fact sufficiently deserving, to be allowed to continue
in office. A similar proviso for extending the retirement
s of individual Supreme Court Judges from 62 to not
more than 65 existing in current Letters Patent had been
deleted by Hong Kong (section 2(b) of the draft amendment)
It had been criticised in the past and should not be
perpetuated. The Governor had pressed for it rather
against the FCO's better judgement and in fact it could
only work on the basis that any Supreme Court judge who
wished for an extension and was not disbarred by bad
health would automatically get it. There is no criterion
on which one could properly refuse to extend the term of
an individual judge who wishes to stay on except infirmity
of body or mind, which should not be the case with serving
officers of 60 (localisation of posts would have to be
specially provided for with lump-sum compensation).
Short Contracts
3. Our proposal for appointments for periods of years.
followed provisions that had been found useful elsewhere.
The period of 5 years was not sacrosant a longer
minimum period could be substituted.
Such a provision
might be useful for non-career appointments, which will
presumably become more common.
Our savingram No 50 of
30 July (copy attached) inadvertently failed to comment
on this proposal.
An example of an existing provision
on the same lines, in the constitution of Mauritius
where it first appeared, is attached.
Leave after Retirement Date
4. Mr Rushford commented that Article 2(1)(a) (permitting
a judge to take leave after his retirement date) seemed
unnecessary. A Judge with accrued leave not taken by
the retirement date could retire. on that date and be
given a lump sum in lieu of further salary. If he were
/given
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.