Rationale for non-permanent judges outdated
Several important matters arise regarding the report ('Foreign influence 'significant' in local rights cases', April 3).
All judicial proceedings may be considered 'human rights cases' as they involve the fundamental right of persons to have their rights and obligations determined according to law by independent and impartial courts and tribunals. The enforcement of every right (not just the so-called 'fundamental' ones) depends on the arterial rights of access to justice and equality before the law.
The importance of upholding the rule of law regardless of category was recently affirmed by the reluctance of the British and US legislatures to breach the established contractual rights of failed bankers to receive bonuses despite personal distaste and public clamour.
More important to ensuring 'legal certainty' than consensus judgments is fidelity to the law using the sources of text, precedent, tradition and reason, and visibly canvassing all viewpoints required to decide cases justly. The writing of more than one judgment or a dissenting judgment may often better serve fairness, certainty and principled development of the law than a committee judgment.
The expensive system of employing overseas non-permanent judges as 'a mechanism designed to keep the Hong Kong courts in touch with other common-law jurisdictions' appears outdated now that the legislation and judgments of most jurisdictions are available on the internet.
The inevitable emergence locally - not necessarily only at the narrow senior counsel level - of talent suitable for top permanent judicial posts also suggests that appointing non-permanent judges should be reviewed and the number of permanent judges increased. Non-permanent appointments give an unfortunate impression that Hong Kong lacks a first-rate legal profession.
