| 58. |
The figures provided by
the Secretary for Justice fall of course within a narrow ambit. They involve a comparison
of the fees which the Department of Justice had to pay English and Hong Kong leading
counsel respectively. They do not indicate what other Hong Kong silks or junior barristers
would have charged. They say nothing about the cost of engaging solicitors in litigation,
presumably because government counsel often assume the role of instructing solicitors. |
|
|
| 59. |
In an attempt to gain a
better picture of the state of litigation in Hong Kong as a whole, including the expense
of litigating in the Region, the Working Party has sought to examine such evidence as can
be extracted with reasonable effort from the Judiciary's records. It is however necessary
to make it clear that such information as has been obtained is of limited value and that
it should not be given exaggerated weight. While some categories (such as those concerning
overall case-loads, waiting-time, etc) represent firm evidence, others may be incomplete
or may allow greater scope for human error or inconsistency. Where reference is made to
such figures, it is in the belief that they give a broad indication of the picture, but
with a certain margin for error, no higher claims being made for such data. |
|
|
| 60. |
Several categories of
information were assembled. |
|
|
|
* |
Information from
published sources such as Judiciary Annual Reports involving general overall statistics as
to case-load, establishment and so forth. |
|
|
|
|
* |
Information extracted
from the Judiciary's own computerised records. These contain more detail but must be
approached with caution. The system only began operation on 30 March 1998 and the figures
referred to in this Report extend only to 31 December 2000. The system was also designed
primarily to assist in the keeping of administrative records rather than for retrieval of
management information. It is still in the process of being developed to cater for the
latter purpose. Thus, for instance, information identifying a hearing as the trial began
to be entered only as from mid-1999. Before then, the software did not cater for this
information to be recorded. It is moreover a system based on de-centralised data input,
involving an extensive number of staff. As with all such systems, the quality of data
input may vary. |
|
|
|
|
* |
Information from a
study requested by the Working Party of all High Court bills of costs taxed during the 12
month period between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2000. This aims, among other things, at
relating costs claimed and awarded to the amounts claimed. Other features of the cases
studied, such as the frequency of interlocutory applications, are also noted. |
|
|
|
|
* |
Information from a
review conducted by the Registrar of the High Court of the nature of representation at
certain types of hearing which took place during the calendar year 2000, with the
intention of identifying, among other things, the extent to which litigants are
unrepresented. |
