10
BACKGROUND NOTE
As long ago as 1963 the Hong Kong Bar Association included among a number of resolutions a recommendation that private practitioners should be appointed to the Supreme Court Bench, Subsequently this matter was discussed with the Association by Sir James McPetrie, More recently during an interview with Lord Shepherd in August, 1968 Mr. de Basto, the present Chairman of the Association, raised the same question. Mr. de Basto was told by the Minister that it would be further examined in consultation with the Governor.
2. Mr. de Basto has argued that such appointments are desirable in order to dispel doubt about the impartiality of the Supreme Court Bench. We do not think that this argument has any force and do not believe that such doubts are, in fact, entertained by the community at large.
3.
We think it more likely that Mr. de Basto's request 18 motivated by the desire of the Hong Kong Bar Association to see some of its members appointed to high judicial office. Hong Kong are inclined to resist this on the grounds that, unlike the system in England, the two streams of official and unofficial barristers are quite separate, and there seems no good reason why a barrister who chose private practice in preference to public service should necessarily have any special claim to consideration for high Judicial office.
In their view appointments from the Bar would
be justified only if :-
(a) officers of sufficient calibre were not available in the
judicial and legal service;
NOT
(b) a suitable member of the Hong Kong Bar was/prepared to
accept appointment; and
(c) the circumstances were such that this would not constitute
a legitimate care of grievance to members of the judicial and legal service.
It is our tentative view that where a Supreme Court Bench is entirely or predominantly composed of Service judges it could be in the public interest to make an occasional appointment direct from the local Bar. It 18, however, equally in the public interest
/ that
?