Fair Comment, Judges and Politics in Hong Kong‪.‬

[Until recently, the Hong Kong courts assumed that the defamation defence of fair comment may be defeated by proof of malice--meaning improper motive. The Court of Final Appeal, through Lord Nicholls, recently held that only proof that the defendant did not genuinely hold the opinion expressed can defeat this defence. This article places this decision in the context of debates about the role and rule of law, and the judiciary in Hong Kong. More specifically, it defends the Court in the face of criticism that the decision is an unheralded and unwarranted imposition on the common law of Hong Kong. This article therefore analyses the development of the defence of fair comment, in the common law worm as well as in Hong Kong, especially as it concerns the notions of fairness' and 'malice'.] I INTRODUCTION