In Chapter 2, I situate Johnnie To’s popular comedy, Justice, My Foot! (1992 審死官), which revolves around a lawyer defending a woman falsely accused of murdering her husband, in light of the drafting of the Basic Law and passage of the Bill of Rights in early-1990s Hong Kong. I argue that To’s film, which appeared at cinemas a mere three years after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing, can be approached as a screening of a nightmare scenario on the minds of many viewers at the time: A Hong Kong-style lawyer trying to defend the innocent and maintain justice in a Chinese-style legal system that disregards basic human rights and that is plagued by corruption and nepotism. I will then explore the function of humor in the film to show how Justice, My Foot! repackages anxieties about the sinicization of law into a marketable cultural product for mass consumption.

In Chapter 4, I interpret Joe Ma’s Lawyer, Lawyer (1997; 算死草), a farcical comedy of seemingly little jurisprudential value, as a response to debates about the future of the common law in Hong Kong after 1997. In the years leading up to the handover, there were heated discussions of whether the common law should continue to be cited in the territory after China resumed sovereignty, and if so, what kind of authority English precedent should have. While some staunch common law lawyers argued for preserving English law’s privileged status, more reform-minded jurists argued for cutting the territory’s “constitutional umbilicus” from England by relying on local cases. I will contend that the lawyer in Ma’s film wins his case by relying on an English precedent case that is hinted at, but not explicitly mentioned, and further suggest that his highly unorthodox way of citing precedent provides an indication of how Hong Kong can conceive of the place of the English common law after 1997.