英國最高法院院長韋彥德（Lord Robert Reed）在英國國會聽證會視像會議上表示，定期與英國外相及司法大臣檢討1997年起委派英國法官到香港終審法院擔任海外非常任法官的安排，並預期短期內有下一次會議。韋彥德無透露會否有決定，但確認會基於香港近日狀況考慮立場，強調如有任何破壞司法獨立、法庭違反法治的舉動，「如香港情況到了一個地步是我們基於良知不能再做下去」，自己便不會擔任終審庭法官，或提名其他英國法官來港擔任終審庭非常任法官。
韋彥德席間向國會議員表明：「您可以放心，我不會容許最高法院的名聲置於險境。」（You can be assured that I won’t allow the Supreme Court’s reputation to be put at risk.）
英國最高法院副院長賀知義（Lord Patrick Hodge）也直指，在困境中協助港人和本港法院，與保護英國法院名聲與地位之間存在衝突（conflict），但無進一步透露意向，只說完全同意韋彥德所講。賀知義在去年12月獲立法會通過非常任法官任命。
另一名非常任法官、英國前最高法院法官岑耀信（Lord Jonathan Sumption）則在英國《泰晤士報》撰文，指英國對香港留下最重要不是民主，而是法律體系，「法官的職能不應該參與政治杯葛。更好履行公義的方式，是透過參與香港法院的工作。」
Lord Wallace: We’re all aware of the recent development in Hong Kong. Last July, Lord Reed you said- I quote, whether judges of the Supreme Court can continue to serve in Hong Kong, will depend whether such service is compatible with judicial independence, and the rule of law. In light of recent reform to national security and electoral law in Hong Kong, do you consider you will continue your service as judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal compatible with judicial independence and the rule of law? And if I could ask you, help me- when we talk about rule of law, which law, is it the Basic Law of Hong Kong, or is it law emanating from National Security Law, which is recently promulgated?
Lord Reed, president of Supreme Court: Well, in relation to the latter question, I think the rule of law concept is more abstract that that. You can have laws…the idea is that you live in a system where the law governs are accessible, predicable laws that governs your activity. And you can have a law which does not itself respect the rule of law.
The position at the moment is that there’re really two aspects to the operation of the agreement entered into as part of the handover, under which Supreme Court judges sit on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong.
It’s a matter to the UK’s foreign policy, and it’s also a matter to the Supreme Court obviously, that judges are sitting there.
I’ve been monitoring development in Hong Kong closely, since the National Security Law was passed into June last year.
I’ve also been in close contact with the Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor for some time. Together with them, I regularly review the operation of the 1997 agreement in light of the developments that are taking place.
I’m expecting our next meeting to be held shortly.
You can be assured that I won’t allow the Supreme Court’s reputation to be put at risk. I don’t really want to add very much to that.
Lord Fox: I think the answer’s been given and I don’t want to press Lord Reed further than that. He said he’s considering it. Clearly the situation is potentially quite volatile in Hong Kong, and may I take it from your answer, Lord Reed, on circumstances where you might have to reconsider your position.
Lord Reed: Certainly, certainly. If there’s any undermining of the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary, or if it’s expected to act contrary to rule of law, or it’s simply the situation in Hong Kong became one where we could no longer in good conscience serve there, then I will no longer be prepared to serve, or nominate other judges of the court to serve there.
Lord Howell: On the withdrawal of our judges from the Hong Kong Judiciary would be….could it be something had leverage there? Because it won’t be quite a smart blow to the attempt by Beijing and the Chinese to say that they are on the side of the embracing law and order, upholding world peace and so so on and so forth. That will be a very death-knell move for China in fact, whatever they may say, are damaging. I just wonder given the existence of that leverage, there was some way of establishing, or getting going some dialogue with political authorities, and judicial authorities in Beijing, to establish what they really have in mind, and do they realise the damage to their world reputation, if the Supreme Court withdraws all together? Has any dialogue been suggested? =
Lord Reed: Well, these are considerations really for the foreign secretary, that dimension of the problem. Certainly, as you can imagine, he has sources and means of discussion with the Beijing authorities, which I’m not involved in at all.
My focus has really be on the role of the judges have in supporting independent judiciary in Hong Kong, and upholding the rule of law there.
You’ll know, I expect that the lawyers in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Hong Kong Law Society, support our continued involvement there, so on the whole, do the pro-democracy spokesmen.
I feel we have a responsibility to the people of Hong Kong, who I must say have shown me nothing but kindness, when I’ve been there.
So it’s a matter required great care, deciding if the situation has reached a point which continued service is no longer possible. It’s a very serious step to take. Our role there is prestigious within Hong Kong itself. And it gives us considerable influence in some ways, in Hong Kong, which may not otherwise have.
I suppose that’s the point you’re making. But the diplomatic implications of that is really for the Foreign Secretary, not for me.
Lord Hodge, deputy president, UKSC: Could I just say that I wholly agree with what Lord Reed just said.
As a recent appointee to that court, there is this conflict between our duty to do what we can for the people of Hong Kong in very difficult circumstances, and to assist the independence judiciary of Hong Kong, who lived in day in day out in these difficult circumstances on the one hand.
On the other hand, to protect the reputation and the standing of our court here, in the UK.
另一名非常任法官、英國前最高法院法官岑耀信（Lord Jonathan Sumption）在英國《泰晤士報》撰文，反擊英國政界要求海外法官辭去終審庭席位。岑耀信指，這些訴求問題是並無區分民主和法治，「香港從來無民主，但依然有法治」，「要求英國法官辭任與司法獨立及法治毫無關係，實際上要英國法官集體杯葛，只是向中國政府施壓，改變對（香港民主）的立場。」
他表示，保障這些條款得以尊重的最佳辦法是獨立的法庭， 「英國至少可以做的就是防止破壞它」（The least that Britain can do now is to avoid undermining it.）。