Face to Face with Former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma

Geoffrey Ma, whose tenure as the second Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal recently came to a close, is being hailed by the legal profession for his wisdom and poise in a unique period in the city's history. During his distinguished time as the topmost judge of the Judiciary, former CJ Ma has strived relentlessly to maintain professionalism and fairness in the courts.

In this wide-ranging interview with Hong Kong Lawyer, he talks about his journey till date and the way forward for Hong Kong’s legal system, legal education and legal professionals. Despite a celebrated career, it is evident that for former CJ Ma, the rule of law is the real star of the story and using it to serve the community is the way to go.

What first attracted you to the practice of law, and how did your viewpoint change when you were appointed to the bench?

I was attracted to the law almost as soon as I started at the University of Birmingham in 1974.  Prior to that, although I had an uncle and aunt who were lawyers in Shanghai, I took no real interest in legal practice.  When I was studying for my A levels in England, I was even at a loss to know what to read at university.  It was a stroke of fortune that my elder brother suggested that I consider law.  I never looked back.  The interest I developed in learning the law stayed with me throughout my practice as a barrister and my career on the bench.  It continues to this day.  The law is fascinating in its diversity of subject matter, it poses great intellectual challenges and above all, it is relevant to the community.  Far from being some sort of ivory tower, the law is there is serve society.  There is no other reason for it.

How well do you think the Hong Kong public understands the rule of law?

Anyone who takes an interest in the welfare of the community should have a grasp of the rule of law and its importance within it.  Distilled to its essence, the rule of law ensures the proper functioning of a society in which each person is accorded dignity in the way he or she works or lives, and respect for oneself and for others in the community.  It also requires an independent Judiciary to enforce the law.  With the law affecting us ever increasingly, I believe that more people are becoming interested in learning about its significance.  There is no doubt that it can be complex at times, and that is why we have lawyers to explain it and to provide assistance so that rights can be protected.  The rule of law is about fairness and equality because these constitute the essence of justice.  I believe it to be incumbent on all lawyers to explain the proper meaning and significance of the rule of law to members of the public.  Otherwise there is a danger of not truly comprehending the vital importance of this concept.

What achievements are you most satisfied with from your tenure as Head of the Judiciary?

I have often said it is for others to judge my work.  Nevertheless, I will say this: I am proud of the professionalism of the judges in the Judiciary.  Day in, day out, whether times are good or not, they approach their constitutional responsibilities bearing in mind that they have to do their best to uphold the rule of law, regardless of whatever criticisms are made against them.  I am glad that I leave the Judiciary with this degree of professionalism in its ranks.  Improvements can of course be made but as long as the fundamentals are there, we can have confidence in the Judiciary.

As Chief Justice, was it challenging to lead the bench of the Court of Final Appeal as well as the Judiciary as a whole?

The challenge for me was to make sure that at all times I was fully aware of the pressures facing the Judiciary and to be able to deal with them to the best of my ability.  There is no guarantee that one would arrive at the right answer every time but there cannot be any excuse not to be as prepared as one can be or to fail to do one’s best.  Judges look to the Chief Justice to lead and I know of no leader who does not meet challenges head on and who does not make decisions however difficult.  There are many problems to which there is no obvious right answer and one simply has to make the best decision in the circumstances.  Not confronting problems or skirting difficult issues is not really an acceptable approach.  So, the simple answer to your question is -yes, it was at times very challenging.

Looking back, what judgment speech or other law related written work are you most proud of and why? How have your views changed since you wrote it? What would you change if you were to write it again now?

The most important judgments have obviously been the public law and constitutional ones because they tend to engage the public interest more than in other areas. These are the judgments that have also caused the most controversy, even at times attracting considerable criticism.  Whatever the reactions have been, even with hindsight I do not see how any different a result should have been reached in those cases, even if some of the criticism or controversy could have been avoided by a different outcome.  This is consistent with the judicial method: cases are decided according to the law, legal principle and the spirit of the law, and nothing else.  They are not decided with a view to the outcome of a case being popular or whether it may be politically acceptable.  But your question also asks which judgment I am most proud of.  Here, I have a personal favourite.  It is Hua Tyan Development Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd (2014) 17 HKCFAR 493.  It is not a particularly important or complex judgment but I have (since my days in practice) always wanted to write a judgment on marine insurance.  Cases in this area of the law rarely come before the courts.

In your farewell speech, you advised CJ Cheung to always be guided by his principles, for it is these principles that will see him and the community through all seasons. What are some of the principles that guided you during your tenure and how did they help you?

The overriding principle for me has always been being true to the judicial oath I took when I became a judge.  It encapsulates in solemn form the meaning of the rule of law.  The oath is not a mere formality.  It is quite the opposite: it defines the essence of the responsibilities of a judge.

