TNAG-0397-FCO40-443-Problem-of-increase-in-crime-in-Hong-Kong-1973 — Page 52

BY BAG

SAVING TELEGRAM

LAST

CONFIDENTIA£f.

* FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

CONFIDENTIAL

NEXT REF.

(SI)

Gs

TO ROUTINE HONG KONG TELNO. 60 SAVING OF 28 AUGUST 1973.

THE COURT SYSTEM OF HONG KONG.

(HK)

RECAVID IN

KGIST, NY

3 SEP 973,

Or

HKKHX21

Lord Gardiner, Chairman of the Council of Justice, eeme-to see Wilford and Stuart on 24 August. Rushford was present. He was accompanied by the Secretary of the Council Mr.Sargant, Mr.Silkin QC MP and by Messrs Eddis and Jackson-Lipkin of the Hong Kong branch. The latter did most of the talking. At intervals in a discussion

which lasted an hour and a quarter points arose which reflected the accusation refuted in the Attorney-General's memorandum that Government

was acting from ulterior motives. We did not allow cur visitors. to get away with this and strongly refuted the accusation.

2.

Lord Gardiner said they were still concerned that the new powers of the District Courts would lower the standard of justice by removing from some the right to trial by Jury, by reducing the incidence of legal aid by the absence of a shorthand writer, and by increasing the backlog of cases. More generally they thought the time had come for a review of the system of justice, (quoting the McKinsey precedent on the administration) whether or not preceded by a Commission of Enquiry from the United Kingdom. The present system was appropriate to a developing colony, but not for a sophisticated industria? society. Most of the bench were former prosecuting counsel with little experience of complicated civil as opposed to criminal work, Lord Gardiner wondered whether I would think it right to discuss with Sir Ivo Righy the possibility of a Committee of Enquiry to be appointed by myself or hy you.

3.

On the alleged defects of the Distrid Court, Jackson-Lipkin asserted that the backlog in this court was twice that in the Supreme Court and cases generally took longer. Eddis said that contrary to the Attorney-General's note it was, in his experience, never the case that District Court judges gave judgement at the end of contested cases, while in the Supreme Court the judge had of course to sum up for the jury. Jackson-Lipkin disagreed with those unnamed who thought the purpose of the new arrangement was to secure more convictions. But he did think it was a panic measure, designed with the anti-crime campaign, which was

/equally

CONFIDENTIAL