FURTHER POINTS IN THE LETTER.
18.
This leaves one or two further statements in the letter, which could not conveniently be dealt with earlier.
19. It is correct that the contemplated changes in the policy with respect to the courts before which cases are taken were presented in the Explanatory Memoranda to the Bills as changes which were likely to be adopted. The extracts from the Memoranda quoted in the letter must, however, be read in their context, and that was that the amount of serious cases was already imposing severe burdens on the courts. There has in fact been an improvement in the number of cases awaiting trial, and when the Bills were introduced into Legislative Council the Acting Attorney General stated that the existing policy would be modified only if necessary.
20.
Secondly, the extracts quoted by Mr. Litton from the South China Morning Post are inaccurate, and it is surprising that the Hong Kong Branch of Justice should believe that the legislation could have been designed for such a purpose.
21.
This leaves two matters in the letter which would be of grave concern if there were any substance in them. They are closely related. The first is the statement that the judges of the District Court are either "promoted" magistrates or "transferred" prosecutors from the Government's Legal Department; the second is the suggestion at the end of the letter that the Government wishes to exert greater influence over the Judiciary.
22.
Taken by itself, the reference to "promoted" magistrates and "transferred" prosecutors in the context in which they are mentioned is incomprehensible. The significance only becomes clear when it is read in conjunction with other paragraphs of the letter.
23. The suggestions that the Hong Kong Government may wish to exert "greater" influence over the Judiciary and that career magistrates and District Judges might be more liable to executive influence are outrageous. They have no foundation whatsoever.
24.
In conclusion, it is reiterated that there will be no change in the Attorney General's existing policy with respect to the courts before which cases are taken unless an unacceptable delay in the hearing of criminal cases in the Supreme Court cannot be avoided by any other reasonable means. The Hong Kong Government has taken the District Court (Amendment) Bill forward because it believes it to be an essential measure in the public interest in case the need for a modification of that policy should ever become necessary.
Nor
25. It is clear that there is nothing in the two Bills concerned with sentencing powers which erodes the rule of law in Hong Kong. is there anything in the other two Bills which can be said to have that effect.