WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1987
3
SUPREME COURT OPERATION TO BE STREAMLINED
BILL
1987 IS TO
THE SUPREME APPEAL, THE
THE PURPOSE OF THE SUPREME COURT (AMENDMENT) IMPROVE AND STREAMLINE THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF COURT WHICH IS COMPRISED OF THE HIGH COURT AND COURT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON MICHAEL THOMAS, TOLD THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY}.
MOVING THE BILL FOR SECOND READING, MR THOMAS SAID ALTHOUGH THE UNITED KINGDOM LEGISLATION IN THIS REGARD HAD BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDED OVER THE YEARS AND WAS CONSOLIDATED BY THE SUPREME COURT ACT IN 1981, FEW CORRESPONDING AMENDMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE HONG KONG ORDINANCE.
"ACCORDINGLY, THERE
ARE NOW
BETWEEN THE TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION.
SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCES
OF THE OF THE
"BY 1984 IT HAD BECOME APPARENT THAT A THOROUGH REVIEW SUPREME COURT ORDINANCE WAS REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED KINGDOM LEGISLATION SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN HONG KONG," MR THOMAS SAID.
"NO ONE SUGGESTS THAT HONG KONG MUST SLAVISHLY ADOPT ALL UNITED KINGDOM REFORMS.
LOCAL NEEDS
"ANY AMENDMENT THAT IS PROPOSED ON THE BASIS OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM MUST BE EVALUATED IN THE LIGHT OF AND HONG KONG'S SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES," HE ADDED.
IN 1984, A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES COMMITTEE, BEING A PANEL OF JUDGES AND LEGAL PRACTITIONERS, WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF MR JUSTICE KEMPSTER TO UNDERTAKE A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED TO THE UNITED KINGDOM LEGISLATION AND CONSOLIDATED IN THE 1981 ACT SHOULD BE MADE TO THE HONG KONG ORDINANCE.
VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES TO THE
LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE SUB-COMMITTEE HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL, MR THOMAS SAID.
THAT HAD NOT
THE PROPOSAL MADE BY THE KEMPSTER SUB-COMMITTEE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE HIGH COURT SHOULD BE EMPOWERED TO GRANT "INTERIM DECLARATIONS AGAINST THE CROWN AT AN EARLY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS, HE SAID.
OF
THIS FORM OF INTERIM RELIEF WAS INTENDED TO HAVE THE EFFECT TEMPORARILY RESTRAINING THE GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING AS DISPUTED ACTION UNTIL THE MATTERS IN ISSUE BETWEEN THE AFFECTED CITIZEN AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE FINALLY DETERMINED AT THE TRIAL.
THE GOVERNME