Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re “A”

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date30 July 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKCA 445
Judgement NumberCACV161/2017
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV161A/2017 RE “A”

CACV 161/2017

[2018] HKCA 445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 161 OF 2017

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 2079/2016)

______________________

IN THE MATTER of the Application of “A” for admission as a Barrister of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
and
IN THE MATTER of section 27 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159)

______________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, McWalters and Poon JJA in Court
Dates of Written Submissions: 20, 29 June 2018 and 6 July 2018
Date of Judgment: 30 July 2018

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. We handed down our judgment on 10 May 2018 allowing the appeal. We ranted an order admitting and enrolling the applicant as a barrister.

2. By a notice of motion of 6 June 2018, the Secretary for Justice applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The following were framed as questions of great general or public importance in the intended appeal:

“ (1) In determining whether a person is a “fit and proper” person to be admitted as a barrister of the High Court in Hong Kong under section 27(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159), what is the proper approach of the Court where the applicant has been convicted under trial of a sexual offence against a minor resulting in an immediate custodial sentence and has never displayed any remorse over his criminal conduct.

(2) In the above context, what constitutes “reformation” and “rehabilitation” for the purposes of determining whether an applicant is a “fit and proper” person to be admitted as a barrister.

(3) Whether admission, in such circumstances, must be exceptional and dependent upon the applicant establishing a genuine and complete reformation of character supported by cogent and compelling evidence.

(4) What are the expectations of community of Hong Kong on the standards and integrity of the Hong Kong Bar, and how and to what extent public confidence in the legal profession and administration of justice would, if it should, be gauged and accorded sufficient weight in such an admission application.”

3. The application is opposed by the applicant. The Bar Council takes a neutral stance.

4. Skeleton submissions were lodged in accordance with Practice Direction 2.1. Having read the same, we are of the view that we can dispose of the application on the papers without any oral hearing.

5. We now give our determination on the application.

6. The central issue in the case is whether the Court can be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person within the meaning of Section 27(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. As we have said at [19] of our judgment:

“ … the exercise involves the evaluation and weighing of different factors in the circumstances of the case. It also carries with it an element of value judgment…”

7. We also emphasized at [23] that in such an...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT