Cheap and unfair attack on ex-prosecutors
Your report ('Challenges for new chief justice as he takes over', September 1) quoted an anonymous criminal barrister who seemed to be saying that Mr Justice Frank Stock and Mr Justice Michael Hartmann of the Court of Appeal were pro-prosecution because they were former prosecutors. That was a cheap shot. It was gutless and it was unfair.
It was a cheap shot because Justices Stock and Hartmann can't hit back. It was gutless because the criminal barrister hid in the shadows of anonymity. It was unfair because it overlooks some obvious facts. Prosecuting does not require the prosecutor to become some messianic, blinkered, card-carrying believer that only prosecution witnesses tell the truth, that the police/Independent Commission Against Corruption would never prosecute an innocent person and would never listen to a contrary view.
Okay, I accept there are some prosecutors like that, but a nanosecond's worth of inquiry would reveal that Justices Stock and Hartmann as prosecutors did not begin to fit that description. A criminal barrister should know that over the years ex-prosecutors - refugees from the Department of Justice - make up a substantial portion of the criminal Bar.
Many such refugees have made the leap from the Bar to become judges in Hong Kong. Criminal barristers - whether department refugees or otherwise - do not believe that all their clients are innocent and the police/ICAC only prosecute the innocent. One assumes on the logic of your anonymous criminal barrister that judges who had only defended would acquit in every case that came before them.
I have to declare an interest. I once worked as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice but, as it happens, all of my clients are innocent. Having had the experience of prosecuting is invaluable when sitting as a judge in criminal cases. So is the experience of defending in criminal cases, but what is really critical is legal knowledge and, most importantly, a preparedness to see both sides and to make an impartial judgment.
A real criminal barrister would know just how utterly fatuous your source's assertions about Justices Stock and Hartmann really are. They have been wrongly and unfairly accused. That's what real criminal barristers are supposed to fight against every day.