Yet another important initiative by the Australian lawyer on behalf of the Hong Kong fashion and media mogul, who remains in prison guilty of innocence, is launched by our magazine.
by Marco Respinti


If it were not for a few admirable initiatives, the sad story of Jimmy Lai—born Lai Chee-Ying, in Canton, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), in 1947—would be completely forgotten. The entrepreneur and businessman is famous for his clothing retailing company, Giordano. He is also a media mogul and through Next Digital he courageously published the pro-democracy “Apple Daily” in Honk Kong until, harassment after harassment, the pro-Beijing administration of the former British colony compelled it to close. Lai is now paying the price of his pro-freedom stand in a prison and the world seems to be content with that. His story is in fact seldom told and his fate is not on the table of any international or bilateral summit.
Taking Lai’s case personally, Mark A. Tarrant, a lawyer in Sydney, Australia, launched several flashmobs and events. He aims at sensitizing the general public, while possibly attracting the interest of politicians and governments as well. Among Tarrant’s projects, there are artistic installations, now generally known as the “Neon Jimmy Lai,” which have been displayed in several strategic places in Australia. The positive response of many people eventually convinced him to make the installations the subject of a 5-minutes movie, “2023 Hong Kong Neon: Jimmy Lai in Chains,” which was recently saluted with of one of the “2023 Rome International Movie Awards,” endowed as the Best Documentary Short at the Berlin Indie Film Festival, and received Honorable Mention at the Berlin Kiex Film Festival.
While no sign of any good news for Lai is in sight, Tarrant now launches a new director’s cut version of that documentary, which “Bitter Winter” has the privilege and honor to premiere on its website.
One of the key points of the new documentary, is Tarrant’s criticism of Australian judges sitting in the Hong Kong Final Court of Appeals. This is the local court of last resort and was established on July 1, 1997, when the city and its territories passed from the British administration to PRC as “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.” It was a way to grant Hong Kong judicial independence, under the idea—flaunted by the PRC and naively welcomed by others—of “one nation, two systems.”
That body inherited much from its previous status, when it operated under the British system and ultimately responded to London. Still operating as a common law jurisdiction, it can, even after passing to the PRC, recruit personnel from common law jurisdictions to serve as non-permanent judges. In fact, judges from England, Wales, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada sit there. But with Honk Kong becoming each day more and more integrated into the Communist system of the PRC, and given the constant repression of freedom, harsher every single time, and finally after the passing of the new security law in 2020, which completely bypassed the local government, the role of the body is becoming ambiguous. Tarrant, as a lawyer and Australian national, finds the presence of foreign judges embarrassing.


Four Australian judges now sit in that august body. One of them, Patrick Keane, swore his oath recently before Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu. Lee was sanctioned by the US in 2020 for engaging in “malign activities.” These included “undermining the rule of law” in Hong Kong, a practice illustrated by his issuing this year HK$1 million bounties for the heads of eight democrats. Among them are pro-democracy politician Ted Hui Chi-fung, a Hong Konger who resides in Australia, and Australian lawyer Kevin Yam. Chief Executive Lee referred to them as “street rats” who should “live in fear” and will be pursued “for the rest of our lives… to the ends of the earth.” Is it acceptable for these four Australian judges, all Companions of the Order of Australia—the national recognition for Australians who have demonstrated outstanding service or exceptional achievements—to swear an oath of allegiance to such a character?
Of course, the answer is already contained in the question—and it explains much of the self-styled free world attitude against an innocent victim like Jimmy Lai.