Letters | Two steps the Hong Kong judiciary can take to bolster public trust

Readers discuss how to make judgments and hearings more accessible to Hongkongers, and what could help the city’s insurance brokers play a greater role in the Greater Bay Area

Reading Time:3 minutes

Hong Kong Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung meets members of the media at the High Court after attending the ceremonial opening marking the new legal year on January 24. Photo: Reuters

Published: 2:30pm, 14 Feb 2022

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.

The legal profession marked new beginnings as the “professional” camp won the Law Society council election last year and Victor Dawes assumed chairmanship of the Bar Association in January. With the new legal year just getting under way, I would like to offer a law student’s perspective on reforming the judicial system.

The judiciary is no exception when it comes to falling prey to divisive politics, particularly when many of the anti-extradition bill movement-related defendants are brought to court, some even being charged with national security offences. For quite a while, court rulings attracted harsh, sometimes ungrounded, criticism and even personal attacks on judges’ impartiality, when the outcomes were not to the liking of some people. The distrust was inflamed by echo chambers on social media, and some judges received death threats.

It is therefore crucial to enhance transparency and efficiency to restore public trust in the judiciary. My humble suggestion is to implement legal bilingualism for court rulings. Upon enactment of the Official Languages Ordinance in 1974, both Chinese and English were declared official languages with equal status. Government documents and those of public bodies are published in both languages, but not judgments.

Since Hong Kong adopts the English common law system, it is somehow more convenient to articulate legal principles in English, yet Chinese is the mother tongue of most Hongkongers. Without a readily available translation, ordinary Hongkongers would have to habitually rely on the press, which has not always been accurate in reporting the court’s reasoning, to understand recent judicial decisions.

Hong Kong should look into the Canadian experience with official bilingualism. All federal courts in Canada are required to render judgments in both English and French. While Canada routinely delivers bilingual judgments to cater to its French-speaking minority, Hong Kong has not catered for its Chinese-speaking majority.

Another recommendation is lifting the blanket ban on filming inside the courtroom, but such activities should remain carefully regulated. The rationale for the ban is to protect witnesses and jurors from intimidation, but neither are involved in appellate hearings of the High Court and the Court of Final Appeal. In recent years, the UK liberalised rules governing cameras in court, which has even been extended to verdict and sentencing, as long as the faces of the jurors are not captured.