DOCSLIB.ORG

OFFICIAL RECORD of PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 7 November 2019 the Council Continued to Meet at Nine O'clock

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OFFICIAL RECORD of PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 7 November 2019 the Council Continued to Meet at Nine O'clock LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 November 2019 1257 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 7 November 2019 The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock MEMBERS PRESENT: THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P. PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO 1258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 November 2019 THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 November 2019 1259 THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P. THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN 1260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 November 2019 MEMBERS ABSENT: THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 November 2019 1261 PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL 1262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 November 2019 GOVERNMENT BILLS Second Reading of Government Bills Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Council will now continue the Second Reading debate of the Judicial Officers (Extension of Retirement Age) (Amendment) Bill 2019. Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak. JUDICIAL OFFICERS (EXTENSION OF RETIREMENT AGE) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 20 March 2019 IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, according to the prevailing system, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484), the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4), the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) and the Pension Benefits (Judicial Officers) Ordinance (Cap. 401), the statutory retirement ages of relevant Judges and Judicial Officers ("JJOs") are clearly provided. Meanwhile, the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission ("JORC"), which is set up under the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Ordinance (Cap. 92), makes recommendations to the Chief Executive on judicial appointments. According to the policy of JORC, extension of the term of judicial office beyond the statutory normal retirement age should not be automatic. It should be regarded as exceptional. In respect of the statutory retirement ages for JJOs, the Judiciary commenced a review in 2014 and engaged a consultant to carry out a questionnaire survey on this matter in 2016. Then, in December 2017, it made a number of proposals in relation to extending the statutory retirement ages for JJOs ("the Judiciary's Proposals") to the Government. The Administration considered that the proposals would enable the Judiciary to sustain their manpower across different levels of court, which was important to the efficient and effective operation of the Judiciary. At the meeting of the Panel on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 November 2019 1263 Administration of Justice and Legal Services ("the Panel") on 18 July 2018, the Administration consulted members of the Panel on the Judiciary's Proposals. As a member of the Panel, I also attended the said meeting. Members of the Panel generally supported the proposals. Against the above background, the authorities introduced the Judicial Officers (Extension of Retirement Age) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") into the Legislative Council on 20 March this year. The Bill seeks to amend Cap. 4, Cap. 336, Cap. 401 and Cap. 484 to provide for the extension of retirement ages, extension of terms of office for certain JJOs, to introduce a discretionary early retirement age for certain judges and an early retirement age for certain Judicial Officers, and to provide for transitional and related matters. Subsequently, the Legislative Council formed a bills committee to scrutinize the Bill. Although I did not join the Bills Committee, I notice that the Bills Committee has stated in its report submitted to the House Committee on 14 June that it supported the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill at the Legislative Council meeting, and both the Bills Committee and the Administration would not propose any amendment. It can thus been seen that there is not any substantial controversy to the Bill in the community. President, perhaps we should further ask whether the Bill is proposed owing to certain actual needs. According to the Report on Judicial Remuneration Review 2018, retirement is the main source of wastage amongst JJOs, while the retirement situation may also pose challenges to the judicial manpower. For instance, the anticipated retirement will increase to 14 (or 8.5% of current strength) in 2019-2020. Moreover, as requested by the Bills Committee, the Judiciary Administration has provided two sets of information. As at 31 March this year, the information on the establishment and strength of JJOs at various levels of courts indicates that there are 62 vacancies out of a total of 218 posts; meanwhile, 32 JJOs will reach their statutory retirement ages between 2019 and 2022. Therefore, members of the Bills Committee generally agreed that extending the statutory retirement ages would help alleviate the shortage of judicial manpower. President, next we should briefly examine whether some major proposals of the Bill are reasonable or