LORD
CONFIDENTIAL
CHANCELLOR
WIL
HOUSE OF Lords,
SWIA OPW
3rd May 1978.
Dear Tan¿USHFORD
t
Hong Kong: Proposed Appointments
You wrote to me on 2nd May seeking my views about the proposals
made by the Governor of Hong Kong for the appointment of a new Chief
Justice, a new Chief Secretary and a new head of the Independent
Commission Against Corruption.
I have not found it easy to answer your questions, because I am (inevitably) not familiar with the background to these proposals and
it may very well be that considerations which would govern any advice I
might give to the Lord Chancellor about corresponding appointments here
might not be apt against that background. The views that follow must
be read subject to that very substantial qualification.
There is not, as far as I can see, any ground on which it could
be argued that there was a legal objection to any of the Governor's
proposals and I assume that there is no statutory provision operating in
Hong Kong which might constitute such an objection. The issue is really
one of propriety, to be decided in the light of the fundamental consideration
that the first objective must be to maintain public confidence in the
impartiality of the Judiciary. If I may take first the proposal to
appoint Roberts as Chief Justice; I would say that, though there are certainly precedents (and fairly recent ones) in England and Saatland for
the Attorney General to be appointed Chief Justice, it would nowadays be
regarded as a move away from sound constitutional practice if those
precedents were followed. It is, of course, the fact that in Scotland it
is still the rule rather than the exception for a Lord Advocate to be
appointed to the Bench, but I think it is sometime since a Lord Advocate was appointed straight to the highest judicial post in the country.
must also make the point that there would be considerable public criticism
A. R. Rushford, Esq.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.