Chief Justice Andrew Cheung said on Monday Hong Kong courts fully respect people’s rights of expression but that any criticism of court decisions "is only as meaningful as it is informed".

In a speech marking the start of the Legal Year, the top judge said the convictions of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai and his companies in a recent national security trial had drawn international attention and some critical responses amid geopolitical tensions.

Cheung said few court decisions pleased everyone and that openness to scrutiny was among the strengths of the city’s justice system.

“A comment or a criticism is only as meaningful as it is informed,” he said.

“Any serious comment or disagreement intended to be taken seriously must be grounded in a careful reading of the judgement and a sincere effort to understand the court's reasoning.”

Cheung stressed that laws in Hong Kong guaranteed the independence and impartiality of courts.

Judges handle cases fairly and impartially, and allegations made against them may have been impelled by political or extraneous reasons, he said.

“As to sweeping comments on the state of the rule of law in Hong Kong arising from the outcome of a particular case, many of us may be forgiven for growing weary of simplistic assertions that the rule of law is dead whenever a court reaches a result one finds unpalatable,” Cheung said.

“The rule of law in Hong Kong is far more robust and enduring than the outcome of any single case. It cannot be that the rule of law is alive one day, dead the next, and resurrected on the third, depending on whether the government or another party happens to prevail in court on a particular day. Such a claim needs only to be stated to highlight how untenable it is.”

Cheung also said Lai and other defendants retain the rights to appeal and that the Court of Appeal would consider any alleged errors should an appeal be lodged.

The chief justice added that calls to halt proceedings or prematurely release a defendant “strike at the very heart of the rule of law itself,” and threats of sanctions against judges are attempts to interfere with judicial independence.