The Basic Law upholds the principle of trial by jury. But this right is unavailable to defendants in the District Court. They face trial before a judge alone who can hand down jail sentences of up to seven years.
When the court was established in 1953, the pool of jurors was considered too small to undertake the extra workload. As a result, people who up until then would have appeared before a jury in a higher court were deprived of this right.
The Basic Law maintained the status quo, leaving the question to Hong Kong to determine for itself. Meanwhile, changing circumstances have undermined the original arguments against juries in the District Court.
Trial by jury remains fundamental to our system of justice. Many feel it is time the question of extending it was reopened.
The pool of jurors was once so small because they had to be proficient in English and meet a certain level of education. Since the English requirement was dropped, the pool has grown from 20,000 in 1995 to nearly 470,000 in 2006. Meanwhile, nearly half of District Court criminal trials are now heard in Chinese.
The educational hurdle remains, though more people clear it and even more will do so as education reforms work their way through the system.
Supporters of the present jury system argue that this leads to more sensible verdicts. But it does not always result in people being tried before juries of their peers - people from a similar background to themselves.