positions = One Chief Justice, at least three permanent judges and at most 30 non-permanent judges
|website = {{URL|https://www.hkcfa.hk|hkcfa.hk}}
|chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal]]
|chiefjudgename = [[Andrew Cheung]]
|termstart = 11 January 2021
|termend = <!-- year term for current chief as chief ends, if applicable-->
|termend2 = <!-- year term of current chief ends if applicable -->
}}
{{Infobox Chinese
| order = ts
| t = 香港終審法院
| s = 香港终审法院
| y = Hēung góng jūng sám faat yuhn
| j = Hoeng<sup>1</sup> gong<sup>2</sup> zung<sup>1</sup> sam<sup>2</sup> faat<sup>3</sup> jyun<sup>6</sup>
| p = Xiānggǎng Zhōngshěnfǎyuàn
}}

{{CourtsHongkong}}

The '''Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal''' ('''HKCFA''')<ref>{{Cite web |title=All Practice Directions |url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/pd/eng/PD.htm#:~:text=The%20court%20abbreviations%20are%20as%20follows |access-date=2025-11-12 |website=legalref.judiciary.hk}}</ref> is the [[supreme court|final appellate court]] of [[Hong Kong]].

The Court of Final Appeal was established on 1 July 1997, upon the establishment of the [[Hong Kong|Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]]; the court replaced the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] as the highest judicial institution of the jurisdiction of Hong Kong. As defined in Articles 19 and 85 of the [[Hong Kong Basic Law]], the Court of Final Appeal "exercises judicial power in the Region independently and free from any interference." The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules set out the detailed functions and procedures of the court.

The hierarchy of the Hong Kong judiciary from high to low is: the Court of Final Appeal, the [[Hong Kong High Court|High Court]] (consisting of the upper [[Hong Kong Court of Appeal|Court of Appeal]] and the lower [[Hong Kong Court of First Instance|Court of First Instance]]), the [[Hong Kong District Court|District Court]], and [[Magistrates' court (Hong Kong)|magistrates' courts]].

The court meets in the [[Court of Final Appeal Building]] located in [[Central, Hong Kong]]. Court cases can be viewed online through live broadcast and webcast playback from April 2025 onward under a pilot scheme of 2 years.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal - Webcast Playback |url=https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/work/broadcast/webcast/index.html |access-date=2025-06-08 |website=www.hkcfa.hk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Judiciary launches two-year pilot scheme for live webcast of court proceedings in Court of Final Appeal |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202503/11/P2025031100172.htm |access-date=2025-06-08 |website=www.info.gov.hk |archive-date=8 June 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250608064437/https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202503/11/P2025031100172.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

{{TOC limit|3}}

== History ==

=== Background and conception ===
From the 1840s until the handover of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, Hong Kong was a [[British Overseas Territories|British Dependent Territory]], and the power of final adjudication on the laws of Hong Kong rested with the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] in London.

The notion that Hong Kong should have a court of final appeal likely arose at some point in the early 1980s, during the Sino-British negotiations on the future of Hong Kong. Wong Man Fong, then a senior official at [[Xinhua News Agency]], described himself as being part of a small policy task force in January 1982 that came up with twelve policy points that Beijing would adopt for Hong Kong,<ref>Wong Man Fong, China’s Resumption of Sovereignty over Hong Kong (Hong Kong: The David C Lam Institute for East-West Studies, 1997)</ref> among them the agreement in the [[Sino-British Joint Declaration]] in 1984 that Hong Kong should be vested with "independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication", which was in line with China's stated principle of 'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". While it was reported that the Chinese government had considered having the court in Beijing,<ref>‘UK reveals its “bottom line” on future’, Hong Kong Standard, 4 November 1983</ref> the idea was rejected by [[Deng Xiaoping]] before the second round of talks in 1983.<ref>James Tang, ‘Round Two on 1997 Opens Today’, Hong Kong Standard, 12 July 1983.</ref>

=== Creation of the court ===
The [[Sino-British Joint Liaison Group]] agreed in 1991 that the Court of Final Appeal consisting of a chief justice, three other Hong Kong judges, and one judge from a list of Hong Kong or foreign common law judges should be set up before the handover on 1 July 1997, preferably by 1993, in order to lay the groundwork for a smooth transition. The decision to include only one foreign judge led to much criticism; Martin Lee asserted that while he was a member of the [[Hong Kong Basic Law Drafting Committee|Basic Law Drafting Committee]], it had been agreed that a majority of the judges sitting on the court would be foreign, and in any case, it appeared to be a contradiction of the meaning in the Joint Declaration and Basic Law suggested by the word "judges". The Bar Association and Law Society opposed the agreement, criticizing it for contravening both the spirit and the letter of the Joint Declaration and Basic Law. There were also concerns that the new CFA would need to be of similar stature and prestige as the Privy Council, and not simply the [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] in a different guise, in order to preserve confidence in Hong Kong's business environment and legal system.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Young |first=Simon N. M. |title=Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal: The Development of the Law in China's Hong Kong |last2=Ghai |first2=Yash |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-107-01121-2 |language=en |chapter=Genesis of Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal}}</ref> 

The [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Legislative Council]] voted 38-2 on 25 October 1991 in rejection of the agreement, the first time it had voted in opposition to an agreement between Britain and China on the future of Hong Kong. 

== Role of the court ==
Based on the [[one country, two systems]] principle, Hong Kong retains a high degree of autonomy and maintains its own legal system. The Court of Final Appeal was established on 1 July 1997 in [[Central, Hong Kong|Central]], Hong Kong. Since then, it has served as the [[court of last resort]]; the court has the power of final adjudication with respect to the law of Hong Kong as well as the power of final interpretation over local laws including the power to strike down local ordinances on the grounds of inconsistency with the Basic Law.

However, this power is not absolute; the court's decisions can be overturned by the Chinese government via a controversial process known as an "interpretation" via Article 158 of the Basic Law.<ref>[http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/basiclaw/basic13_2.pdf] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131016060146/http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/basiclaw/basic13_2.pdf|date=16 October 2013}}</ref><ref>[http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/basiclaw/basic10_3.pdf] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131204031554/http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/basiclaw/basic10_3.pdf|date=4 December 2013}}</ref>

The Court of Final Appeal has no [[original jurisdiction]]; an appeal has to originate from the [[High Court of Hong Kong|High Court]] (either from the [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] or the [[Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)|Court of First Instance]]).

== Court structure ==
=== Judges ===
{{See also|List of judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal}}
The Court of Final Appeal is made up of the [[Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal|Chief Justice]], at least three [[Permanent Judges of the Court of Final Appeal|Permanent Judges]], and at most 30 non-permanent Judges who can come from Hong Kong or any overseas common law jurisdiction. Under the [[Hong Kong Basic Law|Basic Law]], Hong Kong remains a [[common law]] jurisdiction; Article 92 of the Basic Law allows judges from other common law jurisdictions to be recruited and serve in the judiciary as non-permanent judges (NPJs). To date, NPJs appointed to the court have served in the judiciaries of [[England and Wales]], Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and [[Scots Law|Scotland]]. Aside from the Chief Justice, there is no nationality requirement for any of the permanent or non-permanent judges. 

==== Demographics ====
As of 2025, no woman has ever served as Chief Justice or as a permanent judge. [[Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond|Baroness Hale]] and [[Beverley McLachlin|Beverly McLachlin]], who were both appointed as overseas non-permanent judges on 30 July 2018, were the first women to sit on the court. 

Since 1997, a total of 11 individuals have held positions as chief justices or permanent judges. Of these, 8 obtained their law degree in the [[United Kingdom]], including 2 from [[Oxford University]] ([[Henry Litton]] and [[Charles Ching]]) and 1 from [[Cambridge University]] ([[Andrew Li]])). 3 judges graduated from the [[University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law|University of Hong Kong]] ([[Andrew Cheung]], [[Patrick Chan (judge)|Patrick Chan]] and [[Johnson Lam]]). [[Andrew Cheung]] also holds a [[Master of Laws]] from [[Harvard Law School|Harvard University]], making him the only judge with a degree from the [[United States]]. Additionally, 8 judges were previously [[King's Counsel|QCs]] or [[Senior counsel|SCs]]. 

With the exception of [[Henry Litton]], [[Joseph Fok]] and [[Roberto Ribeiro (judge)|Roberto Ribeiro]], who are [[Multiracial people|Eurasian]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-07-08 |title=Where do Eurasians belong in Hong Kong society? |url=https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/hong-kong/article/2154101/beijing-pushes-chinese-identity-hong-kong-where-do |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250402221943/https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/hong-kong/article/2154101/beijing-pushes-chinese-identity-hong-kong-where-do |archive-date=2025-04-02 |access-date=2025-07-13 |website=South China Morning Post |language=en}}</ref> and [[Kemal Bokhary]], who is of Pakistani descent, all permanent judges have been of Chinese ethnicity.

===Judicial assistants===
Since 2009, under the auspices of the then-Chief Justice [[Andrew Li]], [[Law clerk#Hong Kong|judicial assistants]] have been appointed to provide support and assistance to its judges. 

=== Registrar ===
{{Main|Registrar (Hong Kong)}}

There is also a [[Registrar (Hong Kong)|registrar]] attached to the Court of Final Appeal, to help with review of appeal applications and other administrative duties; the registrar is usually recruited from the district court level. The list of registrars is as follows:

# Edward Timothy Starbuck Woolley (1997–1999)
# ''Christopher Chan Cheuk (1999–2000, acting)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Former Registrars – Mr Christopher CHAN Cheuk |url=https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/registrar/former/index_id_47.html |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=www.hkcfa.hk}}</ref>''
# ''Betty Kwan Ka-ching (2000–2002, acting)''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Former Registrars – Ms Betty KWAN Ka-ching |url=https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/registrar/former/index_id_48.html |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=www.hkcfa.hk}}</ref>
# ''Queeny Au-yeung Kwai-yue (2002–2007, acting)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Former Registrars – The Honourable Madam Justice Queeny AU-YEUNG Kwai-yue |url=https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/registrar/former/index_id_49.html |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=www.hkcfa.hk}}</ref>''
# Simon Kwang Cheok-weung (2014–2018; acting from August 2007 to March 2014)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Former Registrars – Mr Simon KWANG Cheok-weung |url=https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/registrar/former/index_id_50.html |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=www.hkcfa.hk}}</ref>
# Wong King-wah (since June 2023; acting from September 2018 to May 2023)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – Current Registrar |url=https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/registrar/current/index.html |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=www.hkcfa.hk}}</ref>

== Procedure ==

=== Permitting an appeal ===
Whether a prospective appellant is permitted to appeal or not is determined by a panel of three Hong Kong judges, usually the Chief Justice and two other permanent judges. Should the Chief Justice or a permanent judge not be available, the other permanent judge or a non-permanent judge from Hong Kong may be called in. Non-permanent judges from other jurisdictions do not sit on such panels.

=== Hearing an appeal ===
All appeal cases are heard by a bench of five judges consisting of the Chief Justice, three permanent judges and a non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction. If the Chief Justice does not sit in an appeal, a permanent judge is designated to sit in the Chief Justice's place, and a non-permanent judge from Hong Kong will sit on the court as well. Similarly, if a permanent judge is unable to sit, a non-permanent Hong Kong judge will sit in place of that permanent judge. Technically, should a non-permanent judge from outside Hong Kong be unable to attend due to extraordinary circumstances (such as during the [[COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong|COVID-19 pandemic]]), two non-permanent Hong Kong judges may sit on the court or, or the overseas judge may sit via video conferencing.

As the role of a non-permanent judge is not a full time role, a serving High Court judge may be appointed as a non-permanent judge concurrently, such as [[Robert Tang (judge)|Vice-President Robert Tang]] and [[Frank Stock|Vice-President Frank Stock]], as they were then known. This is extended only to the most eminent and senior serving High Court justices. There is no mandatory retirement age for a non-permanent judge.

Since the enactment of the National Security Law in 2020, no foreign non-permanent judges has sat during a National Security case, being replaced instead by designated [[Hong Kong national security judges|Hong Kong non-permanent judges]] (not all local non-permanent judges have been designated to sit on NSL cases).  As there is no nationality requirement regarding the judges that are eligible for designation as designated judges, it is remains unclear whether overseas NPJs have not participated because they have not been designated for such cases or because they have declined to do so.<ref name=":4" />

== Current court ==

=== The Cheung Court ===
The Cheung Court began on 11 January 2021, when [[Andrew Cheung]] began his tenure as the 3rd Chief Justice. Currently, 14 justices serve on the Cheung Court, including the Chief Justice, 3 Permanent Judges, and 10 non-permanent judges (6 of whom are from other common law jurisdictions). It is the first court to be led by a Chief Justice who did not receive a legal degree in the United Kingdom; Andrew Cheung received his [[LLB]] from the [[University of Hong Kong]] and the [[Master of Laws|LLM]] from [[Harvard Law School]]. It is also the first court to be led by a Chief Justice who has never taken [[King's Counsel|silk]]. Andrew Cheung has been described as a "conservative", in contrast to his relatively liberal predecessors as Chief Justice.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2021-01-13 |title=Seasoned jurist Cheung steps up as Hong Kong's new chief justice amid political turmoil and pressure from Beijing {{!}} South China Morning Post |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3117124/seasoned-jurist-andrew-cheung-steps-hong-kongs-new-chief |access-date=2024-12-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210113105904/https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3117124/seasoned-jurist-andrew-cheung-steps-hong-kongs-new-chief |archive-date=13 January 2021 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-03-25 |title=Hong Kong's next chief justice Andrew Cheung will have to deal with several cases involving key constitutional disputes {{!}} South China Morning Post |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3076778/hong-kongs-next-chief-justice-andrew-cheung-will-have |access-date=2024-12-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200325012109/https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3076778/hong-kongs-next-chief-justice-andrew-cheung-will-have |archive-date=25 March 2020 }}</ref> Nonetheless, the Cheung court has seen a number of liberal decisions, especially in the field of LGBT rights.

