bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

LEGISLATORS would be irresponsible to endorse the Bar Association's proposed amendments to the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill 1995, the Attorney-General, Jeremy Mathews, warned.

  Mr Mathews said the proposed changes would make it more difficult to recruit judges.

  The amendments - to be moved by Democratic Party chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming - would 'exclude many categories of people who are currently eligible', he said.

  The legislation is to have its second and third readings tomorrow.

  Barristers have strongly opposed the bill, which would make solicitors with 10 years' experience eligible for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.

  Mr Lee is to amend it to allow only those barristers or solicitors who have 10 years' experience in work 'similar to that usually undertaken by an advocate' to be eligible.

  Under his proposal, the barristers or solicitors would also have to be qualified in Hong Kong, Britain or the Irish Republic.

  Mr Mathews said current laws allowed lawyers qualified in a Commonwealth country other than those three to be eligible for appointment.

  'I know of no other common law jurisdiction that has eligibility criteria as restrictive as those proposed,' he said.

  He added advocacy experience should not be a pre-requisite for eligibility but should be taken into account.

  The proposed new criteria 'are extremely vague, would be difficult to apply and could lead to judicial appointments being challenged in court', Mr Mathews said.

  They appeared to make advocacy experience anywhere in the world, even in a non-common law jurisdiction, a qualification provided it was similar to Hong Kong advocacy experience.

  But Bar Association chairman, Gladys Li QC, said: 'To enlarge the pool of eligible candidates at the possible expense of standards is not acceptable: the public interest must be protected.'   'A judge cannot learn on the job.' An essential requirement was 'actual court experience', Ms Li said.

  The bill, if passed unamended, would also create an anomaly, she said. Current legislation required barristers to have practised as advocates for at least 10 years before applying for appointment but, under the bill, solicitors would only need to have practised for 10 years, and not necessarily in litigation work.



A-G urges legislators to reject Bar amendments