22 -
Mr President, before that Ordinance was passed, the question of making solicitors also eligible for appointment as recorders of the High Court was raised by the Bills Committee. Following discussions with the Administration, the Bar Association and the Law Society, the Bills Committee agreed that the qualifications for appointment as recorders should be dealt with separately. It asked the Administration to discuss this issue with the Bar Association and the Law Society in the succeeding few months and then report its conclusion to the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services.
After holding a series of discussions with the Bar Association and the Law Society, the Administration reaffirmed its view that the qualifications for appointment as recorders of the High Court should be the same as those for permanent appointments to the Supreme Court. The Administration also reached a preliminary conclusion that solicitors, who have practised as such in Hong Kong for 10 years or more, should be eligible for appointment as both recorders of the High Court and as permanent judges of the Supreme Court. The views of the Bar Association and the Law Society on this preliminary conclusion were sought last November. At the same time, the Administration briefed the Panel on the Administration of Justice and Legal Services. We also took part in the Panel's subsequent discussions with the Bar Association and the Law Society in December.
Mr President, after carefully considering the different views expressed by the Bar Association and the Law Society, the Executive Council agreed on 17 January that solicitors who have practised in Hong Kong for 10 years or more should be made eligible for direct appointment to the Supreme Court and that this Bill should be introduced into this Council to make an appropriate amendment to the current eligibility criteria in section 9(1) of the Supreme Court Ordinance.
The amendment proposed in this Bill will provide a simple and objective test of eligibility, and will ensure that no experienced legal practitioner in Hong Kong will be automatically excluded from applying for appointment to the Supreme Court. This will substantially enlarge the pool of eligible candidates.
Some people, including some Members of this Council, expressed concern that it may be difficult to assess the suitability of a solicitor who has not appeared as an advocate or does not have the right of audience before the Supreme Court. I do not think that this should pose any insurmountable problem. Apart from Mauritius, Hong Kong appears to be the only common-law jurisdiction which no longer provides any avenue by which a solicitor may be directly appointed to the High Court. Other jurisdictions which have introduced these avenues have been able to devise means of assessing the suitability of solicitors for appointment to the Bench. I am sure that Hong Kong can do so too.
End/Wednesday, February 15, 1995