OP Y.
Enclosure 1.
C.O.
8246
91
Chambers MAR 09
Supreme Court, Hongkong,
20th January, 1909.
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge Your Excellency's letter of 18th instant forwarding a draft of the Bill for creating the proposed new Appeal Court, and asking for my observations thereon.
2. I will refer first to two points of principle: - (a). I object altogether to the provision of s. 3, "Chief Justice shall preside". The question is so fully covered by the traditions of the Bench to which I have alluded in my previous letter, that it should be left untouched by the Ordinance. (b). Questions of law reserved at the assizes under s. 78 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance must be heard by the Full Court as at present constituted. It would never do to have, for example, a point reserved in a murder trial, hung up for four or five months.
3. With regard to the general form of the bill, the number of small alterations which it makes in existing Ordinances renders it extremely difficult to follow. Legislation which introduces such an important change into the constitution of the Supreme Court, should in my opinion be self-contained, and should not necessitate references from one Ordinance to another. This may involve re-casting a number of sections in existing laws, but lucidity is the first thing to aim at, and if this should involve a long Ordinance, it cannot be helped.
4. Again, the method of what may be called "short act" references which the Attorney-General has adopted, for example in s. 14 (3) the substitution throughout the Code of Civil Procedure of the words 'Court of Appeal' for 'Full Court' may...
Page ...
was not found in the original text, so I added a generic page... to follow the original instruction of keeping page information. However, the exact page number was not available. If you could provide more context or clarify the correct page number, I can make the necessary adjustments accordingly.