Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. The importance of that commonplace has rarely been as important as it is in Hong Kong today. As the territory looks towards its future, not only the impartiality of the legal system but also the degree of public confidence which it commands are of paramount importance. Yet, as a series of reports which we will be publishing this week shows, there are serious causes for concern.
A week ago, we reported that judiciary staff had decided at a closed-door meeting to treat criminal charge sheets in magistrates courts as 'privileged information', which would be withheld from public scrutiny. It is worrying enough that, unless the decision is reversed, public knowledge about who is being charged with what offence will be restricted. A second concern is aroused by the way in which the decision was reached - at a closed-door meeting whose outcome was not announced and whose participants refused to answer questions from our reporter who disclosed the story. Such a response conveys an arrogance towards the public which is entirely out of place - particularly since the basis officials have cited for their right to withhold information appears questionable.
Now, as we report today, the press and public are no longer to have access to High Court indictments which list the charges defendants face. At the same time, our investigations show that no fewer than 234 legal cases took place in secret in chambers last week at the Supreme Court and District Court, with 25 judges presiding over legal proceedings conducted behind closed doors. A number of such hearings will always take place in chambers for perfectly good reasons. But last week's hearings in chambers included injunctions, judgments, applications and directions which many would argue should have been considered in public because of their nature. Since records of hearings in chambers are rarely made public and lawyers say they are not allowed to reveal details of the proceedings, the likelihood of the public ever being informed on such cases is slim - and our request for an explanation as to why so many cases were being heard in secret received no reply.
The performance of the judiciary must always be a matter for genuine public attention. Never more so than in the period leading up to the change of sovereignty. The need for a judicial system which not only meets the highest standards, but is as open as possible should not have to be stressed. The unfortunate evidence is that the tide is running in the opposite direction, and that we are facing a series of arbitrary procedural decisions. They may suit the judiciary's convenience, but that is not the paramount concern. The judiciary should pay much greater attention to the interests of Hong Kong as a whole - and be seen to be so doing.