There were fears that you may be a “conservative” judge when you assumed office a decade ago and today there are similar thoughts on CJ Andrew Cheung. In your case, it turned out to not be the case. How do you interpret the word “conservative” when it comes to judges and why might people be fearful of such a quality?

I have always been somewhat skeptical of labels for judges such as “conservative” or “liberal”, particularly if they carry political undertones as well.  I know many people like to use labels for judges, particularly lawyers and academics.  As I have said, judges decide cases according to the law, legal principle and the spirit of the law.  There is no room to introduce another factor to judging, much less impose a personal trait.  Very often labels are descriptive only by reference to the outcome in cases, especially those having political origins (these being cases usually involving the government as a party).  It can be as simple as: if the court decides in favour of the government, it is “conservative”; if the government loses, then the court is a “liberal” one.  I was indeed described as being conservative when I became Chief Justice in 2010: this was on the basis that I had held in favour of the government in some high profile cases when I was in the Court of Appeal and that I had represented the government in a number of public law cases when I was in practice.

How do you feel judicial independence should best be balanced against the power of the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law?

The two are not incompatible.   Of course, under the Basic Law, the NPCSC has the power to give authoritative interpretations of the provisions of that Law and the Hong Kong courts are bound to give effect to such interpretations.  This does not, however, affect the independence of the Judiciary (which is also prescribed under the Basic Law).

What are some of the main developments during your tenure as Chief Justice that you feel particularly shaped the Hong Kong Judiciary to what it is today and what do you think are fundamental issues or threats the Judiciary faces till today?

One of the more noticeable developments in Hong Kong since the exercise of the resumption of sovereignty in 1997 has been the interest shown by the community in the law and the work of the courts.  The past ten years has seen this interest increase.  This is a healthy trend because it is important that the community should try to understand the concept of the rule of law and our system of law.  Afterall the law is an important part of the society in which we all work and live.  That said, it is important that the law and rule of law are properly understood and not be distorted.  I have constantly spoken out (as indeed have both my predecessor Chief Justice Andrew Li and my successor Chief Justice Andrew Cheung) that the work of the courts must not be politicised.

How do you see the future development of the legal professions in Hong Kong? Is a fused profession likely or desirable in your view?

There has not been much discussion in recent years about fusing the legal professions.  But the way forward for the professions should be directed to serving the public interest by concentrating on the law and the rule of law.  These are the only matters on which the community can reasonably expect the professions to comment.

What is your view on legal education in Hong Kong today? What should the educational institutions be focusing on?

I think that on the whole, the law schools in Hong Kong are doing very creditably.  This is demonstrated by the quality of the lawyers practising in Hong Kong, some of whom are among the best I have seen in any common law jurisdiction.  If I had to suggest an area in which it is worthwhile emphasising at law school, it would be the rule of law, pure and simple, shorn of political considerations.

What would you like to see as your legacy?

It is far too grandiose to talk in terms of a legacy.  Judges and chief justices should not be talking in terms of leaving a legacy.  They should strive instead on their retirement to feel that they have done their best to have served the community, upheld the rule of law and abided by their oath.  No one could ask for more than that and judges should not expect anything less of themselves.

Knowing what you know now, having served for more than a decade, would you have approached the role in any different way? If you had the chance to do it all over again, what would you do differently?

You have saved the hardest question to answer for last!  It is tempting of course to say that one would have avoided certain pitfalls and mistakes if one had known certain things but it is of course pointless thinking along these lines.  The fact is that in real time decisions had to be made and one simply had to do the best that one could in the prevailing circumstances.  Often there was no obvious right answer and many decisions involved the balancing of many factors.  The important thing for a Chief Justice to remember is that when a decision has to be made, make the decision.  Without doubt, this is always the only option.  Not making a decision is the worst of all options.

6 January 2021 at The Court of Final Appeal

This is an abridged version of the speech, for the full version, please visit https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202101/06/P2021010600683.htm

The rule of law represents in any community the necessary foundation to enable all who live and work in it to do so with dignity, and to do so acknowledging the interests of others. That is why it is said to be a cornerstone of the Hong Kong community. It is not just about being conducive to business and investment. It also includes the recognition and enforcement of those rights we call human rights and fundamental freedoms (such as the freedom of assembly, of procession, of association and the freedom of the press), always of course recognising as well the importance of the respect for the rights and entitlements of others in the community. The importance we place on rights and freedoms is a fundamental feature of the Basic Law. That constitutional document, which was enacted by the National People’s Congress in accordance with the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, remains the starting point in any discussion about Hong Kong’s system of government.

The Basic Law devotes a whole chapter in Chapter III to the fundamental rights and duties of residents. Chapter I sets out the general principles that govern Hong Kong beginning with Article 1 stating that the HKSAR is an inalienable part of the PRC, followed by Article 2 which prescribes that Hong Kong is to enjoy, among other matters, independent judicial power. The concept of independent judicial power is repeated in Article 19 (in the chapter dealing with the relationship between the central authorities and the HKSAR) and in Article 85 (under Chapter IV “Political Structure”) requiring the courts in Hong Kong to “exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference”.

