SECTION C: WIDER USE OF CHINESE IN THE Courts
(Paragraphs 21-25 of the Legal Sub-Committee's Report)
6. We fully agree with our Sub-Committee's recommendations in this section. In particular, we note that our Sub-Committee's recommendation that the spoken part of the proceedings in the Magistrates' Courts or quasi- judicial bodies of comparable rank should be conducted in Cantonese or English or both at the discretion of the presiding official, if fully implemented, will be a significant step forward in the use of Chinese in our Courts. Judicial Statistics for the year 1969-70 indicate that 483,625 cases, represent- ing 96.14% of the cases heard in all of our Courts, were in our Magistracies. 7. Also, in connection with the use of Chinese in Magistrates' Courts and quasi-judicial bodies of similar rank we should like to add the following
comments:
(a)
We note that our Sub-Committee has recommended that the decision to use Chinese or English or both languages for the proceedings in such Courts should be left to the discretion of the presiding official. If this recommendation is accepted, we consider that the Honourable the Chief Justice should be invited to make suitable arrangements to ensure that presiding officials wishing to conduct proceedings in Cantonese are fully competent to do so.
(b) We note our Legal Sub-Committee's finding that the present shortage of Cantonese speaking judicial officers will permit only limited imple- mentation of spoken Chinese in Magistrates' Courts or quasi-judicial bodies of comparable rank for the near future. However, as a means of implementing our Sub-Committee's recommendation without undue delay, we would like to draw attention to the possibility of reviving the use of Justices of the Peace Courts over which suitably qualified and bilingual Justices could preside.
SECTION D:
OTHER LEGAL MATTERS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED MATERIAL UNDER THE SUB-COMMITTEE'S TERMS OF REFERENCE (Paragraph 26 of the Legal Sub-Committee's Report)
8. We generally endorse the recommendations of our Sub-Committee in this paragraph and we add below our own comments on each recommenda- tion:
(a) Explanatory booklets in Chinese of the more important ordinances-
Paragraph 26(i)
We fully agree with our Sub-Committee that the existing practice of producing such booklets should be extended irrespective of the translation of the Laws of Hong Kong, so that the substance of as
24
many Ordinances as possible should be within reach of the public. We do not envisage any substantial increase in costs and further expansion of activities could be absorbed in the course of normal expansion of Government's translation facilities.
(b) Glossary of Legal Terms found in Hong Kong ordinances and sub-
sidiary legislation—Paragraph 26(ii)
We note our Sub-Committee's recommendation that in the course of translating the ordinances and subsidiary legislation of Hong Kong, the translators should compile a glossary in Chinese and English of all legal terms contained therein. However, the production of a glossary by this method would necessarily be a long process. Therefore, for the greater convenience of the public, we recommend that independ- ently of the afore-mentioned exercise, a comprehensive glossary of legal terms found in the ordinances and subsidiary legislation should be compiled.
(c) Immediate translation of the titles of all existing ordinances and sub-
sidiary legislation-Paragraph_26(iii)
We agree with our Sub-Committee's recommendation here. However, we consider that such translation should include a brief description (in not more than one or two sentences) of each ordinance or subsidiary legislation. The list of such titles (which would have to be kept up-to- date regularly) should also contain a note indicating whether there is a corresponding explanatory booklet in Chinese.
(d) Pleadings-Paragraph 26(iv)
Chinese documents as evidence in Court-Paragraph 26(v) Judgements and Orders-Paragraph 26(vi)
We fully agree with our Sub-Committee's recommendations in these areas and the Registrar, Supreme Court, has informed us that to implement these recommendations, he would initially require a minimum of 12 Interpreter/Translators. The cost, calculated at mid- point, would be $308,832 p.a.
(e) Court Records-Paragraph 26(vii)
We agree with our Sub-Committee that no change is required; therefore, no additional cost is involved.
(f) Correspondence between the Courts and Chinese speaking members
of the public-Paragraph 26(viii)
We endorse our Sub-Committee's recommendations in this regard. Additionally, we consider that these recommendations, if accepted, should be applied in the context of paragraphs 47 & 49 of our Second
25
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.