Re A.R. Tyrrell Q.C.

HCMP002516/1984

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, Ag. C.J.

Date of Judgment: 27th September 1984

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is an application by one of Her Majesty's counsel practising in London for admission to the Hong Kong Bar for the purpose of appearing in a particular case.

2. Let me say at once that no personal objection is taken in any way to Mr Tyrrell, the Applicant: he is a barrister of good standing and well-respected, and the sole objection is that the court should not allow any overseas barrister to appear in the circumstances of this case.

3. It is a matter of great regret that the matter comes before the court only three days before the case in which he is seeking to appear. There is no good reason why that should have happened. The case in question is a criminal trial in the High Court. The indictment was dated 5th June 1984. The committal must have taken place some time before that. We do not know when the solicitors. were instructed, but it appears to have been before 6th September and the application to admit was not filed until 25th September. It must have been known long before that that counsel would have to be briefed. I am told that the instruction given for the briefing of London counsel was on 6th September. Yet the matter has been delayed to such an extent that counsel has in fact arrived from London before this application could come on. That is a fact which I cannot allow to sway my decision. There have been two previous cases where that particular factor has led the Bar Committee to withdraw its opposition. That has not happened here and I must decide the case upon its merits.

4. The case in question is a trial of two defendants on a charge of robbery. Any charge of robbery is a serious one and it is clear that the charges in this case involve large sums of money. I am told they involve aggravated robbery in the sense that they were armed robberies. No doubt it is a very serious case, but no especially difficult question of law or fact is said to arise. The question is whether or not it is in the public interest - by that I mean in the interest of the people of Hong Kong - that the Applicant should be admitted in order to appear on behalf of these defendants. It is, in my view, a matter of considerable significance that the solicitor seeking to instruct the Applicant himself advised that this was a case appropriate for local counsel. That is material because there is no evidence before me at all that local counsel are not available to appear in this matter. I have said before on more than one occasion that the right to counsel of a litigant's choice means a right to choose counsel who are available and entitled to practise: it does not entitle a litigant to demand that somebody be admitted for the specific purpose of representing him.

5. I do not propose to go at length into the factors which have to be taken into consideration in deciding the public interest. The Bar Committee has adopted certain guidelines. As I indicated in argument, these guidelines are an indication to the world of the factors which will govern the decision of the Bar Committee in deciding whether to agree to, or to oppose, an application of counsel from outside Hong Kong.  I am not bound by those guidelines. They are merely an indication of when opposition may be expected. Nevertheless, the guidelines have been based upon the considerations which the Bar considers to be relevant to the public interest and in so far as I agree with them then I shall apply them. I have already in a previous case (Charles Gray's Application Misc. Proc. 1981 No. 139) indicated what I understand to be the public interest.  In the circumstances of this case it is suggested that the defendants would have a sense of grievance if the application were not granted. In my view they would have no ground whatever for such a sense of grievance, nor is it true that the Bar is seeking to produce a "closed shop". The Bar Committee has indicated through Mr. Litton that it accepts that overseas counsel may properly be admitted where the circumstances of the case require and that the requirement arises where a party will not otherwise be adequately represented. I see no reason to say in the present case that if the Applicant is not permitted to appear these two defendants in the criminal case cannot be properly represented.

6. It is for an applicant to show good cause why he should be admitted under s.27(2). The present Applicant is unable to show a good cause why he should be admitted for this particular case. It gives me no pleasure to refuse the application, particularly in the embarrassing circumstances in which he has personally been placed, but, for the reason - which has been canvassed this morning - that we need to establish a strong and independent local Bar - and for the reason that I am not convinced that the defendants here will not receive proper representation, I think this application must be dismissed.

27th September 1984

Representation: