RE CAROLINE DENISE LANGLEY COLEMAN

---------------------

J U D G M E N T

---------------------

1. This is an application by Mrs. Caroline Coleman to be admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court under s. 27(2)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap. 159. It is opposed by the Bar Council, not upon any personal objection to Mrs. Coleman, but on the ground that in the Council's view the circumstances do not warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion. The Attorney General, through Mr. Marshall, Q.C., takes no position either way.

2. It will be convenient to set out the relevant provisions of s. 27 :

" (1) The Court may, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Chief Justice, admit as a barrister of the Supreme Court in Hong Kong, any person who satisfies the following requirements, that is to say -

(a)     (i)    he has been called to the Bar in England or Northern Ireland;

(ii)     he has been admitted as an advocate in Scotland;

(iii)    he is a Bachelor of Laws of the University of Hong Kong or the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong and has obtained a Postgraduate Certificate in Laws;

(iv)     he has obtained a Postgraduate Certificate in Laws and he is a Hong Kongpermanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), or is a Commonwealth citizen or citizen of the Republic of Ireland who has been ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for a period of at least 7 years; or

…..

(e)     he has been ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for a period of at least 8consecutive months immediately prior to the date of his application for admission or satisfies the Court that he intends to be ordinarily resident in Hong Kong.

(IA) In addition to the requirements under subsection (1) (a) (i) or (ii), a person must also -

(a) have practised as a barrister or advocate in the United Kingdom for at least 3 years;

(b) be a Hong Kong permanent resident as defined in the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115); or

(c) have been ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for at least 7 years.

(2) The Court may admit a person as a barrister under this section -

(a)     (Repealed 58 of 1976 s. 7)

(b)     either generally or for the purpose of any particular case or cases and may impose on a person so admitted restrictions and conditions as the Court may see fit, notwithstanding that such person does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) (e) and subsection (1A).

        ….."

3. The principles upon which the discretion granted by subs. (2)(b) should be exercised are to be found in Re Gray [1984] HKLR 367 and Re Coles [1985] HKLR 480.

4. Mrs. Coleman satisfies the requirements of subs. (1), but not of subs. (1A). She has, however, as Mr. Griffiths, Q.C., on her behalf has observed, substantial and present connections with Hong Kong and earlier with the Far East generally. She has also experience in the law which is certainly equal to, if not more than, that which would be acquired by students completing a Hong Kong PCLL course. In addition she has a degree in Biochemistry. However her practice as a barrister in the U.K. is limited at best to some eight months.

5. As it seems to me, and with respect appears to be accepted in the two authorities to which I have referred, the intention of subs. (1)(e) is to encourage the growth of a local bar by requiring, to some extent, on the part of those who would otherwise be eligible for admission by reason of qualifications obtained entirely outside Hong Kong, a commitment to this jurisdiction.

6. The introduction in 1989 of subs. (1) (A) I take to be intended as a further encouragement towards that end, by the simple expedient of reducing the number of those who are so eligible for admission. Paras. (b) and (c) achieve this by imposing stringent residential requirements and para. (a) by requiring a longer period of practice in the United Kingdom. As Mr. Tong, for the Bar Association, put it, the purpose of the amendment was "to impose further restrictions on an applicant who relies on his admission to the English, Irish or Scottish Bars", reflecting, perhaps unconsciously, the words of the Explanatory Memorandum to the appropriate legislative Bill.

7. The discretion of the Court to override the restrictions is retained, and falls, in my view, to be exercised so as, - and I think this simply, but fairly, reflects the basis of the authorities to which I have referred, - to meet demands properly made upon the local Bar but with which, otherwise, it would be unable to comply, whether because of a lack of particular specialist expertise or more generally because of a lack of sufficient number of counsel at the appropriate level of skill and experience.

8. There is no evidence before me of any shortage at the most junior level of the Bar; and 1 mean no disrespect to Mrs. Coleman when I say that despite what is said to be a considerable natural talent, and a scientific background that could prove useful in certain areas of practice, she offers nothing significantly greater than could be expected to be supplied through the normal channels of admission within s. 27.

9. For this reason I regret that I am unable to accede to her application.