So, whenever there are discussions about the rule of law, the independence of the Judiciary and the role and responsibilities of judges in relation to these fundamental features, the foundation for such discussions must be to refer to the Basic Law.

And let there be no misunderstanding as to what the independence of the Judiciary means. The independence of the Judiciary, which is at the heart of the rule of law, is the guiding concept that underlines the way judges discharge their constitutional responsibilities. The role and responsibilities of the Judiciary are clearly and unambiguously set out in the Basic Law. The independence of the Judiciary means in essence the responsibility and duty imposed on the courts to adjudicate on the law and on legal disputes fairly, evenly and strictly in accordance with legal principle and the spirit of the law. Underlying this is the recognition, again required under the Basic Law, that all are equal before the law and this of course includes the executive authorities. To repeat a phrase that bears reminding at all times: no one is above the law, all are subject to it and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Not only that, no one is able to influence the court in the adjudication of a legal dispute, whether civil or criminal. All this guarantees fairness and justice.

When I became a judge in 2001, like all judges, I took an oath of office (this oath is required under the Basic Law) to uphold the Basic Law, to discharge my judicial duties “conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity” and to “safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit”. The judicial oath is a solemn promise to ensure that justice is done, is seen to be done, and that nothing and no one will be allowed to influence a judge to act or compromise in any way the demands of this oath.

The constitutional model mandated under the Basic Law is that of “one country, two systems”. I have always placed great emphasis on the need to have meaningful exchanges with the Mainland courts to enhance mutual understanding of the two legal systems. I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to [successive Presidents of the Supreme People’s Court ] and to the other judges of the Court and also to the many other Mainland judges whom I have met, for their insight and exchange of views. These mutual exchanges and cooperation must, I firmly believe, continue to strengthen.

The Hong Kong Judiciary does not comprise a large number of judges (I include in this term judicial officers such as magistrates). Hong Kong’s judges are dedicated to the practical implementation of the rule of law as I have described and represent the embodiment of the independence of the Judiciary. Throughout my tenure as a judge and particularly in the last ten years as Chief Justice, I can say that I remain proud of all the judges in the way they have fearlessly and without compromise upheld the law and been true to their oath. Whether the political, social or economic atmosphere of Hong Kong has been good or not, the judges have discharged their responsibilities consistently and conscientiously, without regard to the type or level of criticism that may be directed against them. It is comforting to know, as I believe, that the vast majority of our community has confidence in them and find reassurance in the principled way they carry out their daily work.

For my part, I wish to express my deep gratitude to our judges. They have almost invariably given me their wholehearted support and have played their proper role in the administration of justice. For the future I wish to say it is essential that the highest standards, not only of ability but also of integrity, are observed and maintained. It is also critical that judges remain apolitical in the discharge of their duties.

Former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma: Career Highlights and Achievements


Career Highlights and Achievements 


Receives his Bachelor of Laws degree from University of Birmingham


Called to the Bar by Gray’s Inn in London, and commences his practice as a Barrister in England and Wales


Called to the Bar in Hong Kong; Bar qualifications for the State of Victoria (Australia) and Singapore follow in 1983 and 1990, respectively


Appointed as Queen’s Counsel


Serves as Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal Panel (Buildings)


Serves as Deputy Chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission Appeals Panel


Appointed by the Hong Kong Judiciary as Recorder of the Court of First Instance of the High Court


Becomes a Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court


Elevated to the position of Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal of the High Court


Appointed as Chief Judge of the High Court of Hong Kong


Elected an Honorary Bencher of Gray’s Inn, only the third person in Hong Kong conferred with such an honour


Serves as Chairman of the Steering Committee on Civil Justice Reform


Serves as Chairman of the Monitoring Committee on Civil Justice Reform


Assumes office as second Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal


Admitted to the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) by the University of Birmingham


Awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal; made an honorary fellow of Harris Manchester College, Oxford


Conferred the title of Officier de l’Ordre de la Legion d’Honneur by the French Government


Becomes an Honorary Bencher of the Middle Temple; admitted to the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) by the Chinese University of Hong Kong


Admitted to the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) by the University of Hong Kong


Admitted to the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) by the Lingnan University


Appointed as Honorary Chair and Professor in the Birmingham Law School


Becomes an Honorary Professor of the Faculty of Law of The University of Hong Kong


Tributes for Former CJ Ma

What is former CJ Ma’s greatest legacy?