not. We note that, in respect of the statutory retirement ages of JJOs, the two-tier retirement age system will be retained under the Bill. According to the authorities' explanation, given the small pool of 1264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 November 2019 suitable candidates for appointment as Judges at the Court of First Instance ("CFI") level and above and the persistent difficulties in recruiting CFI Judges, the relevant statutory retirement age will be set higher, i.e. from 65 to 70, to hopefully help retain experienced senior judges and attract experienced and quality private legal practitioners to join the Judiciary. Meanwhile, no persistent recruitment difficulties have been observed for JJOs below the CFI level, thus a lower retirement age of 65 will be set for them. This can not only avoid creating promotion blockages for junior JJOs, but also attract new blood to the judicial service. In my opinion, it is pragmatic to avoid the across-the-board approach and apply different treatments to deal with the appointment of JJOs at different levels. Regarding early retirement ages, if the retirement age for Judges at the CFI level and above is extended as proposed in the Bill, and yet if such Judges are still be able to retire at the existing statutory early retirement age of 60, it will give rise to a new problem, that is, they may retire any time within a long period of 10 years between the ages of 60 and 70, which will likely cause great difficulties in the Judiciary's manpower planning and deployment. Given that Hong Kong a small jurisdiction with a limited number of relevant JJOs, the Government accepts this argument and considers it reasonable to maintain the existing five-year interval between the early retirement age and the statutory retirement age.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JORC Report 2007
    JORC Report 2007 The Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (“JORC”) Report 2007 has a new format. Previously, our Report contained information about the JORC, gave an account of its important work during the year and described the different levels of court to give a comprehensive picture of the judicial offices within the responsibility of the JORC. Such information is now separately provided in two reports. First, a new report entitled “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” has been issued. This provides an account of the JORC and describes the different levels of court. It has been uploaded on our website. Secondly, an annual report which will concentrate on the work of the JORC during the year will be issued. In an effort to contribute to the protection of the environment, we will no longer publish a paper version of the “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” Report or the annual report. Both will only be uploaded on our Website. We hope you will enjoy reading this Report and gain a better understanding of the JORC during 2007. Andrew Li Chief Justice Chairman of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Membership of JORC 1. In 2007, the Chief Executive re-appointed four members of the JORC for a term of two years from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2009. The membership in 2007 is listed below – Ex officio chairman and member The Honourable Chief Justice Andrew LI Kwok-nang (Chairman) The Honourable WONG Yan Lung, SC, JP (Secretary for Justice) Judges The Honourable Mr. Justice Geoffrey MA Tao-li (from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2008) The Honourable Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • URBAN PLANNING and ENVIRONMENTAL LAW QUARTERLYQUARTERLY (Published Since May 1992)
    An Association of Asian Commercial Law Firms FRED KAN & CO. Solicitors & Notaries URBAN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW QUARTERLYQUARTERLY (Published since May 1992) We are confronted increasingly by examples of the government’s reluctance to fairly and resolutely enforce our planning and environment-protection laws: from slow or no reactions to illegal roads in country parks and bending planning laws to accommodate developers’ ambitions, to almost a state of denial of worsening air and water pollution. However, a long-standing record of inadequate penalties for environmental offences also contributes to this sorry state of affairs. The Editors ● WDO CONTENTS WEAK PENALTIES 1st offence - $200,000 and 6 months imprisonment UNDERMINE ENFORCEMENT 2nd (etc) offence - $500,000 and imprisonment for 6 months OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS ● WPCO FEATURE: Page We often hear and read criticism of the apparent lack of 1st offence - $200,000 and 6 months imprisonment political will in Hong Kong to monitor and resolutely 2nd (etc.) offence - $400,000 (plus $10,000 per day for WEAK PENALTIES UNDERMINE enforce our environment-protection and planning laws. continuing offence) and 6 months imprisonment Over the years, the UPELQ has from time to time made ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL the same criticism of Hong Kong’s environmental agencies, ● APCO LAWS ................................................................1 mainly in the context of anti-pollution laws and laws Section 10(7)(a) (failure to comply with abatement designed to protect our natural environment. notice) – fine of $500,000 (plus $100,000 per day for continuing TOWN PLANNING ...........................................3 We make no apology for doing so again. Specifically, in offence) and imprisonment for 12 months.
