TNAG-0261-FCO40-297-Applications-by-judges-for-admission-to-legal-practise-at-Ho-1970 — Page 52

CONFIDENTIAL

-2-

WOULD OBJECT TO HIS RETURNING TO GENERAL PRACTICE. OMISSION BY CROW TO REQUIRE UNDERTAKING FROM DISTRICT JUDGE MAY LEAD LATTER TO ASSUL THAT THE CROWN WOULD NOT, OR IS UNLIKELY TO, OBJECT TO HIS ENTERING ON PRACTICE, BUT APPLICANT COULD NOT, IN MY OPINION, REASONABLY ARGUE THAT THE OMISSION AMOUNTED TO UNDERTAKING THAT CROWN WOULD NOT OBJECT: AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CROWN'S ATTITUDE TO THE APPLICATION MUST BE GOVERNED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. IN DETERMING YOUR ATTITUDE YOU WOULD NO DOUBT ALSO TAKE ACCOUNT OF FACT THAT DISTRICT JUDGES HAVE EVIDENTLY BEEN ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THE PAST (SEE BLAIR KERR'S JUDGMENT AT P.332). THAT OF COURSE, IS NOT CONCLUSIVE: AND IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THAT PUBLIC INTEREST NOW REQUIRES THAT RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGES SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM PRACTICE, OTHER THAN IN PURELY CONSULTATIVE CAPACITY.

6. GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD PASS FROM OFFICIALS OF LORD CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN MIFT TO JACKSON-LIPKIN WITH REFERENCE TO LATTER'S LETTER OF 23 FEBRUARY TO LORD CHANCELLOR.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE SAY THAT, WHILE JACKSON-LIPKIN (OR OF COURSE YOURSELF) MAY USE THIS INFORMATION AT THE HEARING OF THE APPLICATION, THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED. WHILE THERE IS NOTHING CONFIDENTIAL IN THE INFORMATION ITSELF, YOU SHOULD IMPRESS UPON JACKSON-LIPKIN THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF INVOLVING THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE IN THE

PROCEEDINGS.

STEWART

FILES:

HONG KONG D. LEGAL ADVISERS

DDDDD

CONFIDENTIAL