TNAG-2433-FCO40-3535-Hong-Kong-Her-Majesty-s-Overseas-Civil-Service-(HMOCS)-and-t-1992 — Page 95

25-JUN-1992 12:01

PAUL FIFOOT

0372723755

P.01/05

8

cc'd Mr Cox сох

Miss Willi

File

Mr Stone

olr

(Tel. drafted to HIC 5

5/6)

FAX TRANSMISSION

HKA 233/5

From: PAUL FIFOOT

5th June 1992

To: Nigel Cox

Hong Kong Department

Foreign & Commonwealth Office Fax: 071 270 3387

все

Pages: 5.

8/6

HMOCS AND THE JUDICIARY

1.

Appointments to the

the Hong Kong Judiciary (judges and judicial officers referred to hereafter together as "officers") on overseas agreement terme (i.a. pensionable terms) have been made for a number of years and continue to be made. Some such officers have subsequently been appointed оп permanent and pensionable terms and. according to lists the FCO keeps, admitted to membership of HMOCS.

It is by no means clear how this fits in with Mr Stone's recullection that he was advised that the judges should not be admitted to, but treated the same as, HMOCS or whether anyone thinks that they are not members of HMOCS, but of HMOJ, but I do not think that matters for the purpose of this minute; for present purposes, we can treat the position as set out in the previous sentence. (There is also the question whether persons recruited 39 these officers were recruited satisfy the conditions of recruitment for eligibility to apply for

for membership of HMOCS,

but since expatriate officers who are admitted to p and p status have automatically been admitted to HMOCS, it might be difficult to exploit that particular aspect to deny eligibility at this stage.)

2.

Miss Tsang (in her letter of 29 y 92 to Miss Williams) Seyc there is

apparent reference to eligibility for HMOCS/HMOJ in any of the letters of appointment or rules or regulations sent out with letters of appointment, and the two sets of such papers for 1988 and 1991 sent with her letter bear this out. This renders it probable, but we would have to make further enquiries to come to a firm conclusion, that officers in this category were not expressly recruited on the basis that they would be eligible for HMOCS. They might well discover once in Hong Kong, by seeing CSR 118 or on the grapevine, that admission to p and D status made officers cligible to apply for membership of HMOCS; (they have no right to membership and CSR 118 states "Overseas officers are not necessarily entitled to membership" though, again, the apparent practice of automatically admitting overseas officers once they have p and P status is some inhibition on making a change retroactively). At present some 9 High Court jj, some 11 District jj, 4 magistrates and all 6 members of the Supreme Court registry are admitted members of HMOCS. It would be difficult to dispute, therefore, that these officers, or some of them were aware of the fact that they were eligible to apply for membership of HMOCS if they were admitted to p and p status.

In this respect i t

}