Cheung assumed the role of Chief Justice in the wake of the [[2019–2020 Hong Kong protests]], and immediately following the enactment of the highly controversial [[2020 Hong Kong national security law]].  As a result, Cheung's tenure as Chief Justice has been underlaid by concerns regarding the [[rule of law]] in Hong Kong and the [[Judicial independence|independence]] of Hong Kong's judiciary,<ref name=":3" /> with a record number of overseas non-permanent judges stepping down from the court between 2021 and 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-09-30 |title=UK's Nicholas Phillips steps down as Hong Kong's top court judge |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2024/09/30/uks-nicholas-phillips-steps-down-as-hong-kong-top-court-judge-cites-personal-reasons-for-not-extending/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240930130615/https://hongkongfp.com/2024/09/30/uks-nicholas-phillips-steps-down-as-hong-kong-top-court-judge-cites-personal-reasons-for-not-extending/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=2024-09-30 |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=archive.is}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-20 |title=Hong Kong Chief Executive confirms overseas judges will continue sitting on top court |url=https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/06/hong-kong-chief-executive-confirms-overseas-judges-will-continue-sit-on-top-court/ |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=www.jurist.org |language=en-US}}</ref> Nevertheless, during Cheung's tenure, two overseas non-permanent judges, [[Patrick Keane]] and [[James Allsop]], have joined the CFA, and a number of other overseas non-permanent judges have also renewed their appointments.<ref name="The Guardian">{{cite news |last1=Doherty |first1=Ben |title=Australian judge's speech met by protest over his role in Hong Kong's appeal court |work=The Guardian |date=23 October 2024 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/23/australian-judges-speech-met-by-protest-over-his-role-in-hong-kongs-appeal-court |access-date=8 December 2024}}</ref><ref name="info.gov.hk">{{cite web |title=Term of non-permanent CFA judge extended |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202402/23/P2024022300240.htm#:~:text=The%20Chief%20Executive%20has%20accepted,a%20period%20of%20three%20years |access-date=8 December 2024 |archive-date=15 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241215153616/https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202402/23/P2024022300240.htm#:~:text=The%20Chief%20Executive%20has%20accepted,a%20period%20of%20three%20years |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202305/12/P2023051200407p.htm |access-date=21 December 2024 |title=Terms of non-permanent CFA judges extended }}</ref><ref name="Term of non-permanent CFA judges ex">{{cite web |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202205/06/P2022050600222.htm |access-date=21 December 2024 |title=Term of non-permanent CFA judges extended |archive-date=21 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241221075839/https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202205/06/P2022050600222.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite web |title=Term of non-permanent CFA judge extended |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202501/10/P2025011000251.htm |access-date=2025-01-11 |website=www.info.gov.hk}}</ref> A third non-permanent judge, Sir [[William Young (judge)|William Young]],  joined the CFA in 2025.<ref name=":6" />

==== Permanent members of the court ====
*The Hon. Chief Justice [[Andrew Cheung]] (since January 2021; first appointed Permanent Judge in October 2018)
*The Hon. Mr. Justice [[Roberto Ribeiro (judge)|Roberto Ribeiro]] (since September 2000)
*The Hon. Mr. Justice [[Joseph Fok]] (since October 2013)
*The Hon. Mr. Justice [[Johnson Lam]] (since July 2021)

==== Notable rulings of the court ====
The Cheung Court was the first CFA bench to hear substantive final appeals arising from the [[2020 Hong Kong national security law|2020 National Security Law]]. The Cheung Court have issued landmark decisions on Hong Kong courts' competency to review acts of the national legislature, [[LGBTQ rights in Hong Kong|LGBT rights]], the [[Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance|Bill of Rights]], [[Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region|national security]], the freedom of [[Freedom of speech|expression]] and [[Freedom of assembly|assembly]], the [[freedom of the press]], and [[commercial law]]. Major decisions of the Cheung court include:

