XN000022-1995-07-05 — Page 34

· 14 -

Mr President, the amendment to be moved later on has serious and wide- reaching implications for appointments to the Supreme Court bench, but these implications, I am afraid, do not appear to have been thought through by those proposing the amendment. When we get to Committee, I will be saying something more about what I would regard as the technical defects, the amendment. But suffice it to say that I am in full agreement with the sentiment expressed by the Hon Simon Ip and Miriam Lau and others this afternoon and would urge this Council to support the Bill in its unamended form and to reject the proposed amendment.

Mr President, it is crucial for the administration of justice and the rule of law in Hong Kong that experienced lawyers who are suitable for appointment to the Supreme Court should not be excluded from appointment by narrow eligibility requirements. The Bill will help to prevent this happening and I urge all Members to support it, unamended.

End/Wednesday, July 5, 1995

AG urges support for Supreme Court Bill

The Attorney General, the Hon Jeremy Mathews, today (Wednesday) urged Legislative Councillors to support the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill 1995 which proposes to extend the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as Supreme Court judges. The Bill was passed today.

Speaking at the resumed second reading debate of the Bill in LegCo, Mr Mathews said the Bill, which proposed to make solicitors who had practised in Hong Kong for 10 years eligible for direct appointment as Supreme Court judges, would extend the pool of eligible candidates and ensure that no suitable lawyer was excluded from consideration.

He also urged Members to reject an amendment moved by the Hon Martin Lee, which was based on a Bar Association proposal arguing that advocacy or judicial experience should be pre-requisites for appointment to the Supreme Court bench.

He told legislators that the amendment would not only limit the extension of the cligibility criteria set out in the Bill, but it would also replace as existing criteria for appointment to the Supreme Court of persons other than District Court judges and magistrates.