    [Show full text]
  • Director of Administration's Letter Dated 12 May 2021
    Enclosure A Press Statement Senior Judicial Appointment: Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal ************************************************************** The Chief Executive, Mrs Carrie Lam, has accepted the recommendation of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (JORC) on the appointment of the Honourable Mr Justice Johnson LAM Man-hon (Mr Justice Lam), Vice-President and Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal of the High Court, as a permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal. Subject to the endorsement of the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive will make the appointment under Article 88 of the Basic Law. Mrs Lam said, “I am pleased to accept the JORC’s recommendation on the appointment of Mr Justice Lam as a permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal. Mr Justice Lam is an all-rounded appellate Judge who possesses rich experience and expertise in handling civil cases of all types, including in particular public law and constitutional law cases. His judgments are well-reasoned and balanced. They are regularly reported in the law reports and cited in arguments and judgments. He also has extensive experience in steering reforms to improve on the administration of justice. He will be a great asset to the Court of Final Appeal.” Article 90 of the Basic Law provides that the Chief Executive shall obtain the endorsement of the Legislative Council on the appointment of the judges of the Court of Final Appeal. The Government will seek the endorsement of the Legislative Council of the recommended appointment in due course. The curriculum vitae of Mr Justice Lam is at Annex.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release on February 23, 2021
    Tel 電話: (852) 3844 3111 Fax 傳真: (852) 3705 3361 Website 網址: https://www.pori.hk Address: Units 9-11, 6/F, Tower B, Southmark, 11 Yip Hing Street, Wong Chuk Hang 地址: 黃竹坑業興街 11 號南滙廣場 B 座 6 樓 9-11 室 Press Release on February 23, 2021 POP releases social and freedom indicators Special Announcement The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “POP” in this release can refer to HKPOP or its predecessor HKUPOP. Abstract POP successfully interviewed 1,018 Hong Kong residents by a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in early February. Our survey shows that, on a scale of 0 to 10, people’s ratings on the five core social indicators ranked from the highest to the lowest are “freedom”, “stability”, “prosperity”, “rule of law” and “democracy”. Their scores are 5.02, 4.99, 4.96, 4.50 and 4.27 respectively. Compared with a month ago, all social indicators have increased significantly. As for the seven non-core social indicators, ratings of “corruption-free practices”, “equality” and “fairness” are relatively lower. Compared with the last survey, rating of “public order” has increased significantly, while ratings of “social welfare sufficiency”, “efficiency” and “equality” have all registered all-time lows since records began in 1997. As for the ten freedom sub-indicators, freedom of “academic research”, “speech”, “publication”, “press”, “freedom to strike”, “association” and “procession and demonstration” all score lower than 5 marks. Freedom of “entering or leaving Hong Kong” has dropped significantly when compared to the last survey, while freedoms of “entering or leaving Hong Kong”, “academic research” and “association” have registered all-time lows since records began in 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by the Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma at the Farewell Sitting on 6 January 2021, the Court of Final Appeal
    Speech by The Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma at the Farewell Sitting on 6 January 2021, The Court of Final Appeal 1. I am extremely grateful for the far too generous words spoken just now by the Secretary for Justice, the Chairman of the Bar, the President of the Law Society and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury NPJ. I thank everyone for your presence, both here and remotely, at this my farewell sitting. I am particularly honoured by the presence of the Chief Executive and representatives of the Liaison Office and of the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I am also honoured by the presence of the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary, the Convenor of the non-official members of the Executive Council, the President of the Legislative Council and representatives from the Law Society and the Bar. These are all persons to whom I owe much gratitude for their past and continuing support of the - 2 - Judiciary and its work. Apart from it being a significant personal occasion for me, your presence today reflects the importance in our community of the rule of law itself and within it, the role of the Judiciary. You have heard me speak much about this over the years and I am grateful to be given a final opportunity as Chief Justice to express my thoughts to you. 2. The rule of law represents in any community the necessary foundation to enable all who live and work in it to do so with dignity, and to do so acknowledging the interests of others.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
    FAMV No. 34 of 2011 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 34 OF 2011 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 59 OF 2010) _______________________ Between: CH Applicant And DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Respondent _______________________ Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ Date of Hearing: 5 December 2011 Date of Determination: 5 December 2011 _________________________ DETERMINATION __________________________ Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: 1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal 1 dismissing his appeal from the judgment of Andrew Cheung J (as Cheung CJHC then was) refusing his application for judicial review. 2 1 [2011] 3 HKLRD 101. 2 HCAL 24/2009 (5 January 2010). - 2 - 2. The applicant came to Hong Kong on 12 July 2008 travelling on a passport issued by the United Republic of Cameroon. He obtained admission and permission to stay as a visitor until 26 July 2008 on his representation that he had come to purchase electronic appliances. 3. On 25 July 2008, just before expiry of his limit of stay, he stated that he was making a claim under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (“the Convention”) and sought an extension of stay from the Director of Immigration. An extension was refused. 4. Although Mr Timothy Parker, appearing for the applicant, has sought to raise certain other matters, the sole decision challenged by the applicant, and in respect of which leave to apply for judicial review was granted and evidence filed, is the decision of the Director to refuse an extension of stay.
