A top British judge has quit as chairman of a legal advisory board to a body that supports international media freedom following criticism of his work in Hong Kong.

Lord Neuberger’s decision follows his participation in a court ruling in Hong Kong that denied an appeal by Jimmy Lai, the media tycoon, and other pro-democracy activists convicted over a protest in Hong Kong in 2019.

The ruling was a controversial endorsement of the convictions and was heavily criticised by Lord Patten of Barnes, the city’s last British governor.

Lord Neuberger, a former president of the UK’s Supreme Court, admitted his role as a part-time judge in Hong Kong was linked to his decision to stand down as chairman of a panel of legal experts that advises the Media Freedom Coalition, an international NGO.

“It is undesirable that focus on my position as a non-permanent judge in Hong Kong should take away, or distract from, the critical and impactful work of the High Level Panel,” he said.

The High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom at the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute was established in 2019.

It provides legal advice and recommendations for promoting and protecting media freedom and independent media.

Lord Neuberger is one of three remaining British judges to serve as overseas non-permanent judges on Hong Kong’s top court.

They adjudicate on appeals on an ad-hoc basis and are reportedly paid around £40,000 for each month-long visit.

On Monday, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal unanimously dismissed a bid to overturn the convictions of Mr Lai and six other pro-democracy activists for organising and taking part in an “unauthorised assembly” in 2019.

Mr Lai, 76, the founder of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, was sentenced to 14 months in prison but has been in custody since 2020 and is facing separate “national security” charges.

Lord Neuberger was one of the five judges who heard the appeal.

Two other British judges, Lord Sumption and Lawrence Collins, resigned from the same court in June.

After resigning, Lord Sumption wrote an op-ed stating Hong Kong’s rule of law was in “grave danger”.

Lord Patten condemned Lord Neuberger’s role in Monday’s ruling, describing it as “unjust”.

“It is perfectly obvious in this case that the proceedings brought against him are an act of vengeance against Mr Lai,” Lord Patten told The Independent.

“I am sure he has been singled out. He is hated by the Chinese Communist Party because he represents all the things that made Hong Kong a prosperous society.”

‘In a vengeful way’

In relation to Lord Neuberger’s role, Lord Patten added: “I assumed overseas judges would be concerned with protecting the common law, not giving legitimacy to the sort of laws applied in a vengeful way.”

Separately, he said the verdict was “made worse by the fact that Lord Neuberger, a former head of Britain’s Supreme Court, was a party to this decision”.

Hong Kong’s government issued a statement in support of Lord Neuberger and condemned Lord Patten’s “malicious slandering” of the judgment and “exerting political pressure on judges”.

Lord Neuberger told Reuters in June that his involvement would continue “to support the rule of law in Hong Kong, as best I can”.

Hong Kong was handed over from British to Chinese rule in 1997 and has since been ruled by Beijing as a semi-autonomous Chinese city.