* ''[[HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying|HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying]]'' (2021): In a ''[[Per curiam decision|per curiam]]'' decision, the Court displaced the presumption of [[bail]] in [[common law]] and the [[Criminal procedure in Hong Kong|Criminal Procedure Ordinance]], holding that, with regard to national security offences, the NSL carves out a specific exception from the bail regime; the presumption in Article 42(2) of the NSL being that no bail should be granted. [[Judiciary of Hong Kong|Hong Kong courts]] can only consider granting bail if the court finds sufficient grounds to believe that the accused would not continue to commit offences endangering national security.<ref name="Lai Chee Ying">{{cite web |title=HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying (FACC No. 1 of 2021) |url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=133491&currpage=T |access-date=23 February 2022 |website=Legal Reference System |publisher=Judiciary of the HKSAR}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hksar-v-lai-chee-ying/ |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=Global Freedom of Expression |language=en-US}}</ref>
* ''Secretary for Justice v Timothy Wynn Owen KC'' (2021): This was a leave determination of the Appeal Committee of the CFA, which arose in the context of [[Jimmy Lai]]'s trial under the National Security Law and his application to be represented by Tim Owen KC, an English barrister, for which court permission is required in Hong Kong. Ruling in favour of Lai, Chief Justice Cheung together with Ribeiro and Fok PJJ granted ad hoc admission to Owen to represent Lai and rejected the Justice Secretary’s application for leave to appeal the lower courts’ rulings. The Secretary had  challenged the public interest considerations supporting Owen's admission in the lower courts, but later introduced a new argument before the CFA, advocating for a blanket ban on overseas counsel in national security cases. The CFA rejected this new argument, citing the principle that new issues cannot be raised on appeal if they compromise fairness or the court's ability to adjudicate. However, the CFA decision was later controversially overturned by the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China]], exercising its power under Article 158 of the Basic Law. 
* ''Q v. Commissioner of Registration'' (2023): In a unanimous decision jointly written by Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ, the Court held that the government's policy of requiring [[Trans man|trans men]] (female to male transgender persons) to undergo full [[Gender-affirming surgery|sex reassignment surgery]] as a necessary condition for altering gender markers on [[Hong Kong identity card|Hong Kong Identity Cards]] violated [[Right to privacy|Article 14]] of the [[Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance|Bill of Rights]] and was unconstitutional.<ref>{{Cite web |last=tanner |date=2023-02-09 |title=Transgender appellants win appeal in Q, Tse Henry Edward v Commissioner of Registration [2023] HKCFA 4 |url=https://www.tannerdewitt.com/transgender-appellants-win-appeal/ |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=Tanner De Witt Solicitors, Law Firm Hong Kong |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII) |url=https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2023/4 |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=www.hklii.hk |archive-date=19 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241219183405/https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2023/4 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* ''[[Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice|Sham Tsz Kit v. Secretary for Justice]]'' (2023): In a 3–2 decision, the Court ordered the government to establish an [[Civil union|alternative framework]] for the legal recognition of [[same-sex relationship]]s, with equivalent rights and obligations to marriage, within two years of the ruling. However, the court also unanimously held that same-sex couples do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry.
* ''HKSAR v Choy Yuk Ling'' (2023): In an important decision on the [[freedom of the press]], the CFA unanimously quashed the conviction of a journalist, [[Bao Choy]]. Choy was convicted in 2021 for allegedly making false statements in her applications for vehicle registry records, used to investigate the transport of weapons linked to a controversial attack on pro-democracy protestors during the [[2019-2020 Hong Kong protests]]. Her purpose was recorded as “[o]ther traffic and transport related matters,” which lower courts deemed false, stating her true purpose was investigative journalism. Fok PJ held that while the Commissioner for Transport was entitled to require applicants to state their purpose, the phrase “[o]ther traffic and transport related matters” could reasonably include investigative journalism related to a vehicle’s use in a crime — particularly given constitutional protections for press freedom. The Court also found it was not an irresistible inference that the Appellant knowingly made a false statement, as she could have honestly believed her purpose fit within the stated category, and thus allowed Choy's appeal.  The decision was welcomed by the [[International Federation of Journalists]], and described as a "significant ruling for press freedom" by the media.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-06 |title=Hong Kong: Bao Choy wins appeal / IFJ |url=https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/article/hong-kong-bao-choy-wins-appeal |access-date=2025-01-11 |website=www.ifj.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Leung |first=Candice Chau and Hillary |date=2023-06-05 |title=Top Hong Kong court clears journalist convicted over 2019 Yuen Long attack documentary |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2023/06/05/breaking-hong-kong-journalist-bao-choy-wins-top-court-appeal-over-use-of-vehicle-records-for-protest-documentary/ |access-date=2025-01-11 |website=Hong Kong Free Press HKFP |language=en-GB}}</ref>
* ''C v D'' (2023): In a landmark decision on [[arbitration]] law, Chief Justice Cheung, Ribeiro, Fok and Lam PJJ dismissed the appellant's challenge to an arbitral tribunal’s determination that a pre-condition to arbitrate had been satisfied. This case is the first in any Model Law jurisdiction to address at the final appellate level the extent to which courts can intervene under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law regarding pre-arbitration conditions. The Court adopted a distinction between “jurisdiction” (which courts may review) and “admissibility” (which courts cannot), holding that disputes over pre-arbitration conditions are presumptively issues of admissibility unless clear and unequivocal language indicates otherwise. Gummow NPJ dissented, rejecting the jurisdiction/admissibility distinction and arguing that all challenges should be assessed directly under Article 34(2)(a)(iii).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=153528 |publisher=Hong Kong Judiciary |access-date=21 December 2024 |title=Judgment }}</ref>
* ''China Life Trustees v China Energy Reserve and Chemicals Group Overseas'' (2024): the CFA addressed the principles of [[Quistclose trusts]] for the first time, in the context of [[corporate insolvencies]] and restructurings. The case concerned US$120 million injected into SPV1 by the treasury entity of the China Energy Group to repay bonds owed by SPV2. When the funds were not used for this purpose and the Group defaulted, the CFA had to determine if the funds were held on a Quistclose trust. The Court unanimously found that such a trust existed, holding that the parties intended the funds to be used only for a specific purpose and not at SPV1’s free disposal. Ribeiro PJ clarified that an express restriction or intent to retain beneficial interest was unnecessary, while Gummow NPJ cautioned against rigid labels, emphasizing that the Quistclose trust is not a new type of trust. Cheung CJ further distinguished between the parties’ intentions and the legal consequences.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=160690&currpage=T |publisher=Hong Kong Judiciary |title=Judgment |access-date=21 December 2024 |archive-date=10 April 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250410091653/https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=160690&currpage=T |url-status=live }}</ref> 
* ''HKSAR v. [[Chow Hang-tung]]'' (2024): The Court unanimously restored [[Chow Hang-tung|Chow Hang Tung's]] conviction for "[[Public Order Ordinance|incitement to knowingly take part in an unauthorised assembly]]" for her role in the [[32nd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre|2021 June-Fourth vigil]]. However, the Court was split 3–2 on whether Chow could challenge the legality of the police's ban by way of defence.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=James |date=2024-01-25 |title=Top HK court overturns Tiananmen vigil activist's acquittal |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2024/01/25/breaking-top-hong-kong-court-overturns-tiananmen-activist-chow-hang-tungs-acquittal-over-2021-vigil/ |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=Hong Kong Free Press HKFP |language=en-GB}}</ref> Judges Joseph Fok, Roberto Ribeiro, and Anthony Gleeson held that there is a strong presumption in favour of allowing non-constitutional ("collateral") grounds of challenge by way of defence, and it would take very clear words to deprive a defendant of an opportunity to challenge the validity of the prohibition. Constitutional challenges by way of defence would be allowed as long as the constitutionality of the prohibition is an essential element of the offence. However, the prohibition was found to be [[Proportionality (law)|proportionate]], and that section 9(4) of the [[Public Order Ordinance]] did not impose a positive duty on the [[Commissioner of Police (Hong Kong)|Commissioner of Police]] to proactively devise and propose conditions to enable the public assembly to take place.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII) |url=https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2024/2 |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=www.hklii.hk}}</ref>
* ''HKSAR v. Ng Ngoi-yee Margaret'' (2024): In a unanimous decision, the Court dismissed the appeals of 7 prominent [[Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)|democratic]] politicians against their convictions for "knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly" during a [[Timeline of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (August 2019)#18 August rally|protest]] in 2019. In his concurring judgment, Lord Neuberger NPJ agreed with the main judgment's focus on the Hong Kong constitutional framework but noted that the test for proportionality in restricting fundamental rights aligns with the approach adopted by [[Lord Reed]] in the [[UK Supreme Court]] decision Abortion Services [2022] UKSC 32.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hong Kong Legal Information Institute (HKLII) |url=https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2024/24 |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=www.hklii.hk}}</ref> 
* ''Nick Infinger v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority'' (2024): In a unanimous decision penned by Chief Justice Cheung, the Court found that the Housing Authority (HA)'s policy of excluding same-sex couples from access to public rental housing units and the Home Ownership Scheme was unconstitutional. The Chief Justice emphasised that the HA’s policies failed the tests of necessity and proportionality, given that they completely excluded same-sex couples from public housing schemes for ordinary families. The HA provided no evidence that this exclusion would significantly impact housing availability for traditional families or their plans. Moreover, it offered no justification for why less restrictive measures, such as prioritising opposite-sex married couples or those with children while still allowing same-sex couples to apply, could not be adopted.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=164578 |publisher=Hong Kong Judiciary |access-date=21 December 2024 |title=Judgment |archive-date=21 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241221075840/https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp%3FDIS%3D164578 |url-status=live }}</ref> The decision was welcomed by Jerome Yau, co-founder of Hong Kong Marriage Equality, who told the media that “the court made it very clear that same-sex marriage is just the same as heterosexual marriage”. Hong Kong Marriage Equality called on the government to immediately end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-11-26 |title=Hong Kong top court upholds rulings protecting inheritance, housing rights for same-sex couples |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/26/hong-kong-same-sex-marriage-housing-rights-laws |access-date=2025-01-11 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>
* ''HKSAR v. Tang Ngok Kwan, Tsui Hon Kwong, and [[Chow Hang-tung]]'' (2025): The Court unanimously allowed the appeals of the three appellants, who were the organizers of a candlelit vigil for victims of the [[1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre]], and quashed their convictions for failing to comply with notices issued under Schedule 5, Section 3(3) of the Implementation Rules for Article 43 of the National Security Law (NSL). The case centered on whether the appellants, as office-bearers of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China , were lawfully required to provide information to the police under the NSL. The Court cited the use of documents by the prosecution that were “heavily redacted” as a key plank in its decision, noting that the "redactions were not only self-defeating by removing from evidence the only material relied upon for establishing that the [Alliance] were foreign agents, but also made it impossible for the Appellants to have a fair trial as they were deprived of all knowledge as to the nature of the prosecution’s case on an essential element of the offense".

== Controversies ==
=== Article 158 interpretation ===
The controversial power of final interpretation of "national" law including the Basic Law is vested in the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress|Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China]] (NPCSC) by virtue of Article 158 of the Basic Law and by the Constitution of the PRC; however, "national" laws which are not explicitly listed in Annex III of the Basic Law are not operative in Hong Kong. Since 2020, Article 158 interpretations may also be applied to the Hong Kong national security law.<ref name=":1" />

Article 158 delegates such power to the courts of Hong Kong for interpretation while handling court cases. Although this arrangement has attracted criticism of "undermining judicial independence", an interpretation by the NPCSC does not affect any court judgments already rendered. This practice is highly controversial as it contradicts the power of final adjudication; the first time an interpretation occurred in 1999, all five judges (including the Chief Justice, all three permanent justices and one non-permanent justice) involved in the case of ''[[Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration]]'' reportedly considered quitting the top court in protest. The judges ultimately did not quit, as "the justices feared they would be replaced by less independent or competent jurists."<ref>{{Cite web|title=All city's top judges 'considered quitting'|url=https://www.scmp.com/article/978391/all-citys-top-judges-considered-quitting|website=South China Morning Post|date=8 September 2011|access-date=5 March 2020|archive-date=6 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506183447/https://www.scmp.com/article/978391/all-citys-top-judges-considered-quitting|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Central Government of China's power to interpret—in essence overturn—the CFA's rulings has led the CFA to be nicknamed the "Court of Semi-Final Appeal" by people such as former Hong Kong Bar Association chairman [[Martin Lee|Martin Lee KC SC]], veteran activist-investor [[David Webb (Hong Kong activist)|David Webb]], human rights lawyer Mark Daly, as well as the general public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Martin |date=21 May 2000 |title=RTHK "Letter to Hong Kong" |url=http://www.martinlee.org.hk/LettersToHK2000.05.20.htm}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Daly |first=Mark |title=9 – A human rights lawyer's perspective from Part II – The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal |chapter=A human rights lawyer's perspective |year=2013 |pages=207–222 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/CBO9780511894763.012 |isbn=9781107011212 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/hong-kongs-court-of-final-appeal/human-rights-lawyers-perspective/CD533C59005A717E141ABCB4E0417F84 |archive-date=28 January 2023 |access-date=28 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230128062516/https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/hong-kongs-court-of-final-appeal/human-rights-lawyers-perspective/CD533C59005A717E141ABCB4E0417F84 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Webb |first=David |date=16 October 2019 |title=ERO: one judicial review, two judges |url=https://webb-site.com/articles/ERO2.asp |access-date=28 January 2023 |archive-date=28 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230128062518/https://webb-site.com/articles/ERO2.asp |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=9 March 2002 |title=Court undermined by reinterpretation |url=https://www.scmp.com/article/373484/court-undermined-reinterpretation |access-date=28 January 2023 |archive-date=28 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230128062527/https://www.scmp.com/article/373484/court-undermined-reinterpretation |url-status=live }}</ref> The term "Court of Semi-Final Appeal" was first officially referenced to by then-Secretary for Justice [[Elsie Leung]] as far back as 1999.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Leung |first=Elsie |date=18 May 1999 |title=Speech by Secretary for Justice |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/199905/18/0518217.htm |access-date=29 January 2023 |archive-date=29 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230129013925/https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/199905/18/0518217.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

In practice, however, the power of interpretation has been used sparingly: as noted by [[Grenville Cross]], since the Basic Law came into effect in 1997, the Central Government has issued only five interpretations up to 2022—approximately once every five years and five months—and none have involved criminal matters. Since the enactment of the NSL, there has been only one interpretation.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cross |first1=Grenville |title=Court of Final Appeal: Overseas judges must prioritize service over politics |url=https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/585438 |access-date=8 December 2024 |archive-date=7 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241207181639/https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/585438 |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Kemal Bokhary]], a former Permanent Judge (and now Non-Permanent Judge) of the CFA known for his liberal opinions, has remarked: "The very fact that there's an interpretation [from Beijing] shows you that the court is independent. Because if the courts are not independent, then they could just be told quietly behind the scenes what to do, and they would do it. But everybody knows that's not how it works in Hong Kong."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-01-31 |title='City's judges independent despite Beijing's power to interpret Basic Law' |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/2184407/hong-kong-courts-independent-despite-beijings-power |access-date=2025-01-11 |website=South China Morning Post |language=en}}</ref>

Below is a list of Article 158 interpretations to date:

==== Basic Law interpretations ====
* 1999: [[Right of abode in Hong Kong]]
* 2004: Modifying the process of electoral reforms regarding the election of the Hong Kong Chief Executive ([[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45|Basic Law Article 45]] and [[2005 Hong Kong Chief Executive election]])
* 2005: [[2005 Hong Kong Chief Executive election|Dealing with an incomplete term of a Chief Executive]]
* 2011: State immunity and the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts<ref>{{Cite web|title=The decision by the Court of Final Appeal to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress regarding the controversy of state immunity raised in the debt litigation of the Democratic Republic of Congo|url=https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/sec/library/1112fs17-e.pdf|website=LegCo|access-date=16 August 2020|archive-date=19 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210119144153/https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/sec/library/1112fs17-e.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
* 2016: [[Hong Kong Legislative Council oath-taking controversy|Legislative Council oath-taking controversy]]

==== National security law interpretations ====
* 2022: Granting the Chief Executive power to bar foreign lawyers (barristers and solicitors qualified in a jurisdiction outside of Hong Kong, regardless of nationality) from [[2020 Hong Kong national security law|Hong Kong national security law]] cases ([[Jimmy Lai]]'s hiring of [[Tim Owen (barrister)|Tim Owen KC]]); first interpretation of the Hong Kong national security law and first interpretation relating to foreign lawyers.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Chau |first=Candice |date=8 January 2023 |title=Explainer: Beijing's first interpretation of Hong Kong's national security law |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2023/01/08/explainer-beijings-first-interpretation-of-hong-kongs-national-security-law/ |website=Hong Kong Free Press}}</ref>

=== Kemal Bokhary replacement ===
In 2012, Permanent Judge [[Kemal Bokhary]]—known as a leading liberal and dissenting voice on the Court—did not have his tenure extended past the mandated retirement age of 65. His replacement, however, was then-already 65-year-old [[Robert Tang (judge)|Robert Tang]], who was even older than Bokhary but was seen as more conservative; this appointment was described as a "surprise" by the SCMP.<ref name=":2" /> Bokhary himself has said that he believes his tenure was not extended due to his "liberal judgments".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=Ng|first=Kang Chung|date=5 November 2012|title=Former judge Bokhary: 'I was ousted for being too liberal'|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1075186/former-judge-bokhary-i-was-ousted-being-too-liberal|url-status=live|website=South China Morning Post|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161030000732/http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1075186/former-judge-bokhary-i-was-ousted-being-too-liberal |archive-date=30 October 2016 }}</ref>

=== Hong Kong National Security Law ===

==== Designated national security law judges (2020) ====
Overseas non-permanent judges have so far not taken part in full hearings of national security cases brought before the CFA. This was first evidenced in ''[[HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying]]'', where two local non-permanent judges (Stock NPJ and Chan NPJ) sat instead of the usual combination involving one overseas NPJ. Although Chief Justice Andrew Cheung has clarified that there is "no nationality requirement regarding the judges that are eligible for designation as designated judges" and that foreign judges are allowed to hear national security cases, British non-permanent judges on the CFA have come under increasing pressure to refrain from participating. [[The Times]] reported that Cheung’s remarks "will ratchet up pressure on the eight British judges to quit their positions on the court." It is unclear, however, whether overseas NPJs have not participated because they have not been designated for such cases or because they have declined to do so.<ref name=":4">{{cite web |last1=Ames |first1=Jonathan |title=British judges ready to enforce national security law in Hong Kong |date=2 February 2022 |url=https://www.thetimes.com/article/british-judges-required-to-hear-cases-under-hong-kong-security-law-7mlg6d6pm |access-date=8 December 2024 |archive-date=11 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241211070255/https://www.thetimes.com/article/british-judges-required-to-hear-cases-under-hong-kong-security-law-7mlg6d6pm |url-status=live }}</ref> 