    [Show full text]
  • ASAA Abstract Booklet
    ASAA 2020 Abstract Book 23rd Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia (ASAA) The University of Melbourne Contents Pages ● Address from the Conference Convenor 3 ● 2020 ASAA Organising Committee 4 ● Disciplinary Champions 4-6 ● Conference Organisers 6 ● Conference Sponsors and Supporters 7 ● Conference Program 8-18 ● Sub-Regional Keynote Abstracts 19-21 ● Roundtable Abstracts 22-25 ● Speaker Abstracts ○ Tuesday 7th July ▪ Panel Session 1.1 26-60 ▪ Panel Session 1.2 61-94 ▪ Panel Session 1.3 95-129 ○ Wednesday 8th July ▪ Panel Session 2.1 130-165 ▪ Panel Session 2.2 166-198 ▪ Panel Session 2.3 199-230 ○ Thursday 9th July ▪ Panel Session 3.1 231-264 ▪ Panel Session 3.2 265-296 ▪ Panel Session 3.3 297-322 ● Author Index 323-332 Page 2 23rd Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia Abstract Book Address from the Conference Convenor Dear Colleagues, At the time that we made the necessary decision to cancel the ASAA 2020 conference our digital program was already available online. Following requests from several younger conference participants who were looking forward to presenting at their first international conference and networking with established colleagues in their field, we have prepared this book of abstracts together with the program. We hope that you, our intended ASAA 2020 delegates, will use this document as a way to discover the breadth of research being undertaken and reach out to other scholars. Several of you have kindly recognised how much work went into preparing the program for our 600 participants. We think this is a nice way to at least share the program in an accessible format and to allow you all to see the exciting breadth of research on Asia going on in Australia and in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • JORC Report 2010
    JORC Report 2010 The work of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (“JORC”) is set out in two separate reports. First, a report entitled “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” is published to provide an overall account of the JORC, identifying the different levels of court within its responsibility. Secondly, an annual report is published to report on the work of the JORC during the year. This JORC Report 2010 provides an account of the work of the JORC during 2010. In an effort to contribute to the protection of the environment, we will only upload both Reports on our Website. Geoffrey Ma Chief Justice Chairman of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Membership of JORC 1. In 2010, the Chief Executive re-appointed three members of JORC for a term of two years from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012. The membership in 2010 is listed below – Ex officio chairman and member The Honourable Chief Justice Andrew LI Kwok-nang, GBM (Chairman) (up to 31 August 2010) The Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey MA Tao-li (Chairman) (from 1 September 2010) The Honourable WONG Yan Lung, SC, JP (Secretary for Justice) Judges The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberto Alexandre Vieira RIBEIRO (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) The Honourable Mr. Justice Louis TONG Po-sun (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) Barrister and solicitor Mr. Rimsky Yuen, SC (barrister) (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Mr. Michael Lintern-Smith (solicitor) (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Persons not connected with the practice of law Professor Lap-Chee TSUI (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Dr Rosanna WONG Yick-ming, DBE, JP (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) 2 Dr Edgar CHENG Wai-kin, GBS, JP (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) 3 Secretary of JORC 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Thanks for Your Support
    Thanks for Your Support The Academy of Law acknowledges the generous contribution of everyone who was involved in the presentation of the training programme for the period between 2 September 2008 and 31 December 2009. The Academy extends a special note of thanks to the following judges, solicitors, barristers, foreign lawyers and prominent members of society who volunteered their time to make the programme such a success: A y Registrar Queeny Au-Yeung, High Court B y Peter Barnes, Partner, Barnes & Daly y Philip Beh, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, The University of Hong Kong y Geoffrey Booth, Partner, Haldanes y Judge Kevin Browne, Judge of the District Court y John Budge, Partner, Wilkinson & Grist y Patrick Burke, Partner, Burke & Co C y Patrick Cavanagh, Director of Commercial Programmes, Dispute Resolution Centre, Bond University y His Honour Judge Bruno Chan, Family Court y Mary Chan, Consultant, Ho & Ip y Her Honour Judge Mimmie Chan, District Court y Stephen Chan, Partner, BDO Limited y Felix W.H. Chan, Associate Professor, Associate Dean, Department of Professional Legal Education, The University of Hong Kong y Wai-sum Chan, Professor, Department of Finance, Chinese University of Hong Kong y Julia Charlton, Partner, Charltons y Allen Che, Partner, Wong, Hui, & Co y Cheng Wui Kei Roy, Director, ISE Consultants Limited y Amelia Cheung, Partner, Amelia Cheung & Co y David Cheung, Partner, Yuen K H & David Cheung y Melissa Chim, Solicitor, Barlow Lyde & Gilbert y Choi Wai Fan, RBS Coutts Bank Ltd y Chow Wing Hang,
