GATHERING dust in the Supreme Court is a copy of a blueprint for efficient and effective management of the Hong Kong Judiciary.
Known as the Robinson Report, its author, Peter Robinson, was head-hunted from the top echelons of the British Judiciary in 1986 to lead a six-month study of Hong Kong's Judiciary and make recommendations to improve it.
Today, eight years after Mr Robinson passed his report to the then chief justice, Sir Denys Roberts, and six years since it was passed on to his successor Sir Ti Liang Yang, the Judiciary is still waiting for the modern management and basic resources that were urged.
When Sir Denys retired, he said in his farewell speech: ''I received the Judiciary in good health in 1979 and I leave it in 1988 . . . with virtually nothing achieved, save that, to my credit, I leave two tennis courts fully restored.'' As recently as last week Sir Ti Liang spoke of imminent ''major administrative reform efforts'' and of how he began the process six months ago by setting up a Working Party on Judiciary Administration.
He said the party was mapping out a broad strategy for enhancing judicial efficiency and had recommended measures including ''computerisation, more flexible administration systems and modern management''.
''Never before have we had the benefit of such collective advice and wisdom on the management of the Judiciary. This, in itself, is a breakthrough,'' said Sir Ti Liang.
But a cursory scan of the 10 chapters of findings and recommendations in the Robinson Report clearly demonstrates, in black and white, that the Judiciary has possessed the advice and wisdom since 1986, yet scarcely acted on it.
