On July 1, 2022, when President Xi Jinping visited Hong Kong for the inaugural ceremony of the sixth-term government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, he reviewed the city’s progress on the 25th anniversary of its return to the motherland. He said that, with the motherland’s support and the efforts of the region’s government and people, “the practice of ‘one country, two systems’ has achieved success in Hong Kong, recognized by all”.

It was, moreover, exactly two years since the enactment of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), and Xi emphasized that it was “providing the institutions and norms for upholding national security in the Hong Kong SAR”. Over three years later, his message can be better appreciated, with the NSL having been successfully integrated into the legal system since its enactment in 2020.

It has become apparent that preexisting institutions, including the Judiciary, and those created by the NSL, including the Committee for Safeguarding National Security of the HKSAR, have all played their part by bedding-in the NSL. They have also helped to restore normality after a failed insurrection, the memories of which remain raw.      

In 2019-20, there was a concerted effort by anti-China forces to wreck the “one country, two systems” policy. The black-clad mobs made no secret of their secessionist objectives or their contempt for the rule of law. They brought mayhem to the streets, destroyed public facilities, attacked banks and private businesses, terrorized people from other parts of China, firebombed the police, and attacked anybody who objected to their depredations. Although the authorities did their best, they lacked the essential tools the NSL subsequently provided.

Throughout the insurrection, the culprits were encouraged by China-hostile forces, notably the Five Eyes partners, who portrayed them as freedom fighters and pro-democracy activists. Although they imagined China would be undermined if the mobs wrecked Hong Kong, they reckoned without the NSL.

It criminalized collusion with foreign countries to endanger national security, secession, subversion, and terrorist activities, and thereby saved Hong Kong’s bacon.     

The Five Eyes reacted furiously to the NSL’s enactment. They tried to harm Hong Kong by sanctioning its officials, revoking trading preferences and issuing travel advisories. Even now, they give the false impression that thousands of people have lost their liberty as a result, despite the NSL having been applied with restraint throughout.

Between July 1, 2020 and May 1, 2025, 185 people and five companies were prosecuted for offenses in connection with endangering national security. Of those, approximately 170 people and one company have finished court proceedings, with most convicted. These figures are small and belie Western propaganda. 

Moreover, the conviction rate of over 95 percent in national security trials shows that great care is being taken by the police when investigating cases. And prosecutors are only authorizing prosecutions in the most meritorious cases. In Hong Kong, the judges convict defendants only if guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction rate shows the strength of the cases they have tried.

As the NSL contains new procedures, there were concerns over how they could be integrated into Hong Kong’s common law system. However, the judges have skillfully interpreted the NSL in ways that are logical and understandable. At an early stage, they made clear they had no power to hold any part of the NSL to be unconstitutional or invalid because of any alleged incompatibility with either Hong Kong’s Basic Law or the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

Because of the NSL and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (2024), the “one country, two systems” policy is now fully protected, and Hong Kong can support national development from a secure base. This should be applauded by everybody who wants Hong Kong to succeed, and to play a global role

When interpreting the NSL, the courts have always respected the rights of criminal suspects. Whereas the NSL is human rights heavy, national security laws in the United Kingdom and elsewhere are silent on the human rights of defendants.

At the outset, the NSL stipulates that “Human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security,” and that “the principle of the rule of law shall be adhered to” in national security cases. It also provides that the fair trial guarantees embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be observed, together with the presumption of innocence and the right of defense.

If the prosecuting authorities were to disregard those guarantees, the courts are empowered to stay the proceedings if they conclude a fair trial is no longer possible (which has not happened in any national security trial to date).

Indeed, the Judiciary has always asserted its independence, whether or not a case involves national security. Whereas attempts have been made elsewhere to threaten the city’s judges and force them to resign, they have continued to administer justice without fear or favor. Although several overseas nonpermanent judges (NPJs) in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) resigned, the legal system has no need for faint hearts, and Hong Kong is better off without them.

In any event, the quitters are replaceable, and it is quality that counts. Since 2023, three eminent jurists have joined the CFA as NPJs: two from Australia (Patrick Keane and James Allsop) and one from New Zealand (William Young). They have enlisted with their eyes wide open, and have complemented other outstanding NPJs. They include the UK’s Lords Hoffmann and Neuberger and Australia’s William Gummow, who take their oaths of office seriously, and have refused to be pushed around by bullyboys.

On Oct 23, 2024, moreover, the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index was published, and it confirmed the independence of Hong Kong’s Judiciary, four years and four months after the NSL’s introduction. In its category, “Criminal justice is impartial”, which measures whether the criminal judges and the police are impartial and whether they discriminate, Hong Kong ranked 23rd out of the 142 countries and jurisdictions surveyed. By contrast, the UK lagged well behind at 39th, while all the United States could muster was a lamentable 101st ranking.

These findings should not surprise anybody who knows how criminal justice works in Hong Kong. On Jan 20, 2025, the chief justice, Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, explained that the courts are not “an extension of prosecution authority”, and the system is “built on legal principles, judicial precedents, and a robust structure that will continue to function”. It was undoubtedly with this in mind that the three antipodean judges decided to join the CFA.   

Although the NSL introduced a new sentencing regime for national security offenses, the CFA has rationalized its provisions. Whereas the customary practice in Hong Kong is for the legislature to fix a maximum sentence for an offense and then leave it to the trial courts to decide whether the sentence should be high or low, depending on the circumstances, the NSL stipulates precise sentencing bands.

For example, in relation to subversion, a principal offender who commits a grave offense faces from 10 years to life imprisonment, an active participant faces three to 10 years imprisonment, and a minor figure faces up to three years imprisonment. This approach is new, but the CFA has explained how it should operate. It indicated what the impact of mitigating factors should be on the sentence, and the circumstances in which an offender’s culpability can move his situation from one sentencing band to another.

When sentencing national security offenders, the trial courts have displayed realism. For example, after 45 anti-China activists were convicted of conspiring to commit subversion by gaining control of the Legislative Council and then using it to wreck the political system and provoke a confrontation with Beijing, they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from four years two months to 10 years. This showed that severe punishment awaits national security offenders, a clear deterrent to anybody of a like mind.   

Another notable feature of the NSL is its flexibility, which has facilitated its integration into the city’s legal system. For example, while it is harder for national security suspects to obtain bail pending trial, they can still be granted bail if there are sufficient grounds for believing further offenses endangering national security will not ensue. Although national security prisoners can be denied the usual one-third remission of sentence for good behavior, this is not automatic and depends upon a risk assessment by the national security authorities.  

Whereas, moreover, jury trials can be dispensed with in favor of three-judge panels in national security trials in the High Court, this is not automatic and strict criteria must be satisfied. If a decision to dispense with a jury was taken in bad faith, it would be judicially reviewable. Although the chief executive of the Hong Kong SAR has discretion over whether to approve applications from overseas lawyers to conduct national security cases, there is no blanket ban, and each case is decided on its own merits.

Because of the NSL and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (2024), the “one country, two systems” policy is now fully protected, and Hong Kong can support national development from a secure base. This should be applauded by everybody who wants Hong Kong to succeed, and to play a global role.

The author is a senior counsel and professor of law, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.