· 2 -
Although this is not the purpose of the proposal, the amendments will also have the effect of widening the pool of eligible candidates for judicial appointment. For example, an overseas advocate with no Hong Kong or colonial experience is at present eligible for appointment as a High Court judge only if he has 10 years' experience as an advocate or solicitor in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. Under the proposed amendments an advocate with 10 years' experience in any common law jurisdiction will be eligible. I would, however, emphasize that the Judiciary remains committed to attracting Hong Kong lawyers to become judges and magistrates.
Part III of the Bill amends the Application of English Law Ordinance and the Defamation Ordinance in order to tidy up the legislative provisions concerning the functions of the judge and jury in a trial on indictment for criminal libel. At present, the Application of English Law Ordinance provides that the English Libel Act 1792 applies in Hong Kong. That Act states that it is the members of the jury, rather than the judge, who are to decide whether the words complained of in a libel case refer to the plaintiff, and whether the words have a defamatory meaning. We propose to amend the Defamation Ordinance to include provisions similar to those in the Libel Act. Consequently, the Bill provides for the reference to the Act in the Application of English Law Ordinance to be repealed.
Part IV of the Bill repeals the General Loan and Stock Ordinance, the Hong Kong Treasury Bills (London) Ordinance, the Public Stores Ordinance, the Essential Commodities Reserves Ordinance, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance, the Norwegian Seamen's Mission Incorporation Ordinance, the Institute of the Soeurs des Missions Etrangeres Incorporation Ordinance and the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce Special Relief Fund Ordinance. These Ordinances are either redundant or no longer suitable to Hong Kong and should be repealed.
Finally, Part V of the Bill amends the Magistrates Ordinance in respect of the proof of service of a summons. At present, under section 8 subsection (3) of the Magistrates Ordinance, a statutory declaration made by a police officer or bailiff stating that he personally delivered a summons to the person named in the summons is admissible as evidence of service without further proof. However, such a declaration only covers a situation where the summons was personally delivered to the relevant person. Where the summons was left with a third person at the recipient's last or most usual place of abode, the person serving the summons must currently appear in court to give evidence of its service. This has resulted in the inefficient deployment of the police officer's or bailiff's time. The proposed amendment to section 8(3) will recognize a statutory declaration as proof of service where the summons was left with a third person at the recipient's last or most usual place of abode.
Mr President, this Bill is a further move to modernize and tidy-up outdated or redundant legislative provisions. I commend it to this Council for early passage into law.
End