On the question of whether overseas non-permanent judges should participate in national security cases, former Australian Chief Justice and CFA non-permanent judge [[Anthony Mason (judge)|Sir Anthony Mason]] noted in an interview with [[Ming Pao]] that judges are obligated to apply the law as long as it remains valid, even if they consider it harsh or a threat to human rights. He acknowledged that such participation may be seen by outsiders as endorsing an oppressive system, and for this reason, he believes overseas judges should not be assigned to national security cases. However, Mason emphasised that the decision to remain on the court is ultimately a personal one, and he expects that those who choose to stay will continue to uphold the rule of law and demonstrate independence and impartiality.<ref>{{Cite web |last=《追新聞》記者 |date=2024-06-19 |title=海外法官｜99歲梅師賢稱岑耀信「高度受人尊重」 強烈不接納對其人格批評 |url=https://thechasernews.co.uk/%e6%b5%b7%e5%a4%96%e6%b3%95%e5%ae%98%ef%bd%9c99%e6%ad%b2%e6%a2%85%e5%b8%ab%e8%b3%a2%e7%a8%b1%e5%b2%91%e8%80%80%e4%bf%a1%e9%ab%98%e5%ba%a6%e5%8f%97%e4%ba%ba%e5%b0%8a%e9%87%8d/ |access-date=2025-09-06 |website=追新聞 |language=zh-TW}}</ref>

Among local judges, as of 2024, two non-permanent justices (Bokhary NPJ and Tang NPJ) have still not sat in on any national security law cases. Again, it is unclear whether this is because they have not been designated, or simply have not been scheduled to sit in on a national security case. It is noteworthy that Stock NPJ has participated in national security cases, despite not being of Chinese ethnicity.

==== Resignation of non-permanent judges (since 2020) ====
No non-permanent judge from overseas jurisdictions had ever quit the Court mid-term before the enactment of the National Security Law. In September 2020, then-non-permanent judge [[James Spigelman]] resigned in response to China's controversial [[2020 Hong Kong national security law|National Security Law]] being imposed on Hong Kong, but Spigelman did not elaborate further.<ref>{{Cite web|date=18 September 2020|title=Australian judge quits Hong Kong court, citing national security law|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-security-judges-idUSKBN26912R|url-status=live|work=Reuters|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200918172022/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-security-judges-idUSKBN26912R |archive-date=18 September 2020 }}</ref> In March 2022, both Lord Reed and Lord Hodge resigned as non-permanent judges, citing the National Security Law leading to the judges being unable to "continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression, to which the Justices of the Supreme Court are deeply committed", whilst emphasising at the same time that "[t]he courts in Hong Kong continue to be internationally respected for their commitment to the rule of law".<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=30 March 2022 |title=Role of UK Supreme Court judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – update |url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/role-of-uk-judges-on-the-hong-kong-court-of-final-appeal-update-march-2022.html |access-date=30 March 2022 |archive-date=30 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220330081819/https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/role-of-uk-judges-on-the-hong-kong-court-of-final-appeal-update-march-2022.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Role of UK Supreme Court judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – update |url=https://supremecourt.uk/news/role-of-uk-supreme-court-judges-on-the-hong-kong-court-of-final-appeal-update |access-date=8 December 2024 |archive-date=11 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241211064426/https://supremecourt.uk/news/role-of-uk-supreme-court-judges-on-the-hong-kong-court-of-final-appeal-update |url-status=live }}</ref>

In November 2022, Lady Hale—who had refused to renew her tenure on the Court in 2020—suggested that British judges should leave the CFA, stating, "...there's going to come a stage where [British judges] are asked to apply and enforce unacceptable laws, and some of us might think that that stage has already come."<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 November 2022 |title=Lady Hale suggests 'time has come' for British judges to leave Hong Kong court |url=https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/lady-hale-suggest-time-has-come-for-british-judges-to-leave-hong-kong-court |website=Scottish Legal News |access-date=17 November 2022 |archive-date=17 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221117232903/https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/lady-hale-suggest-time-has-come-for-british-judges-to-leave-hong-kong-court |url-status=live }}</ref>

In June 2024, Lord Sumption and Lord Collins resigned as non-permanent judges, with Lord Collins stating that it was "because of the political situation", but that he "continue[d] to have the fullest confidence in the court and the total independence of its members".<ref name=":66">{{Cite news |title=Former top UK judges resign from Hong Kong court amid China crackdown |url=https://www.ft.com/content/13532927-cbed-4daa-9e6a-18dd48df2688 |access-date=2024-06-07 |website=Financial Times |date=6 June 2024 |last1=Ho-Him |first1=Chan |last2=Ring |first2=Suzi |archive-date=7 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240607022357/https://www.ft.com/content/13532927-cbed-4daa-9e6a-18dd48df2688 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Grundy |first=Tom |date=6 June 2024 |title=Two UK judges quit Hong Kong's top court |url=http://hongkongfp.com/2024/06/06/breaking-two-uk-judges-quit-hong-kongs-top-court-as-lord-collins-cites-political-situation/ |access-date=2024-06-07 |website=Hong Kong Free Press |language=en-GB}}</ref> Sumption more explicitly stated that Hong Kong was "slowly becoming a totalitarian state".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Grundy |first=Tom |date=10 June 2024 |title=Lord Sumption: Hong Kong 'slowly becoming a totalitarian state,' says UK judge who quit city's top court |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2024/06/10/lord-sumption-hong-kong-slowly-becoming-a-totalitarian-state-says-top-uk-judge-who-quit-citys-top-court/ |access-date=2024-06-15 |website=Hong Kong Free Press |language=en-GB}}</ref> In response to these resignations, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam SC downplayed the importance of non-permanent judges, said that, "... the credit for the fact that Hong Kong has a high level of rule of law largely goes to our local judges; it is not the case that losing a few non-permanent judges will deal a heavy blow to our rule of law."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tse |first=Hans |date=20 June 2024 |title=Hong Kong's rule of law hinges on local rather than foreign judges, justice chief Paul Lam says |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2024/06/20/hong-kongs-rule-of-law-hinges-on-local-rather-than-foreign-judges-justice-chief-paul-lam-says/ |website=Hong Kong Free Press}}</ref> Lord Sumption then further reiterated that his remarks were not said lightly, and also stated, “I have no desire to engage in a slanging match with the Chief Executive [John Lee], and certainly not with the Chief Justice [Andrew Cheung], for whom I have the greatest respect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Dippy |title=Hong Kong judge drama continues to unfold |date=11 June 2024 |url=https://www.cdr-news.com/categories/litigation/20831-hong-kong-judge-drama-continues-to-unfold |access-date=19 September 2024 |archive-date=19 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240919154758/https://www.cdr-news.com/categories/litigation/20831-hong-kong-judge-drama-continues-to-unfold |url-status=live }}</ref>

In March 2025, former Australian Chief Justice [[Robert French]] resigned as a non-permanent judge, one year before his term was due to expire in May 2026. French stated that the role of foreign judges had "become increasingly anachronistic and arguably cosmetic" amid the evolving legal and political environment following Beijing's national security crackdown. He maintained respect for the Hong Kong judiciary, endorsing their "integrity and independence" and rejecting claims that overseas judges were complicit in applying national security laws or lent them legitimacy. The Hong Kong government expressed regret at his resignation, thanking him for his contributions while asserting that the judicial system's integrity and the rule of law remained intact.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Visentin |first=Lisa |title='Arguably cosmetic': Top Australian judge Robert French quits Hong Kong court |url=https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/top-australian-judge-robert-french-quits-hong-kong-court-20250411-p5lr6z.html |access-date=2025-04-12 |website=Sydney Morning Herald |date=11 April 2025 |archive-date=12 April 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250412032135/https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/top-australian-judge-robert-french-quits-hong-kong-court-20250411-p5lr6z.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

