TNAG-0193-FCO40-229-Representations-from-Hong-Kong-Bar-Association-particularly--1970 — Page 82

RESTRICTED

Ө

&

Para. 5. LEGAL AID IN CIVIL CASES.

The Bar Committee gave Mr. McPetrie a copy of a memorandur (attached to this note as Annex 2) which had been prepared by Mr. Litto

for circulation to members of the Bar Committee. They said that the

stated

nenorandum sufficiently stated their views on the subject of Legal Aid

in Civil Cases. Mr. McPetrie informed the Committee that a Working

Party of officials had been studying the 1962 Report on Legal Aid and

had now completed their work. Mr. McPetrie thought it probable that Government would now be approaching the Bar on this matter but he could

not say when. The Committee asked Mr. McPetrie to do what he could

to accelerate their process. Mr. McPetrie nade the following points

(i) It would have to be considered whether a legal aid schene

which was freely used night strain the present manpower of

the profession, though no doubt the Bar would grow in size. (ii) Since the spending of public noney would be involved in such

a scheme, there would no doubt have to be sone satisfactory

1

system of regulating the scale of fees.

Para. 6. DISTRICT COURT ORDINANCE, S.321 (AS AMENDED).

:

The Committee, while recognising that appeal by way of caso

stated by the Crown against acquittals in the Magistrates Courts is

well established, made the point that such a procedure had its origin in the fact that nagistrates were (and in England are) often laymen.

They deplore the extension of such a procedure to the District Court.

Mr. McPetrie pointed out that in England an appeal lies against an acquittal obtained in the court of a netropolitan magistrate (who is not a layman). The Committee observed, however, that the criminal

jurisdiction of a district judge in Hong Kong is considerably greater than that of a netropolitan nagistrate in England. Mr. McPetrie said

that he would give the natter thought. He pointed out that in favour

of the appeals allowed by section 324 there was the argument that it

was in the general public interest that errors in law should be

rectified.

SIZE OF SUPREME COURT BENCH.

Although this subject does not appear in the nemorandun at

RESTRICTED