I refer to the article headlined 'Judges and politics don't mix' (October 19).
The writer commented on two matters, a decision of Mr Justice Hartmann in court and a speech by Mr Justice Tang made out of court.
Regarding Mr Justice Hartmann's decision on costs in Leung Kwok-hung's case, it is trite law that the judge has discretion on a question of costs. I do not think it is justified to suggest that the judge's decision was in any way affected by political motives. I am sure that if the other interested parties in the case think the judge was wrong in not awarding costs against Mr Leung, they know that they can exercise their right to ask for leave to appeal.
I agree that there may be cases where someone would seek to use the court as a means to pursue his own political interests. This may take the form of private suits or criminal prosecutions. In fact, in his speech opening the legal year in 2003, Alan Leong SC, then Bar chairman, cited some examples of this and strongly condemned the practice. However, in fairness to the judiciary, the court cannot refuse to adjudicate on a case properly brought before it, whether the person bringing the case is politically motivated or not.
The other incident was a special Bar mess held on September 24 in honour of Mr Justice Tang. This was a private function of the Bar. Traditionally the Bar mess is not open to solicitors, and Kennedy Wong, the writer, is no exception. Mr Justice Tang addressed the mess on the importance of the rule of law and having good legislation. While he did say that Audrey Eu, Ronny Tong, Alan Leong, the three ex-Bar chairmen, and Margaret Ng would strike fear into the heart of every enemy of the rule of law, in no instance did he associate their achievement with the Article 45 Concern Group. As I recall, the group was not mentioned at all.
Mr Justice Tang also mentioned that 'all but one' previous Bar chairmen had upheld the traditional role as defenders of the rule of law in Hong Kong. While I am not sure about the exception he mentioned, I agree with his general observation. It is the Bar's role to uphold the rule of law and this tradition will go on. As leader of the Bar, the chairman is expected to take the lead in maintaining the rule of law and I have no doubt that someone who is not prepared to defend it should not and would not be elected chairman. Insofar as Mr Justice Tang had made such a suggestion in his address to the Bar, he was merely stating the obvious.