Talk:High Court of Hong Kong

'Part-time Judges'

The Hong Kong Judiciary uses the term 'part-time Judges' to describe Deputy Judges who are appointed by the Chief Justice to sit on a temporary basis in contrast to 'full-time Judges' (please see the 'Guideline in relation to part-time Judges and participation in political activities' issued by the Judiciary). Similarly, the Chief Secretary for Administration has described Recorders and Deputy Judges as 'part time judges ... appointed on a temporary basis, who are drawn from practising barristers and solicitors', in contrast to 'full time judges' (please see [1]).

For this reason, I have reversed some of the edits by User:Sirlanz which had removed references to 'full-time' and 'part-time' Judges. Bonus bon (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia ought not to slavishly follow terms used if they are misleading. We should also attempt to couch our terms in an article as a whole so as to ensure that it is accessible to readers. The term "part-time" is a contrast to "full-time" in ordinary parlance and it means not working continuously or for full normal working hours. The only presiding officers at the High Court who can be described as part-time are the recorders because they hold down their position at the bar concurrently (though they are often full-time for limited periods, too). All the others are working continuously, full-time on the bench. The fact that the Judiciary use a completely misleading term (which term features in no legislative instrument or rule) is unremarkable - the bench (and administration) is populated by almost entirely non-native English speakers who (as their published judgments attest handsomely) are often lost in the language. The edits to suppress the term provide a proper factual representation of the appointment of non-permanent presiding officers on the court and a great improvement which ought to be retained. Hence I am reverting, subject to any suggestion that the factual basis I have identified is flawed. sirlanz 05:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

First, you state that the "The only presiding officers at the High Court who can be described as part-time are the recorders because they hold down their position at the bar concurrently (though they are often full-time for limited periods, too). All the others are working continuously, full-time on the bench."

This statement, however, is factually incorrect. A number of barristers (Senior Counsel) in private practice are appointed as Recorders by the Chief Executive on the recommendation of JORC. In addition, a number of barristers (Senior Counsel) and solicitors (senior partners with litigation experience) in private practice are appointed by the Chief Justice to sit for a limited period as a Deputy High Court Judge.

We are simply not succeeding in communicating. Your response is no response to the use of the term "part-time". The term does not mean persons appointed to work full-time for a limited period; the appropriate term to describe such appointments is "temporary". They work full-time during their temporary appointment.

Second, you contend that the use of the term 'part-time Judge' by the Hong Kong Judiciary is (allegedly) a "completely misleading term" created "by the bench (and administration) [which] is populated by almost entirely non-native English speakers". You should take note, however, that the Judicial Appointments Commission in England also describes Deputy High Court Judges as legal practitioners who "sit in a part-time (fee-paid) capacity" (please see the press release of 22 May 2017 on the appointment of 21 Deputy High Court Judges).

The page is about Hong Kong, not the UK. It may very well be that there are part-time judges other than recorders in the UK which would explain the use of the term. No such situation exists in Hong Kong. You have simply not addressed the point. sirlanz 08:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I will therefore undo your revision of the article again. Bonus bon (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)