What first attracted you to the practice of law, and how did your viewpoint change when you were appointed to the bench?
Since I was a teenager, I have been attracted to the practice of law. I think it was the debate in the courtroom which appealed to me. The role of a judge is fundamentally different from that of an advocate. The advocate argues. The judge has to listen and decide. A balanced judicial temperament is very important.

How well do you think the Hong Kong public understands the rule of law and the role of the Court of Final Appeal?
I think the public has a good understanding of the rule of law and the role of the Court of Final Appeal. Indeed, they exercise considerable vigilance over issues concerned with the rule of law. They have high expectations of the Judiciary; that the courts will resolve disputes, whether between citizens or between citizen and government, in an impartial, fair and efficient manner.

What achievements are you most satisfied with from your tenure as head of the Judiciary?
I would not presume to call them achievements. A major challenge has been the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal and the development of constitutional jurisprudence in the new order. The reform of the civil justice system, including the promotion of mediation, has also been an exciting challenge.

As Chief Justice, was it challenging to lead the bench of the Court of Final Appeal as well as the Judiciary as a whole?
The Chief Justice as Head of the Judiciary has a range of important and heavy responsibilities: judicial, administrative and representational. Serving as Chief Justice has been most challenging. I have been greatly enriched by the experience.

Looking back, what judgment, speech or other law-related written work are you most proud of and why? How have your views changed since you wrote it? What would you change if you were to write it again now?
I think writing the judgments in the constitutional cases have been most interesting and challenging. The court has laid down authoritatively that a generous interpretation must be given to the guaranteed rights and freedoms which lie at the heart of Hong Kong’s separate system. In most constitutional cases, a balance has to be struck between individual rights and freedoms and the interests of the community. Whilst I always try to learn from experience to make improvements, I am not used to brooding over and feeling regretful about the past. I always look forward.

In your speech at the 2010 ceremonial opening of the legal year you spoke about judicial independence and your hope that judicial appointments would never be politicised. Do you think the process could be made more impartial or transparent and less susceptible to outside influence?
The process of judicial appointment has not been politicised and should never be. This includes the process of endorsement by the Legislative Council of senior judicial appointments. The Basic Law provides that judges shall be appointed by the Chief Executive on the recommendation of an independent commission. The Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission is working satisfactorily. It has nine members, three judges (including the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman), three lawyers (that is, the Secretary for Justice ex officio and a barrister and a solicitor appointed by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Bar and Law Society Councils) and three lay persons. By statute, if there are three or more dissenting votes, there is no valid recommendation. Recruitment to the Magistrates’ Courts, the District Court and the Court of First Instance is by open recruitment through advertisement. The Basic Law provides that judges and judicial officers shall be chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities. I have never come across any instance where it was suggested that judges should be chosen on some other basis.

In your 13 years on the CFA bench, what would you say have been or still are the major threats to the rule of law in Hong Kong?
I do not think that it is appropriate to use the word ‘threats’. But as has been well said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Vigilance needs to be exercised by all concerned: the Government, the Legislature, the Judiciary, the legal profession and the public.

It has been said that constitutional interpretation involves a broader and more flexible approach than ordinary statutory interpretation, also involving a level of judicial statesmanship. How have you approached this task?
The foundation of the new order is ‘one country, two systems’ with each being part of the principle. Constitutional interpretation is a challenging task. The Basic Law is a living instrument intended to meet changing needs and circumstances. The court has laid down various principles for its interpretation: a purposive approach should be applied; a generous interpretation should be given to the guaranteed rights and freedoms; and a proportionality test should be applied in considering the validity of restrictions to rights and freedoms.

How do you feel judicial independence should best be balanced against the power of the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law?
As the court has held, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress has the power to interpret the Basic Law and such an interpretation is binding on the courts in Hong Kong. The court has stated that this is part of Hong Kong’s legal system. However, the view is widely held that this power of the Standing Committee should
only be exercised in exceptional circumstances.

What do you think are the fundamental issues currently facing the Hong Kong Judiciary?
A major challenge facing the judicial system is to ensure access to justice for all. The rich and the big corporations can afford to litigate. Those with low income are eligible for legal aid. But the bulk of the population, including small and medium enterprises, find it difficult to afford the legal fees involved in litigation. There is no magic wand which can be waved to solve the problem. A number of measures are necessary to alleviate it, including increasing legal aid, providing assistance to unrepresented litigants, the contribution of pro bono services by the profession and the use of mediation. I believe that mediation will provide substantial assistance. It is suitable for many disputes. Where a dispute is successfully mediated, it is a win-win situation for the parties with substantial savings of time and cost and with less stress involved.

How do you see the future development of the legal professions in Hong Kong? Is a fused profession likely or desirable in your view?
The grant of higher rights of audience for solicitors through an assessment process is a significant development. I think the present structure of the profession has served the public quite well. I do not favour a fused profession. The profession has to meet the challenges of globalisation and to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the growth of Mainland China. I appreciate the market forces which have led to increasing commercialisation of the legal profession. But ultimately, the practice of law cannot be treated merely as a business. It is an honourable profession, with high ethical standards and ideals of service. This must not be compromised in the future development of the profession.

What is your view on legal education in Hong Kong today? What should the educational institutions be focusing on?
With three law schools in Hong Kong, there is considerable competition which will strengthen all of them. The most important task facing a law school is to ensure that the student appreciates the values which underlie our legal system and is educated in the relevant skills which will stand him or her in good stead in a fast changing world.

What would you like to see as your legacy?
I trust that I have left the Judiciary in good shape to meet the challenges in the future; a Judiciary which is fully conscious of the high expectations of the community and which will always strive for excellence and deal with change in a forward looking and dynamic
way.

What will you miss most after your departure from the Judiciary?
The people I have worked with. But I shall be departing with no regrets. I have been travelling in the fast lane for over 37 years. It is time to move to a slower lane.

How will you be spending your time in retirement?
I intend to do a modest amount of law teaching. I may serve on charitable bodies. I wish to pursue various personal interests which I have not had sufficient time for, including reading, tennis, bridge and the turf.