Judging the judges a wise move

A report that the city's judiciary is to institutionalize annual performance appraisal of judges may have come as a surprise to Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor - but not necessarily to many others.

Lam said she didn't know of the plan until she read about it in the newspaper, and then reiterated the need to respect judicial independence.

The move - reportedly to be implemented as soon as the second half of the year - may be unexpected, but it is believed to be the result of careful deliberation involving Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung and other senior figures in the judiciary.

Since the handover in 1997, the SAR has inherited the common law system from the British regime.

Under this system, except for provisional district court judges and magistrates, judges are seldom subject to formal appraisal in order to avoid creating any negative sense on the perceived independence of the court.

This may not be ideal from a human resources point of view, but it is preferred in light of the more important need to protect the principle of judicial independence.

That pillar is rock solid as long as the public have confidence in the system.

But while this pillar may still be rock solid here, it is no longer free of controversies.

Judges are human and they are expected not to allow their personal beliefs to affect their judgment in court.

But it is equally vital for the community to be able to see that so that they are confident of having a fair trial free of political or religious interference.

Over the past two years, there have been a few cases that have raised some eyebrows in certain social sectors.

For instance, judge Kwok Wai-kin caused an outcry in 2020 when he praised a defendant accused of stabbing three people near a Lennon Wall for making an "involuntary sacrifice."

Kwok was subsequently banned from presiding over 2019-protest related cases. The ban was lifted a year later.

There were also other instances in which judges were subject to public complaints.

Then, the SAR was dealt a blow in March after two senior British judges, Robert Reed and Patrick Hodge, quit the Court of Final Appeal citing concern over Hong Kong's political freedom and freedom of expression.

Whether it was due to political pressure from the British government or not, the departure of the two judges from the CFA helped to undermine overseas confidence in the SAR's legal system.

Unless the public strongly believe that our courts are capable of acting independently, this rule-of-law pillar could be slowly undermined over time.

Institutionalizing an appraisal mechanism may not be a perfect answer but, at this point in time, it should help to reinforce people's confidence in the judges that, as they pass judgment, they will not let personal preference meddle with their legal consideration.

According to the report, an annual performance review board would be set up to let judges in upper courts review the performance of lower court judges.

If it is meant to be a quality assurance scheme, it should be welcome in this particular sense.