On his recent appointment as an honorary professor by Birmingham University, Chief Justice Ma was described by its Vice-Chancellor as “a globally respected figure”. That is high praise but duly deserved. It also provides a short answer to the question posed. It reflects the fact that Ma CJ has achieved a towering stature in the common law world and also earned the respect, admiration and affection of a wide and distinguished community of legal professionals around the globe. But his legacy is considerably more than just his personal stature. Because of his leadership and example, the entire Hong Kong Judiciary has aspired to maintain the highest standards of professionalism and fairness in the administration of justice in Hong Kong. And because of his global reputation, the Judiciary’s principled role in supporting and upholding the rule of law here is recognised internationally. Politics has shone an international spotlight on Hong Kong. Geoffrey Ma has ensured some of that light illuminates a positive message for the Hong Kong community and also the wider world. When reasonable people think about Hong Kong, they identify its Judiciary, led by Ma CJ for the past decade, among its advantages.

— Mr. Justice Joseph Paul Fok, Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal

What is your favourite memory of former CJ Ma?

Apart from his quality as a lawyer and his popularity among judges and staff of the Judiciary which are well known, Chief Justice Ma is equally well known for his keen interest for good food. Like many gourmets, Geoff (as we usually call him) is never shy in tasting new and strange dishes. At one of the staff lunches, we had Shanghainese food. The person who ordered the menu had, with the best of intentions, ordered a dish called “deep fried stinky tofu”. When it was still almost 10 feet away, everybody, irritated by its pungent smell, turned and stared at it as it was slowly and carefully delivered to the table. Knowing who Geoff was, the waitress courteously placed it right in front of him. Everybody waited for his first plunge. He did, and like a gentleman, politely paused for a moment and then started to have a bite. As he was chewing the food, judging from his looks, we were all relieved. “The Chief loves it”, commented his secretary. We were told that was the first time he had this famous traditional dish and since then, it has become one of his favourite dishes.

– Mr. Justice Patrick Chan, Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal

What will you remember former CJ Ma most for?

My enduring image of Geoffrey Ma is how little he has changed over the years. I first met him when he was barely 23. A confident young man who knew his worth, who was not afraid to speak his mind but was always able to do so without hurting the feeling of others. Anyone who has met him knows that his interest in people is genuine and not just good manners.

His great success has not changed him.

What made the greatest impression on me was his appearance before the Court of Final Appeal when he had the unenviable task of asking the Court to clarify its decision in Ng Ka Ling. In that excited time, Geoffrey’s unexcited reasonableness helped the Court to come to a momentous decision with its dignity and authority intact.

His calm strength became even more evident after he became Chief Justice. His steadfast commitment to the rule of law despite unprecedented attack provided a welcome ray of hope to many who care about an independent Judiciary.

I am happy to have him as a friend.

– Mr. Justice Robert Tang, Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal

What is former CJ Ma’s greatest legacy?

We are all indebted to Chief Justice Ma for his leadership of the Hong Kong Judiciary and his strong commitment in defending the rule of law and judicial independence fearlessly, vigorously and relentlessly over the last decade.

In 2015, Chief Justice Ma delivered the annual International Rule of Law Lecture, titled “Strength and Fragility in Tandem: The Rule of Law in Hong Kong”. In that lecture, he listed six indicators which enable an objective assessment to be made of the existence of the rule of law in Hong Kong, including: -

1. the transparency of the legal system;

2. the public has access to the reasons for the outcome of any court proceedings;

3. the reasons provided for any judicial decision will precisely reveal the thought processes of the court and enable the public to verify that all decisions have been made according to law and according to the spirit of the law.

4. the system of the appointment of judges;

5. access to justice;

6. the views of those persons who are in regular contact with the legal system matter.

Each of these factors involves the legal profession, and he rightly reminded us, as members of the legal profession, to have the duty to promote a proper understanding of the rule of law and also to stand up for it whenever it has been unfairly criticized or sought to be undermined or even proclaimed to be dead. In this time of turmoil, I echo the call to our members to do our part as staunch defenders of the rule of law.

– Melissa Pang, President of the Law Society of Hong Kong

What will you remember former CJ Ma most for?

Geoffrey Ma was a good Chief Justice. He invariably displayed an even temper on the bench and showed great courtesy to the bar. In court, he was, in all respects, a gentleman of the law.

However, what impressed me more than these exemplary judicial attributes, which I should say that some other judges also possess, was his out of court personality.

Geoffrey Ma was, and still is, a great spokesperson for the Rule of Law and an able communicator. He speaks and writes on the subject with style, conviction and fluency. When addressing an audience, he wears his legal learning lightly and, like a good advocate, makes difficult concepts appear easy to understand. He can rekindle enthusiasm for protecting fundamental rights in even the most jaded commercial lawyer sitting in an audience.

People will remember Geoffrey Ma for many years to come as the one clear voice of the Rule of Law in times of dissension and noisy dispute.

– Philip Dykes SC, Former Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association