(d) that in those cases counsel is in fact employed by the community to defend accused persons where it is considered desirable that such persons should be represented, and for so doing counsel is paid out of public funds;
(e) that in effect the issue is the remuneration of a professional employee (counsel) by his master (the public);
(f)
that neither the Chief Justice nor the judiciary should be concerned with this issue; and
(g) that the proper method for determining such issue is by negotiation between the representative of the Bar Association and the representative of the public purse; and that if negotiations fail to reach agreement there should be an arbitration before a non-civil servant arbitrator, e.g., a member of the Finance Committee.
The reason why negotiations have been conducted with the Chief Justice is because of S.9(2) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 where authority is given to the Chief Justice to assign solicitor and counsel and to regulate their fees in legally aided cases.
The Bar Committee agrees with the authority of the Judiciary to issue legal aid certificates in criminal cases.
However, the Bar Committee is strongly of the opinion. that statutory authority should not be left with the Chief Justice to regulate fees of counsel in such cases. It is to be noted that the Chief Justice has no statutory authority to regulate the pay of the lowest menial servant employed in the Supreme Court. The Bar Committee strongly recom-
.9 -