require a judge appointed to court of intermediate jurisdiction
to give same undertaking as Puisne Judge. Matter was
apparently left in abeyance pending consultation by Chief
Justice Hong Kong (Hogan) and Hong Kong Bar Association.
I do not know whether such consultation ever took place.
5. Right to determine who shall be admitted is vested in
Supreme Court (Legal Practitioners Ordinance, s.27). See, too,
judgment of Blair-Kerr J. (In re C.W. Reece, Hong Kong Law
On338
Reports 1963 at p. 329).
329%.
With respect to your own position as
representing the Crown, applicant might argue that, since he was
not asked for an undertaking not to practise, it would be
breach of faith for you to oppose application. Personalt,
I would disagree with this. Fact that Crown insists on
ündertaking from Puisne Judge clearly implies that Crown would
object to his returning to general practice.
Omission by Crown
to require undertaking from district judge may lead latter to
assume that the Crown would not, or is unlikely to, object to
his entering on practice, but applicant could not, in my
opinion, reasonably argue that the omission amounted to
ündertaking that Crown would not object; and in the
circumstances Crown's attitude to the application must be
governed by considerations of public interest. In determining
your attitude you would no doubt also take account of fact that
district judges have evidently been admitted to practice in the
But that
past (see Blair Kerr's judgment at p.332). This of course,is
St
not conclusive; for public interest may now requires that retired
district judges should be precluded from practice, other than in
purely consultative capacity.
That, of course,
lue
and it may possible to
maintain that
6. Grateful if you would pass from officials of Lord Chancellor's
Office information contained in MIFT to Jackson-Lipkin with
reference to latter's letter of 23 February to Lord Chancellor.
تنا
(11516) Dd.392077 300m 10/68 G.W.B.Ltd. Gp.863
/Lord
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN