Benjamin Chen
Connecticut Law Review
Published online: December 2025
Follow the research activities and scholarship of the Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong
"From Ashes to Accountability: The Hong Kong Basic Law’s Blueprint for the Common Good and the Rule of Law in the Wake of the Tai Po Fire"
Anfield Tam (BSS (GL) & LLB graduate), Hilary So (JD graduate), Trevor Wan and Eric Ip
I-CONnect: Blog of the International Society of Public Law
Published online: January 2026
Introduction:
On November 26, 2025, a catastrophic fire tore through Wang Fuk Court, a 42-year old public housing estate in Tai Po District, Hong Kong. Ignited amid major renovations, the blaze, fueled by flammable scaffolding nets and polystyrene panels, spread swiftly across seven towers, raging for over 43 hours. It claimed 168 lives (including one firefighter), injured 79 others, and displaced thousands, making it the third-deadliest blaze in the 180-year span of modern Hong Kong history and more than twice as fatal as London’s 2017 Grenfell Tower fire.
Public grief mingled with solidarity: volunteers rallied with aid, memorials bloomed with tributes, yet fury grew over ignored warnings, substandard building materials, and oversight failures in the HK$330 million (US$42.4 million) renovation project. Occurring within Hong Kong’s evolving “one country, two systems” constitutional structure, shaped by new national security laws, electoral reforms for “governance by patriots”, and subdued politics post-2019 protests and COVID-19, the disaster has deepened distrust and probed the rule of law’s endurance. Drawing on Lord Bingham’s classic definition, the rule of law demands accessible, predictable laws that protect rights, restrain power, and ensure fair adjudication. These principles underpin the common good: shared conditions for safe, flourishing lives, enshrined in the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Bill of Rights, incorporating the ICCPR (Article 39). Yet, we argue in this post that translating these into vigilant governance remains elusive in Hong Kong.
The Tai Po fire emerges as a profound litmus test: Can Hong Kong’s public law truly shield vulnerable communities through consistent enforcement and impartial accountability? By linking Lord Bingham’s contemporary formulation of the rule of law to ancient Aristotelian notions of the common good, this analysis that follows bridges Anglo-American and continental jurisprudential traditions. For comparative public law scholars, it offers a compelling window into the resilience of common law amid tightening political pressures. Our analysis explores housing safety, inquiry and inquest mechanisms, Owners’ Corporations, and advocates steadfast adherence to Basic Law values to reclaim justice and the common good.
(Please click here to view full text on I-CONnect: Blog of the International Society of Public Law)
ARCHBOLD HONG KONG 2025
Editor-in-Chief: The Hon Mr Justice Bokhary
General Editor: Professor Simon Young
Sweet & Maxwell
October 2025
Preface by the General Editor
In the 2010 volume of this text, the then General Editor, Mr Clive Grossman SC, referred to the high convictions rates in Hong Kong and likened them to approaching those in North Korea. Those comments sparked controversy and debate in the community. A panel of the Legislative Council (LegCo) discussed the issue in October 2009 and later when the panel discussed reforms to criminal legal aid and whether trial by jury should be incorporated in District Court criminal trials. One positive outcome of the debate was clearer reporting of conviction rates from the Department of Justice (DOJ), by disaggregating the rate in cases of pleas of not guilty from the overall rate, which included guilty plea cases.
Fifteen years on, what trends do we see in the conviction rates in the three levels of criminal courts? The graphs below show the conviction rates after trial compared to the overall conviction rates in the Magistrates’ Court, District Court, Court of First Instance, and all courts combined, from 2010 to 2024. The data is taken from the DOJ Prosecutions Division’s yearly review reports.
Abstract: This study examines the relationship between interdisciplinary educational backgrounds and academic impact among legal scholars. Analyzing data from faculty members at 50 of the world’s leading law schools, we explore whether scholars with degrees in fields outside of law achieve higher scholarly influence than their peers who hold only law degrees. Our findings reveal that legal academics with interdisciplinary training tend to have significantly greater academic impact, suggesting that integrating perspectives from other disciplines enriches legal scholarship. These results underscore the value of interdisciplinary education in the legal academy and support the incorporation of interdisciplinary approaches in hiring practices, curricula and research initiatives to foster innovation and address complex societal challenges.
Abstract: The following sections are included in this chapter: Introduction, Institutional Constraints of Judicial Decision-Making in Divorce Disputes, Gendered Judicial Practices in Divorce Disputes, Gendered Lawyering, Conclusion, References, Statutes Cited
Congratulations to Professor Puja Kapai Paryani, who are honoured as one of “Women of Power” 2025. The Scheme is an initiative by Prestige magazine that identifies, celebrates, and builds a community of influential women in various fields across Asia, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. It aims to inspire other women, particularly the next generation, through summits and annual lists, and foster a supportive network where members can collaborate and create positive social impact.
This is not the first time Puja is recognized; her commitment to pluralism and equity earned her the International Women of Courage Award in 2015 and the 2021 Global Pluralism Award. And we are proud that her pioneering work in human rights, inclusion, diversity and social justice, is well acknowledged and appreciated.
The “Outstanding Young Professorships Scheme” represents the University’s commitment to nurturing rising stars and young talents. An Outstanding Young Professorship will be awarded to an Assistant Professor or Associate Professor.
Professor Chen is an interdisciplinary scholar whose research is situated at the intersection of law and social sciences. He is a prolific scholar and a rising star in his field.
Let us take this moment to congratulate Professor Chen on this well-deserved achievement.
Congratulations to Professor Xin He on his recent conferral of the title Chair Professor at The University of Hong Kong. The title is a mark of distinction as the President wrote in his conferment letter to Professor He:
"At this University, a Chair Professor title is reserved for world-class scholars of distinction. It signifies due recognition of outstanding academic leadership and excellence. As a top-rated researcher and academic leader, you are held in high regard by your peers globally, and your significant contributions and accomplishments have received international acclaim."
Professor He is now only one of four Chair Professors in the Faculty of Law. He was appointed to the Mok Sau-King Professorship in Law at the University of Hong Kong in 2024 and his latest monograph The Judicial System of China was published by Oxford University Press in November 2024. For more information on Professor He's research outputs and impact, click here.
Abstract: The article examines the failure of section 17 of Hong Kong’s Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance (Cap. 561) to criminalise commercial surrogacy, despite clear legislative intent to that effect. Through an in-depth analysis of the legislative debates and a series of illustrative vignettes, it demonstrates that section 17 only renders unlawful the act of making or receiving payments for negotiations leading to a commercial surrogacy arrangement, rather than the act of entering into such an arrangement itself. Such predicament stems from a flawed process of legislative transplantation. Section 17 was modelled on section 2(1) of the United Kingdom’s Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, the primary aim of which was to combat the proliferation of intermediary surrogacy agencies, instead of outlawing the practice of commercial surrogacy itself. Incomplete understanding of this legislative context likely led the drafters to misjudge the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 as a suitable model for transplantation into the Hong Kong context. The article underscores the importance of careful legislative transplantation, and how crucial it is that law drafters and legislators be attuned to the original intent, domestic policy, and socio-legal context of the foreign rule being considered.
Abstract: It is widely assumed that English law adopts a restrictive approach towards tort actions for “wrongful life”. This article reveals the true legal position to be much more complex. A broad distinction exists between cases where the wrong occurred before or at conception and those where it occurred during pregnancy, with claims usually being permitted in the former scenario but not in the latter. In this article, I expose this bifurcation as arbitrary before examining potential solutions for remedying it.