What Is HeinOnline?
HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
Log In
![handle is hein.journals/honkon54 and id is 647 raw text is:
JUDICIAL COPYING IN HONG KONG
Anfield Tam*
Judicial copying is the practice where a judge directly imports text from counsel's submis-
sions or other sources as part of his judgment. It is said to have a detrimental impact on
the administration of justice as it creates an impression of bias, especially when the judge
incorporates extensive excerpts from one party's submissions without original, indepen-
dent analysis. This piece critically reviews the recent Court of Appeal (CA) decision in
Wong To Yick Wood Lock Ointment Ltd v Singapore Medicine Co [20231 3 HKLRD
311 to analyse its contributions with reference to comparative experiences, as well as
raising a couple of problems that were left unanswered.
1. Introduction
Independence of the judiciary is not only a constitutional principle of cardi-
nal importance,1 but also the very basis of public confidence in a legal system.
One common law maxim fundamental to independent judging admonishes: jus-
tice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to
be done.2 It is thus not surprising that the practice of judicial copying is being
frowned upon, at least as a matter of intuition. First, it creates the appearance of
bias, that the judge had abdicated his core judicial responsibility to think through
for himself the issues which it was his job to decide,3 regardless how proper and
independent his analysis was. Second, as judicial copying involves the wholesale
adoption of the winning party's submissions, it raises the suspicion that the losing
party's argument has not received adequate consideration. This calls into question
the actual independent exercise of the judicial mind by the judge, since it appears
that he has failed to engage with all of the issues at bar.
In addition to impartiality, judicial integrity is also a core value of the Bangalore
Principles of Judicial Conduct, from which Hong Kong's Judiciary drew reference
when reviewing its Guide to Judicial Conduct.4 As noted in the Commentary on
BSocSc(Govt&Laws), LLB (HKU); Undergraduate Student Fellow, Asian Institute of International Finan-
cial Law (2020-2024). The author is grateful to Trevor Wan and the anonymous reviewer for their com-
ments. All errors are mine alone.
Mary Arden, Common Law and Modern Society: Keeping Pace with Change (Oxford University Press, 2015)
p 99; see also Basic Law, Art 85.
2 R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259.
Crinion v IG Markets Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 587, [13].
4 Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Guide to Judicial Conduct (2022) para 5.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/honkon54&div=38&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)