    [Show full text]
  • Cb(2)2183/02-03(01)
    LC Paper No. CB(2)2183/02-03(01) Paper for the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants Purpose This paper informs Members of the progress of the setting up of the Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants (“Resource Centre”) by the Judiciary. Background 2. The instances of litigants appearing in civil proceedings in the High Court and the District Court without legal representation have increased considerably in recent years. They represent a significant demand on judicial time and resources. The increasing number of unrepresented litigants poses challenges for the courts. 3. As part of the Judiciary’s response to these challenges, the Chief Justice announced in his address at the opening of the Legal Year 2002 that he had decided to establish a resource centre for unrepresented litigants in civil proceedings in the High Court and the District Court. The purpose is to provide facilities to enable unrepresented litigants to deal with the court rules and procedures in the conduct of their cases. Steering Committee on Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants 4. To further this objective, the Chief Justice appointed the Steering Committee on Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants (“Steering Committee”) in February 2002, with the following terms of reference - (a) To advise on the establishment and operation of the resource centre for unrepresented litigants in civil proceedings in the High Court and the District Court; and (b) To explore with the legal profession, interested non- governmental organizations (“NGOs”) and other interested - 2 - bodies opportunities for them to provide assistance at or through the resource centre to unrepresented litigants in civil proceedings in the High Court and the District Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by the Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma at the Networking Dinner Hosted by Tokyo ETO Seoul, Korea 23 September 2019
    Speech by The Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma at the Networking Dinner hosted by Tokyo ETO Seoul, Korea 23 September 2019 The Rule of Law, the Common Law and Business: a Hong Kong Perspective 1. With the recent troubling events in Hong Kong, the focus has been on the rule of law. This concept is as important here in Korea as it is in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). On 1 July 1997, the PRC resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. The constitutional position of Hong Kong is contained in a constitutional document called the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. 1 It is significant in at least the following two respects: first, it states the principles reflecting the implementation of the PRC’s basic policies towards Hong 1 Promulgated and adopted by the National People’s Congress under the Constitution of the PRC. - 2 - Kong2 – the main one being the policy of “One Country Two Systems”; and secondly, for the first time in Hong Kong’s history, fundamental rights are expressly set out. These fundamental rights include the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, access to justice etc. 2. The theme of the Basic Law was one of continuity, meaning that one of its primary objectives was the continuation of those institutions and features that had served Hong Kong well in the past and that would carry on contributing to Hong Kong’s success in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by the Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma at the 2018 Supreme Court of Queensland Oration 21 May 2018 Brisbane, Queensland
    Speech by The Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma at the 2018 Supreme Court of Queensland Oration 21 May 2018 Brisbane, Queensland Criticism of the courts and judges: informed criticism and otherwise1 1. It is a singularly grand honour to be asked to deliver this year’s Supreme Court Oration. When Justice Glenn Martin extended the invitation to me in February last year, I was overwhelmed and had no hesitation in accepting. This Oration has had many distinguished jurists precede me. It is an intimidating thought. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia delivered the Oration last year2 and she will in a few days’ time deliver here in the Banco Court the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Oration.3 I 1 I wish to acknowledge the assistance I have received from the Judicial Assistants of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal: Mr Harry Chan LLB (Hong Kong), BCL (Oxon); Mr Ted Noel Chan LLB (Northampton), LLM (University College, London) and Mr Adrian Lo LLB (Hong Kong), LLM (London School of Economics), Barrister. 2 On 16 March 2017 (“Judicial Methods in the 21st Century”). 3 On 24 May 2018 (“The adaptability of the law to change”). - 2 - am, however, much comforted by the thought that I am among friends, many of you old friends and that I have also had the pleasure of speaking here before.4 2. The topic of criticism of the courts and of judges is not a new one. People have been making criticisms for a very long time. In his stimulating book “Judges”,5 in the Chapter headed “Criticism”, David Pannick 6 refers to the case of Serjeant Roo who, in 1527, composed a satire performed in Gray’s Inn on the abuses of the law for which Cardinal Wolsey, then the Lord Chancellor, was said to be responsible.
    [Show full text]