Abstract
Joe Ma's film, Lawyer, Lawyer revolves around a court case in late nineteenth-century Hong Kong. A man is framed for murder and is sentenced to death by the colonial court. At the eleventh hour, his lawyer saves him by arguing that, on the true interpretation of the provision on the death penalty in the Qing Penal Code, the man should be freed. This chapter situates the film in the context of Hong Kong's legal history and argues that the scene of interpretation can be read as a response to anxieties about the use of English legal authority at the time of the film's appearance. The film appeared at a pivotal moment in Hong Kong's legal and political history: 1997, the year of the city's retrocession from Britain to the People's Republic of China. The chapter is divided into three parts. The first gives the basic narrative arc of Lawyer, Lawyer. The second examines the debate about the place of English precedent in Hong Kong law after the handover. The final part discusses the scene of interpretation in Lawyer, Lawyer in relation to this debate. It argues that Chan's interpretative move in the film trial is in fact premised on another fictional case, the one brought by Shylock against Antonio in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. The chapter concludes by positing that when situated in the context of Hong Kong's legal history, Chan's use of Shylock's case can be read as a comment on the place that English precedent should occupy in the courts of postcolonial Hong Kong.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
