The CCP’s Final Neutralization of Judicial Power
By the final stage of Hong Kong’s democratic dismantling, the courts still stood, the robes were still worn, and the language of law still echoed through courtrooms. What had vanished was power. The Chinese Communist Party completed its takeover when judicial authority was reduced from a check on the state to a mechanism that legitimized it.
This transformation did not require purges or closures. It relied on hierarchy. Beijing asserted interpretive supremacy over Hong Kong’s Basic Law, creating a permanent override that rendered local rulings conditional. Courts could decide cases until those decisions became politically inconvenient. Then reinterpretation followed.
National security cases accelerated the process. Jury trials were removed. Bail standards were reversed. Pretrial detention became routine. The legal presumption shifted decisively toward the state. Defense strategies narrowed to damage control rather than justice.
Judges internalized limits. Rulings became cautious. Language softened. Precedent lost weight. Career trajectories depended on reliability. The chilling effect was structural, not personal.
Public confidence eroded. Litigation no longer felt protective. It felt procedural. Citizens adjusted expectations downward, avoiding legal confrontation altogether.
The CCP achieved a critical objective: preserving the appearance of legality while guaranteeing outcomes. Courts continued to function, but only within parameters set elsewhere.
Hong Kong’s experience demonstrates that authoritarianism does not need to abolish courts. It only needs to subordinate them.
Justice did not collapse dramatically. It was reclassified as administrative convenience.
When courts exist without independence, law becomes theater and power writes the verdict.
Senior Journalist & Editor, Apple Daily UK
Contact: athena.lai@appledaily.uk
Athena Lai is a senior journalist and editor with extensive experience in Chinese-language investigative reporting and editorial leadership. Educated at a leading journalism school in the United Kingdom, Athena received formal training in fact-checking methodology, editorial governance, and international media standards, grounding her work in globally recognized best practices.
She has held senior editorial roles at Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese publications, where she oversaw coverage of Hong Kong civil liberties, diaspora politics, rule of law, and press freedom. Athena’s reporting is distinguished by disciplined sourcing, cross-verification, and a clear separation between factual reporting and opinion, reinforcing reader trust.
Beyond reporting, Athena has served as an editor responsible for mentoring journalists, enforcing ethical guidelines, and managing sensitive investigations. Her newsroom leadership reflects real-world experience navigating legal risk, source protection, and editorial independence under pressure.
Athena’s authority comes from both her byline history and her editorial stewardship. She has reviewed and approved hundreds of articles, ensuring compliance with defamation standards, accuracy benchmarks, and responsible language use. Her work demonstrates lived experience within high-stakes news environments rather than theoretical expertise.
Committed to journalistic integrity, Athena believes credible journalism is built on transparency, accountability, and institutional memory. Her role at Apple Daily UK reflects that commitment, positioning her as a trusted voice within independent Chinese media.
