&
ховають
Nothing has happened snice
the Secision to take no
further action
initel Sir FPiggott retins, except
54 Days is obir
care
40
obviously
argument.
въ по
and such
Exceptional
A
ao
a
As regards to the Appeal
Court - I don't see
should haur
to
Sir F Piggott
why a monopoly in Hongkong
токорову
ні
hares. I would thenfor suggest
overruled by the Final Court of Appeal. In Hongkong, if ordinary
med by
cases
now
and obviously
once
win tried befor
both judges,
one
judige
Sifficult
ones
a
248
the Full Court of
Fon't see
why
appeals should not be sinct to the Privy Council
al
H
23/12
!
that one
out
way
F
is
to abolish
the Sufficulty Appeal Court
altogether between the ordmary sittings of the Supreme Ct and the Privy Council. Sir F Peggott is foud
& then of invoking mauritian precedents,
appeal from the original
then is
no
of the Suprime
jurisdiction of the
CE
Except
to the Privy Council. Except in Assize (cominal)
cases,
suits
an
heard befon 2 (or
in important matters 13) Suprime
Judges
یک
*
then is
I hav
neury
CF
local appeal
been able to
understand the advantage to anyone
a
Except the legal profession - of series of Appeal Courts, the intermediate ones appear to exist.
to have their judgments
mainly
ary
pass diction
11
Mr. Cor
Mi. A...Harding's suggestion seas to t he
lay mind { on which Sir ..Piggott pours such
scathing contempt.) an excellent one. Both the ..
and the Puisse Judge would be much relieved by the
abolition of the local appeal court, and the present
appeal from one Judge to two only seems to me act
worth having except from the coint of view of the
legal profession.
Acc
30/12
(with the provision for a lury whenevA.
desired to decide questions of fact, and with
ect appeal to the Privy Council on pacts of law.
1
S
I don't think Piggott would be anla to do much
dir-!
more harn and he couldn't ove rule his colleague's
decisi
tonga
23
under the present system of local
toneal i
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.