A former chief justice on the U.K. Supreme Court, Lord David Neuberger, has legal credentials that are nominally impeccable. Sadly, Neuberger has decided that the patronage of the Chinese Communist Party is more important than protecting basic human rights.
In 2023, Neuberger co-wrote an argument for media freedom warning that read, "If the media are silenced and journalists are muzzled, a key pillar of a functioning democracy is crushed. It means that an institution which is vital to a free society, which seeks to ensure accountability, to highlight injustices, to inform the public about matters in their interest, and to serve as a conduit between the people and their representatives, is neutralized. The loss of a free, independent media is essentially the loss of democracy."
Coming from him, these words now make a mockery of any who read them.
After all, on Monday, Neuberger joined judges on the Hong Kong final court of appeal in rejecting an appeal by the pro-democracy publisher Jimmy Lai and others against their convictions for participation in a pro-democracy protest. Their "unauthorized" protest occurred at a site in Hong Kong strongly associated with the pro-democracy movement. Neuberger's supporting opinion for the court offered sublime kowtowing to Beijing. He declared that the appeal had been "fully and impressively considered," adding that Hong Kong authorities' restriction of the protest and ensuing prosecutions were entirely proportionate.
The facts of this case are clear: Jimmy Lai and others engaged in a peaceful protest against unambiguous repression by the CCP. That repression represents a manifest breach of basic human rights and of the Sino-British treaty, which commits China to upholding Hong Kong's democratic rule of law until at least 2047. China wanted Lai and his fellow protesters in prison for a simple reason: because they protested in favor of China keeping its treaty word, which meant they thus undermined Chinese President Xi Jinping's campaign of repression.
Perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that Neuberger is so natural an ally to Xi. In 2011, the then-Supreme Court chief justice railed against "totally out of control" free speech on the internet. Neuberger is a natural ally to the European authoritarians who are now trying to trample on Americans' First Amendment rights .
Yet while Neuberger has been prostituting himself under the CCP banner for at least ten years, his latest decision stands apart in its ignominy. While China's repression of Hong Kong has been undeniable for years, the key human rights cases such as Lai's coming before the courts now make that repression blindingly obvious to all but the most-devoted/best-paid Communist Party servants. Underlining as much, two other former U.K. Supreme Court justices resigned from the city's final court of appeals this June. One of those judges, Jonathan Sumption, explained that China was "slowly becoming a totalitarian state" and that the delivery of effective justice in Hong Kong was prohibited by a "impossible political environment created by China."
That better example shows Neuberger's decision for what it is. Namely, a great stain not just on the judge himself but on the U.K. Supreme Court and that nation's judiciary at large.
Still, it is at least a very British stain. In an absurd twist of hypocrisy the likes of which even the famed satirical U.K. television show Monty Python would struggle to invent, Neuberger also chaired the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom until Wednesday (after his Lai decision was made). You read that right. Neuberger led an organization that is supposedly dedicated to protecting journalists from state repression. But for this chairman, money comes before the most sacred of all principles underpinning democratic common law: the protection of the innocent person against the injustices of the state.
Why such a blatant betrayal of the most basic human rights?
Well, the last British governor of Hong Kong, Lord Chris Patten, questioned whether it might be that "perhaps some of [Neuberger's] views on the law changed between the first-class waiting room at Heathrow and the arrival terminal of Hong Kong international airport." This is a reference to the $51,300 a month, first-class flights, and five-star accommodation received by foreign judges for service in Hong Kong. And it's not hard to see why Neuberger would enjoy that experience. Both British Airways and Cathay Pacific offer luxurious first-class experiences on the London-Hong Kong route.
Video reviews posted online show that at British Airways's exclusive Concorde Lounge at London's Heathrow Airport, Neuberger could enjoy starters such as the Smoked chalk stream trout, Avruga caviar, creme fraiche, and sorrel. He could revel in main courses including Chicken Milanese with truffle emulsion and a fried egg. The finest offerings of wine and champagne are also available. Similar culinary extravagances are available in-flight, including three-course meals (Amuse-bouche included). Cathay Pacific's lounge at Heathrow is similarly impressive. Its in-flight Hong Kong service offers options such as caviar with traditional accouterments and slow-cooked lamb with rosemary jus.
Impressive offerings, yes. But considering the dining and establishment patronage available to a former U.K. Supreme Court justice living in London, Neuberger's soul clearly comes cheap.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Neuberger has the right to sell his soul. But the U.K. political establishment shows its excess deference to Beijing by tolerating his betrayal of the Magna Carta and its ensuing legal tradition.
Neuberger should be stripped of his Privy Council membership and instead left to gaze upon his Gold Bauhinia Star. He has most certainly earned that highest of honors from the CCP outpost of Hong Kong.
Note: this article previously stated that Neuberger was actively serving as the chairman of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom. He resigned from that position on Wednesday. The article has been updated to reflect this.
Most Popular
Comments / 0