STAFF
IN CONFIDENCE
view to discontinuing the office upon the retirement
of Mr. Justice Scholes,
4.
It would seem that the position on the creation of an office of "Appeal Judge" rests as stated in the
record of our discussions with the Governor.
Provision for such an office was removed before
enactment from the Bills to amend the Supreme Court
Ordinance and the Full Court Ordinance
no doubt to
give the new Chief Justice an opportunity to
reconsider. On the face of it, it would not seem that Hong Kong intended (or intends) to consult us about this new post (which, it is interesting to note,
would be given precedence over the Senior Puisne Judge). I should be glad to have guidance as to
whether we consider that we ought to be consulted because, if we do, I think this will have to be
made clear to the Governor in any letter we write to
him.
25 February, 1970
N.S.
Carter
(W. S. Carter)
Hong Kong Department
Hong Kong: Senior Puisne Judge
Mr. Justice Scholes is a very weak candidate for any promotion (however nominal) both in himself and by comparison with some of his brother judges and I think we might take advantage of this fact by declining to approve his substantive appointment as Senior Puisne Judge. The office of S.P.J. could then be left vacant until a decision about its abolition is reached.
2. I do not think there is any ground on which we need object to the creation of a new post of Appeal Judge, but since appointments to any such office are made by H.M.G. I should have expected the Hong Kong Government to give us an opportunity to comment on their proposal before putting it into effect. We should be interested to know what the proposed emoluments are and who it is proposed to recommend as the first holder of the office.
A.R.R.
(A. R. Rushford) W 44/1 MB 1176
27 February, 1970
copy: Sir Arthur Grattan-Bellew
STAFF
IN CONFIDENCE