Hong Kong minister defends failed legal bids challenging LGBTQ rights

Name: Hong Kong’s top court orders government to create legal framework for same-sex partnerships
Uploaded: 2025-01-15T12:42:05.000Z
Duration: 3 min 54 s
Description: Hong Kong’s top court orders government to create legal framework for same-sex partnerships

Regina Ip asks justice minister Paul Lam whether officials will be held accountable for litigation expected to have ‘low success rate’

Reading Time:3 minutes

Why you can trust SCMP

Paul Lam Ting-kwok, secretary for justice, has defended the government’s decision to challenge LGBTQ rights rulings, saying that “the likelihood of success is not the only consideration” when determining litigation strategies. Photo: Elson Li

Kahon Chan

Published: 8:42pm, 15 Jan 2025Updated: 11:27pm, 15 Jan 2025

Hong Kong’s justice minister has defended his department’s failed legal attempts to challenge the rights of same-sex couples amid calls from a top government adviser for officials to be held accountable for pursuing cases that were expected to have a “low success rate”.

Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok also told the legislature on Wednesday that “the likelihood of success is not the only consideration” when determining litigation strategies, following questions over a landmark ruling by the city’s top court in November on LGBTQ rights.

“There is in particular the need to take into account the overall public interest, such as the potential political, social and economic impacts, as well as the profound effects on the use and allocation of limited and valuable public resources if the judicial review is successful,” Lam said.

“For significant issues, an appeal process must be undertaken so as to obtain a final and authoritative ruling on the issue in dispute. More significantly, the most important aspect of litigation, aside from the outcome, is the reasoning of the judgments.”

03:54

Hong Kong’s top court orders government to create legal framework for same-sex partnerships

The minister said the government needed to understand the reasoning of the courts before proceeding to make “new decisions, formulate new policies, or put forward legislative or amendment proposals”.