Advertisement

Proposal 'would lengthen cases'

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
0

TRIALS would last longer if people without court room or advocacy experience were appointed Supreme Court judges, Bar Association chairman Ronny Wong Fook-hum said yesterday.

He was rejecting a claim by the Government and the Law Society that litigation and advocacy experience was 'not essential' for a person to be appointed a High Court or Court of Appeal judge.

High Court judges were responsible for the legal system and the upholding of the rule of law, and solicitors spending 10 years on, say, conveyancing would not have the credibility to sit for the bench, he said.

The Government is intending to amend the law to make solicitors with 10 years' experience eligible for direct appointment to the Supreme Court.

At present, only barristers and government-employed solicitors with 10 years' experience are eligible to join the bench of the Supreme Court.

But Mr Wong argued that judges without advocacy and courtroom experience might not understand the arguments presented by lawyers in court and trials might be delayed due to technical and procedural problems.

The debate should be about what was the basic requirement for a High Court judge. The line should not be drawn according to which legal profession a person belonged to, he added.

Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2-3x faster
1.1x
220 WPM
Slow
Normal
Fast
1.1x