0372723755
P.
05-JUN-1992 12:51
PAUL FIFOOT
In Lun "/
would be difficult to differentiate their position from that of e.g. contract police officers.
3.
terms.
Did this category of officers know that this eligibility was limited to those appointed before a date in March 1985 ? Mr Suttill in his letter of 12th May 1992 to Ms Coglin says the first they knew of this was in a letter of 15th April 1992. How did others know of it earlier ? The Civil Service Department point to Circular 6/85 of 28th March 1985 as the basis for notifying the HK service of the limitation on the eligibility
the eligibility to apply for membership of HMOCS.
That circular states that an overseas officer appointed on agreement terms after the date of the circular would no longer be
be eligible to transfer to pensionable Nothing was said in that circular about the consequences of this decision for eligibility to apply for membership of HMOCS; and Mr Waters in his letter of 26th May 1992 to Mr Stone admits this, writing that "this has always been taken as read".
The validity of that proposition so far a8 the officers in the Judiciary are concerned depends on at least two assumptions, namely that those officers werc aware of Circular 6/85 and that it applied to them and that they were, or should reasonably have been, aware that membership of HMOCS was so intimately connected with p and p status that the former could not exist without the latter. It would be difficult, I think, for these officers to dispute the second point on its own, but the first does give us a problem. Before considering that problem, I should note that the question of eligibility for membership of HMOCS is primarily a matter for HMG not the HK Government, but in the absence of any announcement on behalf of the Secretary of State (and although no such announcement has been referred to me, it would be as well to check yet again that none was made and issued) the HK circular is our only basis for putting a limitation оп eligibility for membership of HMOCS.
4.
In 1986, EXCO decided that, with certain irrelevant exceptions, all serving members of the Judiciary and whether on pensionable or agreement terms should be given the opportunity to transfer to service under the new Judicial Pensions Ordinance.
Following this, but three years later, the Registrar of the Supreme Court wrote to the Civil Service Department asking their confirmation that Circular 6/85 did not apply to the Judiciary, and on 21st February 1989 the Civil Service Department replied, somewhat eliptically, but clearly enough for our purposes, that the deadline for transfer to the permanent establishmont would not apply to overseas judicial officers. In the context of that correspondence, the deadline could only mean the appointment before 28th March 1985 deadline, not the separate deadline which was notified from time to time for opting for p and p status. Again nothing was said about ITMOCS. But if the restriction on qualifying for for p and p status is removed
is removed because Circular 6/85 was not to apply to these officers, what notification was there that they would not remain cligible to apply for HMOCS membership once they were admitted top p and p status ? And if Circular 6/85 did not apply, it was not unreasonable to conclude that the series of circulars telling contract officers of the
contract
2
14
TOTAL P.01
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.