2600027
c.
SAVINGRAM
Repe
Rep
From tivernor, Hong Kong
To thretary of State for the Colonies
•23rd
CHIEF REGISTRAR'S CRICE
No.
957
29 DEC 1965
No.
COLONIAL OFFICE
No.
Do
ence...
December, 1965
..4/3221/63.
M
Your Reference No.156 - 17.8.65.
13
1
Paragraph 1(8) of your savingram No.1564 of 17th of August, 1965.
Reform of Administration of Law in Hong Kong
Transfers between the Judiciary and the Legal Department.
My considered views are as follows:
It is my belief that it has always been understood that in the Colonial and Overseas Legal Services, interchanges were encouraged, at any rate at magistrate/crown counsel 'level, in order to give officers as broad an experience as possible. This seems to be desirable. How- ever, the views expressed in your savingram under reference would appear to indicate a departure from such an attitude.
2.
There is no doubt that a number of people have criticised acting appointments in either direction on the ground that they tend to detract from the appearance of an impartial judiciary. Such criticisms, however, would appear to overlook the fact that district judges, magistrates and crown counsel all have an important part in the task of law enforcement and the fact that an officer exercises quasi-judicial functions on one day and judicial functions on another should not detract from his worth.
3.
In England, the fact that counsel practices at the bar is not thought to interfere with his capacity to sit as Commissioner of Assize Recorder or Chairman of Quarter Sessions. It may be questioned whether there should be any greater objection to an interchange of crown counsel.
40
It is appreciated, of course, that this sort of criticism may arise and that it may not be easy to persuade the public of the lack of justification for it. The public's estimate of an officer's ability to do justice may be lowered, even though it has not in fact been impaired | by his recent and continuing association with one party (the Crown) in many of the cases coming before him, even though the Crowm's interest does not go beyond trying to ensure that the full facts are put before the cour and that justice is fairly administered. On the other hand, the benefits of interchange to officers, and to the service, are clearly considerable. It is for consideration whether it is right to forego these because of a misapprehension in the mind of the public of the true position.
TAR EASTERN
29 DEC 1965
Continu
i