On the other hand, since the enactment of the National Security Law, Australian judges [[Patrick Keane]] and [[James Allsop]] have joined the CFA as non-permanent judges (on 6 April 2023 and 24 May 2024 respectively). When questioned on his decision to join, Keane acknowledged that several NPJs had quit their positions over the past years, but noted that 'given how successful the court has been in its role in upholding the rule of law, one should be very slow indeed to decline the opportunity to serve on such a successful court'. Describing the CFA as having a long history as 'a very successful institution that’s made an important contribution to the success of Hong Kong', he added that '[o]ne has to be very careful about declining to do good work because one has an apprehension that one might be asked to do bad work'.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hurst |first=Daniel |last2=affairs |first2=Daniel Hurst Foreign |last3=correspondent |first3=defence |date=2023-01-17 |title=Australian justice appointed to Hong Kong court argues foreign judges shouldn't 'vacate the field' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/17/australian-justice-appointed-to-hong-kong-court-argues-foreign-judges-shouldnt-vacate-the-field |access-date=2025-05-08 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Echoing these remarks, former Chief Justice of Canada [[Beverley McLachlin]] stated in 2023 that the '[CFA] is doing a terrific job of helping maintain rights for people, insofar as the law permits it, in Hong Kong. Which is as much as our courts do', and rejected calls for her to resign from the CFA (she eventually retired from the Court in July 2024).<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-12-15 |title=Canada's Beverley McLachlin resists calls to leave Hong Kong court ahead of Jimmy Lai trial |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadas-beverley-mclachlin-defends-role-in-hong-kong-court-system/ |access-date=2025-05-08 |work=The Globe and Mail |language=en-CA |archive-date=19 January 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250119131308/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadas-beverley-mclachlin-defends-role-in-hong-kong-court-system/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In addition, former [[UK Supreme Court|UK Supreme Court President]] [[Lord Neuberger]] (who first joined on 1 March 2009) renewed his appointment in February 2024, maintaining that he still believed Hong Kong’s judiciary was independent, and its legal profession “thriving and able”.<ref name="The Guardian"/><ref name="info.gov.hk"/> Likewise, Justice [[William Gummow]] renewed his appointment in July 2022.<ref name="Term of non-permanent CFA judges ex"/> On 10 January 2025, [[Lord Hoffmann]] (who has been a member of the CFA since 1998) extended his term for another three years, just days after delivering a CFA judgment concerning the [[limitation period]] for [[fiduciaries]] and unauthorised profits.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Judgment |url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=165250&currpage=T |access-date=2025-01-11 |website=legalref.judiciary.hk}}</ref>

On 8 May 2025, the Hong Kong Government announced that Sir [[William Young (judge)|William Young]], a former judge of the [[Supreme Court of New Zealand]], would join the CFA as a non-permanent judge after receiving the endorsement of the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong]].<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |title=Appointment of non-permanent judge from another common law jurisdiction of Court of Final Appeal |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202505/08/P2025050800594.htm |access-date=2025-05-08 |website=www.info.gov.hk}}</ref>

==== Overseas counsel for national security defendants (2023) ====
On 28 November 2022, the CFA – composed of Chief Justice [[Andrew Cheung]], and permanent judges [[Robert Ribeiro]] and [[Joseph Fok]] – granted ad hoc admission to [[Tim Owen (barrister)|Tim Owen KC]] to defend [[Jimmy Lai]] at his trial on charges contrary to the National Security Law, and rejected the Hong Kong Justice Secretary's leave application to appeal the ruling of the lower courts on this.

Within hours of the CFA's decision, chief executive John Lee announced that the Government would seek an interpretation under Article 158 to overturn the CFA's decision (as well as overturning the decisions by the Chief Judge and the Court of Appeal). This was roundly condemned by legal pundits, including [[Elsie Leung]] and [[Lord Pannick|Lord Pannick KC]]. Even before the interpretation, the Immigration Department withheld Owen's work visa, contrary to what the CFA had ruled.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 December 2022 |title=Media tycoon Jimmy Lai's trial adjourned to Dec 13, Hong Kong Immigration withholds visa extension for his lawyer |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2022/12/01/media-tycoon-jimmy-lais-trial-adjourned-to-dec-13-hong-kong-immigration-withholds-visa-extension-for-his-lawyer/ |website=HKFP}}</ref> This decision was criticized by leading barrister [[David Pannick, Baron Pannick|Lord Pannick KC]], who frequently represents the Hong Kong Government in court, and also questioned by Jonathan Kaplan KC, another British King's Counsel who frequently appears in Hong Kong courts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pannick |first=David |date=5 December 2022 |title=Hong Kong media trial is crunch time for its rule of law |url=https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/hong-kong-media-trial-is-crunch-time-for-its-rule-of-law-dzjb25wx9 |website=[[The Times]] |access-date=2 April 2025 |archive-date=5 April 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250405033322/https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/hong-kong-media-trial-is-crunch-time-for-its-rule-of-law-dzjb25wx9 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 May 2023 |title=修例通過 外狀打國安案須特首批 或涉複雜案件審批不設時限 有議員促說明準則制衡權力 |url=https://news.mingpao.com/pns/%e6%b8%af%e8%81%9e/article/20230511/s00002/1683742622070/%e4%bf%ae%e4%be%8b%e9%80%9a%e9%81%8e-%e5%a4%96%e7%8b%80%e6%89%93%e5%9c%8b%e5%ae%89%e6%a1%88%e9%a0%88%e7%89%b9%e9%a6%96%e6%89%b9-%e6%88%96%e6%b6%89%e8%a4%87%e9%9b%9c%e6%a1%88%e4%bb%b6%e5%af%a9%e6%89%b9%e4%b8%8d%e8%a8%ad%e6%99%82%e9%99%90-%e6%9c%89%e8%ad%b0%e5%93%a1%e4%bf%83%e8%aa%aa%e6%98%8e%e6%ba%96%e5%89%87%e5%88%b6%e8%a1%a1%e6%ac%8a%e5%8a%9b |website=Ming Pao}}</ref>

Ultimately, Owen was replaced by Marc Corlett KC, a New Zealand King's Counsel but who had gained admission to the Hong Kong bar in 2020. Corlett was widely seen as a "like-for-like" replacement for Owen, and showed that overseas specialist lawyers would need to be admitted full-time to the Hong Kong bar before being allowed to participate in national security trials.<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 December 2023 |title=Hong Kong tycoon Jimmy Lai's legal team joined by 'specialist' New Zealand lawyer seen as replacement for barred Briton Timothy Owen |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3245665/hong-kong-tycoon-jimmy-lais-legal-team-joined-specialist-new-zealand-lawyer-seen-replacement-barred |website=South China Morning Post |access-date=12 March 2024 |archive-date=20 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231220004311/https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3245665/hong-kong-tycoon-jimmy-lais-legal-team-joined-specialist-new-zealand-lawyer-seen-replacement-barred |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Proposed United States sanctions on Hong Kong judges (2023) ====
The United States [[Congressional-Executive Commission on China]] (CECC) released a report on 12 May 2023 suggesting sanctions be placed on 29 hand-picked [[Hong Kong national security judges]] (which includes the Chief Justice and 3 Permanent Judges), saying, "As participants in this system, judges appointed to handle national security cases contribute to these systemic violations."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pang |first=Jessie |date=12 May 2023 |title=China condemns U.S. report calling for sanctions against Hong Kong security judges |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/china-condemns-us-report-calling-sanctions-against-hong-kong-security-judges-2023-05-12/ |work=Reuters |access-date=13 May 2023 |archive-date=13 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230513031735/https://www.reuters.com/world/china-condemns-us-report-calling-sanctions-against-hong-kong-security-judges-2023-05-12/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

This suggestion was rejected by both the [[Hong Kong Bar Association]] and the judiciary, stressing that, "...there is no basis at all to call into question the integrity and independence of Hong Kong judges, whose selection, appointment and discharge of their constitutional role and duties are, and must remain, free from any political considerations and interference."<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 May 2023 |title=Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association Response to the US Congressional-Executive Commission Staff Research Report May 2023 calling for sanctions on Hong Kong Judges |url=https://www.hkba.org/uploads/662a4c48-4f27-4c95-bf8e-0ba602f9957a.pdf |website=HKBA |access-date=18 June 2023 |archive-date=28 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230528023112/https://hkba.org/uploads/662a4c48-4f27-4c95-bf8e-0ba602f9957a.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=12 May 2023 |title=Judiciary responds to media enquiries |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202305/12/P2023051200565.htm}}</ref>

[[Lord Sumption]] criticised the proposal to sanction Hong Kong judges as "an idea that is crude, counterproductive and unjust", adding that "[m]ost of them are honourable people with all the liberal instincts of the common law".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Sumption |first1=Jonathan |title=The rule of law in Hong Kong is in grave danger |work=Financial Times |date=10 June 2024 |url=https://www.ft.com/content/60c825be-b70a-4152-895f-f6127974570a |publisher=Financial Times |access-date=7 December 2024 |archive-date=12 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240612023733/https://www.ft.com/content/60c825be-b70a-4152-895f-f6127974570a |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Grenville Cross]] also condemned the move, pointing out that the [[World Justice Project]]’s Rule of Law Index 2023 ranked Hong Kong 23rd globally, ahead of the United States, which was ranked 26th.  He further noted that foreign non-permanent judges — including those who have left the Court, such as [[Lord Sumption]], [[Baron Collins of Mapesbury|Lord Collins]], and [[Beverley McLachlin]] — have consistently defended the independence and integrity of the local judges of the Court of Final Appeal.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cross |first1=Grenville |title=Court of Final Appeal: Overseas judges must prioritize service over politics |url=https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/359698 |access-date=7 December 2024 |archive-date=8 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241208053012/https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/359698 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Cross |first1=Grenville |title=WJP Rule of Law Index 2023: Empirical research validates HK judiciary |url=https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/359698 |access-date=7 December 2024 |archive-date=8 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241208053012/https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/359698 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Maria Yuen nomination saga ===
In June 2021, Justice of Appeal [[Maria Yuen]] was recommended for appointment as a permanent judge by the [[Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission]].  However the promotion was rejected by pro-Beijing legislators. The legislators, who by protocol accept the recommendations of the commission, reportedly claimed that she might be influenced by her husband, former Chief Justice [[Geoffrey Ma]], whose defence of Hong Kong's judicial independence they considered unpatriotic.<ref>Hong Kong pro-Beijing legislators intervene in judicial appointment, ''[[Financial Times]]'', by Primrose Riordan, 23 June 2021</ref>

[[Johannes Chan]] SC (Hon) said that this was "...a very bad and worrying development for the independence of the judiciary. It provides a channel for political influence in the appointment of key judicial personnel by a [legislature] which is dominated by pro-Beijing politicians."<ref>{{Cite web |date=23 June 2021 |title=Pro-Beijing lawmakers intervene in judiciary appointment |url=https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/175257/Pro-Beijing-lawmakers-intervene-in- |website=The Standard HK}}</ref> Whilst the blocking of top judicial appointments is commonplace in the United States — there have been 37 [[unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States]] to date — it is extremely rare in Hong Kong, where judicial appointments are usually approved by the legislature without contention.  It is also rare in the United Kingdom where the [[Lord Chancellor]] (formerly both a [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom|Cabinet]] minister and head of the judiciary at the same time) historically had direct influence over judicial appointments, often by informally selecting candidates ('tapping their shoulders') and then recommending them for full-time appointment by the monarch.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sumption |first=Jonathan |date=15 November 2012 |title=Home Truths about Judicial Diversity |url=https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_121115_lord_sumption_6c72878d14.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Heward |first=Edmund |title=Lord Denning: A Biography |publisher=George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Limited |year=1990 |isbn= |publication-date=1990 |pages=33}}</ref>

== Building ==
From its inception in July 1997 until September 2015, the court was located in the [[Former French Mission Building]], in [[Central, Hong Kong|Central]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Finance Committee – Public Works Subcommittee (Papers) 8 Nov 95 |url=http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr95-96/english/fc/pwsc/papers/pw081158.htm |access-date=20 June 2015 |publisher=Government of Hong Kong}}</ref> In September 2015, the court relocated to the former (until 2011) [[Court of Final Appeal Building|Legislative Council Building]], which was originally the colonial [[Supreme Court (Hong Kong)|Supreme Court]] (1912–1985).

=== List of buildings used ===
* [[Former French Mission Building]] (1 July 1997 – 6 September 2015)
* [[Court of Final Appeal Building]] (since 7 September 2015)

=== Image gallery ===
<gallery mode="packed" heights="130">
File:Court of Final Appeal (HK).jpg|The Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong was housed in the [[Former French Mission Building]] until September 2015
File:Court of Final Appeal.jpg|Entrance of the [[Former French Mission Building]]
File:Court of Final Appeal Building.jpg|The Court of Final Appeal Building from Prince's Building
File:泰美斯女神像.JPG| Statue of [[Themis]], the goddess of justice, standing on the building of the Court of Final Appeal
File:三角楣飾.JPG | Statues of Althea, the god of truth, and Klementina, the god of mercy
File:Legislative Council building.JPG|The Court of Final Appeal has been based at 8 Jackson Road since 7 September 2015; the building is the former home of the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong]] and the [[Supreme Court of Hong Kong]]
File:Court of Final Appeal at night.jpg|Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal building at night from Prince's Building
File:Court of Final Appeal plaque.jpg|Plaque beside the entrance of the Court of Final Appeal
</gallery>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Hong Kong|Law}}
* [[Law of Hong Kong]]
* [[Judiciary of Hong Kong]]
* [[List of judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal]]
**[[Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal]]
**[[Permanent Judges of the Court of Final Appeal]]
*[[Hong Kong High Court]]
**[[Chief Judge of the High Court of Hong Kong]]
*[[Supreme Court of Hong Kong]]

== Notes ==
{{Notelist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commons category|Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)}}
{{wikisource|Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance}}
* [http://www.hkcfa.hk/en/home/index.html Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal]
{{Judiciary of Hong Kong}}
{{Asia topic | Supreme Court of |title = Supreme Courts of Asia }}{{Justices of the Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)|state=collapsed}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Court Of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)}}
[[Category:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)| ]]
[[Category:Subnational supreme courts|Hong Kong]]
[[Category:Government Hill]]
[[Category:1997 establishments in Hong Kong]]
[[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1997]]