And the final paper in this final session at the 2026 International Communication Association conference in Cape Town for today is by Weiying Shi, whose focus is on partisan perceptions of the fairness of judicial sentences in Hong Kong. What determines such perceptions, and when does this partisan divide widen?
This analysis is especially important in the context of Hong Kong, given its recent legal history; the 2019 Extradition Law Amendment Bill has been widely seen as part of mainland China’s gradual dismantling of Hong Kong’s judicial independence, and judicial decisions have therefore been scrutinised increasingly critically.
This is also concerning from a broader societal perspective, since trust in the fairness of the judiciary is critical to societal cohesion. Overall satisfaction with the rule of law in a country may also moderate citizens’ perspectives towards judicial decisions.
This study conducted an online survey of some 1,400 respondents in Hong Kong during June 2023, exploring their partisan positioning, their satisfaction with the rule of law, and their stance towards a number of specific sentencing outcomes selected from recent years. Pro-establishment respondents had very different views of judgment outcomes, compared to pro-democratic, localist, and other groups, and this gap widened further after the Extradition Law Amendment Bill controversy in 2019. Higher satisfaction with the rule of law largely correlated with lower differences between individuals in these groups.
In this context, judicial institutions can no longer simply assert their neutrality; they need to demonstrate clearly how neutrality is procedurally produced. Media coverage also affects such perceptions, of course, and media literacy therefore also plays a role here.
