Conventus Law

Conventus Law

by

Curious about what happens in a court hearing? Now you can watch live broadcasts of selective proceedings in Hong Kong courts.    

Live Broadcasting Plan 

During the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year in January 2023, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal (CJ) indicated that the Judiciary was “actively exploring” the idea of live broadcasting certain court proceedings.   

As an update, the Judiciary, on 10th January, 10am, for the first time, lived streamed a court hearing as part of test run for plan to boost the public’s access to the legal system. The first case chosen to be streamed comes from the Court of Final Appeal MK v Director of Legal Aid, a case challenging in judicial review proceedings the non-recognition of same sex couples under Hong Kong Law.  

Considerations 

Live broadcasting of court hearings is considered a “natural way forward” to enhance the transparency of court procedures, increase public confidence in the judicial process, facilitate public access to the legal system, and educate the public.   

However, there are underlying considerations that need to be taken into account. These include:-  

  1.  Nature of proceedings – Not all proceedings are inherently suitable for live broadcasting, in particular criminal trials, trials by jury, and trials involving vulnerable witnesses. In contrast, appellate proceedings, such as hearings in the Court of Final Appeal, may have strong justification for live broadcasting.  
  1. Legitimate concerns – Concerns of the possible misuse of the broadcast material, doxxing of judges or legal representatives, or sensitivity of cases may need to be considered. 
  1. Access to technology –  To uphold the principle of judicial fairness and impartiality, and to ensure access to justice, technology initiatives should not pose obstacles for those who cannot afford to use, or are incapable of using the relevant facilities or technology. 
  1. Security risks – To ensure public trust and confidence in the administration of justice, the security risks involved in the use of technology should be carefully assessed and addressed. 
  1. Keeping up with changes – The use of technology for the court process should be constantly reviewed so as to keep up with the rapid technological advancements and changing public expectations.   

While these principles may be addressed during the testing period, future issues such as the format of the live broadcasting (video or audio), the appropriate platform (YouTube channels, TV channels, or Judiciary’s webpage), the possibility of delayed streaming (to guard against unexpected issues), the setting of the courtrooms (e.g. the positioning of the cameras/recording devices), and the permission to televise or re-broadcast the content need to be resolved.   

We hope discussions between the Judiciary and the stakeholders, in particular the legal sector, will continue on the proper arrangements.  

Way Forward 

The live broadcasting development in 2024 is an exciting step towards aligning with the global trend of digitalising the court process, e.g. in Mainland China, the UK, the US, and Australia. Updates will be provided when the details of this initiative are published.   

Meanwhile, stay tuned for our further updates on the other technology initiatives of the Judiciary, such as the extended use of the e-court filing system, namely the iCMS, to the Court of Final Appeal and the High Court, which is also expected to take place in 2024.   

Contact us today if you need help with Hong Kong / international litigation / arbitration and related procedures.  

[Reference]  

[1] Press Release of CJ’s speech at Ceremonial Opening of Legal Year 2023, accessible at: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202301/16/P2023011600599.htm.    

[2] LC Paper No. CB(4) 1000/2023(02) Judiciary Administration’s paper for the Legislative Council Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services on “Greater Use of Technology in the Judiciary”, accessible at: https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2023/english/panels/ajls/agenda/ajls20231127.htm.     

[3] SCMP, Hong Kong courts to live stream proceedings to boost transparency, confidence in justice system, accessible at: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3242360/hong-kong-courts-live-stream-some-proceedings-boost-transparency-confidence-justice-system.   

[4] Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/work/broadcast/hearings/index.html 

WRITTEN BY

For further information, please contact:

Nigel Binnersley – Partner,
nigelbinnersley@hauzen.hk

Nigel has over 30 years’ experience conducting high value complex commercial litigation and arbitration in the Asia Pacific region, advising and assisting on a variety of business disputes and investigations, employment matters and transactions. He acts for a range of clients including individuals, listed and private companies, multi-nationals, conglomerates and insurance & financial institutions.

Nigel conducts litigation in the High Court of Hong Kong SAR and is regularly involved in cases taking place in other local regional jurisdictions such as mainland China, Singapore, South Korea, and Macau.

On behalf of clients, Nigel has handled numerous ad hoc and institutional arbitrations in various jurisdictions including Hong Kong, London, New York, Beijing, Shenzhen, Paris, and Singapore under various rules including HKIAC, ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, SIAC, LMAA, CIETAC and GAFTA. In recent years, Nigel has been the lead partner in some high-profile arbitration related litigation cases adjudicated by the Hong Kong and London Courts. He can also sit as an arbitrator.

Recognised by various prestigious legal publications such Chambers Asia and Chambers Global, Nigel is praised by clients and peers for handling “a broad range of wet and dry cases, including financial and contractual disputes”. He is sought after by clients across the full breadth of the practice area and offers and expert handling of contractual and financial disputes due to his great in-depth knowledge of difficult intertwined issues.

Nigel maintains a diverse commercial practice, through which he assists clients in navigating the complexities of their businesses from structuring and joint venture arrangements to M&A and employment advice. Nigel provides support to clients who may run into disputes during general business operations.

Education

  • University College of Wales, Aberystywth, Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.)

Experience

Litigation

  • China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd and others v Zhang Caikui & Others HCA 2880/2015
  • Nonghyup Bank (as trustee of PacificBridge Gold Income Fund 1) v Universe Income Builder Fund VI LLC & others HCA 2089 of 2020
  • Dana Shipping & Trading SA v Sino Channel Asia Ltd [2017] 1 HKC 329
  • Aleksandr Narimanovich Kushaev v Greenly Holdings Ltd & Others [2019] HKCFI 2745
  • In the matter of Chief One Technology Co. Ltd. HCA 384 of 2020
  • In the matter of Kwok Ka Yik -v- Wang Sing HCA 1853/2013

Affiliations

  • Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal Panel, Chairman and Member
  • London Maritime Arbitration Association (LMAA)
  • Hong Kong Telecommunications (Competition Provisions) Appeal Board, Board member
  • The Hong Kong Buildings Ordinance Appeal Tribunal, Chairman

Community Work

  • Foodlink Foundation
  • Hong Kong Suicide Prevention (SPS Suicide Prevent Services), Honorary legal advisor
  • Plastic Ocean Foundation

Register for your monthly Asia legal updates from Conventus Law

Error: Contact form not found.

RELATED ARTICLES