TNAG-0262-FCO40-298-Appointments-to-judiciary-of-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 72

сърца

CA 4X14/4

RC 204/27/or

&

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

STAFF IN CONFIDENCE

20 March, 1970.

5

Ares In your letter to me of 10 October proposing Rigby for

Chief Justice you said that you had plans for creating a new post of Appeal Judge in the near future for which you would recommend Blair-Kerr and you discussed this with us in November. Comparing the Ordinances submitted under cover of your despatches Nos. 157 1/4 and 158 of 4 February with their respective Bills, it was apparent

to us that your plans came unstuck. On referring to proceedings in Legislative Council we found that the provisions relating to the appointment of an Appeal Judge were deleted at the Committee stage, as a result of the intervention of Oswald Cheung who pressed for an examination of the question of creating a separate Court of Appeal.

RC

2.

Blair-Kerr's possible appointment as Appeal Judge clearly has a bearing on the question of filling the post of Senior Puisne 26209/27/193 Judge for

Judge for which, in your despatch Ho. CR.1/1749/53 II of 5 February, you recommend Scholes. However much of a sinecure the post may be in other respects, the fact remains that the holder is expected to act as Chief Justice at least once a year when the Chief Justice is on leave and perhaps oftener if the Chief Justice is absent for other reasons or incapacitated. This is an important function. I do not see how we can do other than advise Ministers that, if e further appointment to the post of Senior Puisne Judge is to be made, the main criterion should be capacity and not seniority. On this basis Scholes would not be regarded here as a suitable appointment and the fact that he has a comparatively short time to serve would really be beside the point. I think you will agree that on grounds of capacity and general suitability Blair-Kerr heads the field, just as he would for the post of Appeal Judge if eventually created. He has a very fine record which we discussed very fully with you when the Chief Justiceship was under consideration and he has been recommended for accelerated promotion since 1966. If, on reconsider- ation, you agree that this post should be filled on merit and that Blair-Kerr should consequently get it, you might prefer him to be appointed on your formal recommendation. If so, you could of course withdraw your present recommendation for Scholes' appoint- ment and either submit the name of Blair-Kerr alone or, if this would make things easier for you with the Chief Justice, submit the names of both Scholes and Blair-Kerr in terms which indicated that you would be satisfied with whichever of them the Secretary of State decided to select.

Sir David Trench, G.C.M.G., M.C.,

Government House,

Hong Kong.

T

REF.

15

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

STAFF IN CONFIDENCE

13.