Uncontroversial matter can be left out. Many judges can make their own
personal notes without slowing the proceedings more than minimally if
at all.
6.
The most costly current examples of judicial record keeping
are incomplicated civil actions about technical issues conducted in
English. There have been various estimates of the amount of court time
that would otherwise have been saved. One case took twenty days and it
was said that it could easily have been done in ten. Both the Bar
Association and the Law Society would concur in estimates of that
order. Coverage by court reporters would cost very much less than the
in such saving in the operating cost
courts and would thus be a
considerable net gain for the Judiciary alone. With sound recording
the gain would be even greater. In either case the costs of
transcription would be similar. The same arguments apply, although the
savings for the Judiciary would of course be less in the District
Court. They will have great force if trial by jury is introduced
there. They also apply in the Magistracy where there has been
complaint of "considerable delay to hearings and to a degree in the
Labour and Small Claims Tribunals and the Coroner's Court.
7.
The total cost of a court day to the community is, of course,
far greater than that which is borne by the Judiciary alone. The fees
and costs of practitioners are high. They are a direct cost to the
taxpayer when paid from public funds and otherwise a direct cost to
private litigants who are critical of the reason for this item of cost.
A costing exercise is beyond the scope of my consultancy. One ought to
be undertaken. I should be surprised to learn that providing court
reporting facilities for all Hong Kong's courts and tribunals would not
prove to be a sound public investment. The case for a service for
civil business in the High Court is very strong indeed. But there are
countries in which coverage for all courts and tribunals is justifiable
and Hong Kong might be such a one.
- 65 -
?