TNAG-2694-FCO40-3900-Hong-Kong-Judiciary-and-judicial-appointments-1993 — Page 31

Mes Paris

CONFIDENTIAL followed up on their request for help to

This explains why this have not

fiind in replacement Rey, se. As this will

he c

Secreten werch appointment,

Should Why rich the Sch State's

XCC(93)88

Copy No. 31

24

approval, or guist advice an

quist advise us of who they intend appointing?

MEMORANDUM

HKA 373/1

FOR EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

a

7. 1993

43. MiWathen

APPOINTMENT OF A

SENIOR JUDICIARY ADMINISTRATOR

no mey should seek sas

THE PROBLEM

approval

At present the administration of the Judiciary is primarily the

11 8876 if his.

responsibility of the Registrar, Supreme Court, under the supervision of is consider

the Chief Justice. This arrangement is inadequate to meet changing ec demands and rising expectations for an efficient Judiciary. The management task has become large and complicated enough to require the full-time attention of a senior Administrator.

opolicy arresarche branch.

RECOMMENDATION AND ADVICE SOUGHT

2

Subject to the provision of the necessary funds by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, it is recommended that the following policy proposals be implemented -

(a)

that a Judiciary Administrator, at D8 level, be appointed as per paragraph 9 below; and

Secretoy appointment

level

(b)

that the administrative structure of the Judiciary be modified and strengthened as per paragraphs 10 to 14 below.

3

Members will be asked to advise whether this recommendation should be approved.

A

BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT

4

The proposal to appoint a Judiciary Administrator was first put forward by Mr Peter Robinson, a consultant seconded from the Lord Chancellor's Department, in his Report on the Judiciary in December 1986. Mr Robinson's main arguments for this new post are set out in paragraph 20 of his Report, an extract of which is at Annex A.

Executive Council