17.
I propose a system much less elaborate and expensive than some in the United States. Comparisons of scale rule out anything like
a judicial college as in Nevada or the Federal Judicial Centre in Washington. A better example for Hong Kong might be the Judicial Studies Board in England and I recommend that a representative of the new board here take an early opportunity to look at the English system and report back. For certain purposes it would be efficacious to send
members of the Judiciary to courses in England, America or elsewhere.
18.
An early development would probably be the establishment of
committees with co-opted members to perfect the system in particular
areas.
19.
I cannot here estimate the cost of my recommendations but if
members of the Judiciary are willing to make concerted efforts it will
not be high. There would be some staff costs; fees would be payable to
outsiders; there would be periodic accommodation costs and travel and
subsistence charges. It will cost very little to set the board up and
make a start.
20.
Some of the benefits appear in the course of the preceding
paragraphs. None can be costed at the moment but I suggest that the
balance of financial as well as other advantage lies with a judicial
studies system because it will ensure a more flexible and more fully
functioning Judiciary and will significantly help to make better use of
judicial time. It might save judicial posts and could reduce the
opportunities of appeal.
21.
There will also be a better service to the public, improved
judicial morale and productive exchange between judges and experts and
between the Hong Kong and foreign Judiciaries.
-
7? -
-