Government rejects Bar's attack on bill
THE Government yesterday launched a swift counter-attack against criticism by the Bar Council of the draft bill for the Court of Final Appeal (CFA).
The rebuttal came on the eve of tonight's extraordinary general meeting of the barristers' group.
A government spokesman said officials were surprised and disappointed the council had failed to take on board the wider implications of rejecting the bill.
He said failure to establish a CFA would result in a judicial vacuum at the highest level for two to three years.
The spokesman argued the bill conformed to the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law and that technical points raised by the council would be considered by the administration before it took the proposal to the Legislative Council.
The Government also dismissed the council's argument there was no guarantee of the court's lifespan beyond 1997.
'The whole purpose of the 1991 Joint Liaison Group agreement was to establish a CFA before 1997 that would continue beyond 1997,' the spokesman said.
'There may be a need for some validation or appointment procedure, for example oaths in 1997, but there is no reason to believe that these would affect the continued employment of any judges.' The Preliminary Working Committee, however, said the provisional legislature formed after 1997 would have to appoint judges, hinting CFA judges appointed before the handover would not be able to ride the through-train.
In a detailed position paper issued on Tuesday, the Bar Council urged members to condemn the government bill at the extraordinary general meeting, saying the price for a third-rate court was too high.
The council also cited the small number of cases - five on average a year - heard by the Privy Council and the fact there was no substantial proof the CFA would survive 1997 even if it was formed in accordance with the 1991 accord.
The legal profession has condemned the 1991 deal which limited the number of overseas judges to one as a breach of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
But Deputy Solicitor-General Robert Allcock lambasted the bill's opponents for their failure to offer solutions.
'What do opponents of the bill offer?' he asked.
'They offer a judicial vacuum, legal uncertainty, insecurity for the community and investors and the possibility that a court established after 1997 will be less satisfactory than that now proposed.
'They should explain why they believe this to be in the interests of the people of Hong Kong.' Mr Allcock warned against playing down the consequences of a judicial vacuum if the CFA was not established by July 1996.
He argued it was not the number of cases heard by the Privy Council that mattered but the significance of those cases.
As well as denying litigants' right to final appeal, he said a judicial vacuum would restrict the development of jurisprudence on matters of public importance.
