30 Jul 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised did not involve questions of great general or public importance; the proper approach to s27(1) is a case-by-case, multi-factored value judgment where convictions or lack of remorse are not per se determinative and rehabilitation can be shown by sustained responsible conduct without necessarily involving a public admission of guilt.
16 Jun 2017
The application was dismissed because the applicant's conviction for indecent assault of a vulnerable 14-year-old culminating in an immediate custodial sentence, combined with his persistent denial of responsibility, lack of remorse, and failure to disclose material matters (appeal and disciplinary reprimand), meant he had not demonstrated reformation and admitting him would undermine public confidence in the Bar; the HKBA's no-objection did not outweigh these public interest concerns.
3 Jul 2006
LPO s.74C unambiguously requires satisfaction of the specified old s.27 criteria (including ss.27(1)(e) and (1A)); it does not preserve the discretionary power under the repealed s.27(2)(b), so the Court has no discretion to admit the applicant under s.74C; alternatively, even if such discretion existed, the applicant's qualifications are not sufficiently exceptional or in the public interest to justify admission.
1 Mar 2001
The application is granted because the proceedings involve complicated legal principles likely to significantly affect local jurisprudence on sex discrimination, the applicant has the requisite high quality and standing, suitable local Senior Counsel was not shown to be available, and it is in the public interest to admit him for the stated purpose.
14 Aug 1992
Section 27(1A)(a) must be read in light of the Hong Kong meaning of "practised as a barrister" as reflected in the Hong Kong Bar Code 1983, which excludes employed barristers; changes in the English Bar Code do not alter the statutory requirement; therefore the applicant who was an employed barrister in the UK did not satisfy s.27(1A)(a) and his application for admission must be refused.
19 Jul 1991
The court found that although the applicant's failure to report his meeting with a wanted person was a serious lapse, it did not demonstrate permanent unsuitability for the Bar; lifelong exclusion under s.27A para d(ii) would be disproportionate given his long public service and mitigating factors, and admission would not undermine public confidence when the full circumstances are known.
6 Mar 1990
Section 27(2)(b), read as a whole, does confer a discretion to admit persons who fail to meet subsection (1A) provided the Court is satisfied of their bona fides and intention to be ordinarily resident; purposive construction and legislative history were not required as the statutory language could be interpreted without them, and the discretion was properly exercised to admit these applicants generally.
15 Nov 1975
The statutory test in s.27(1)(e) is satisfied by the applicant's uncontradicted sworn affirmations that he intends to be ordinarily resident in Hong Kong; the statute covers intentions that may be based on the applicant's ability to practise, and in the absence of challenge the affidavit evidence sufficed to satisfy the Court.
23 Mar 1974
Because the notice and supporting affidavit did not clearly specify the terms of the order sought and there was no affidavit proving service on the Attorney General and Bar Committee as required by the Rules, the court refused unconditional admission and granted a limited order confined to the stated instruction; proper service and clear terms are mandatory prerequisites for unlimited admission.
7 Aug 1968
Where an application and required documents were filed before statutory amendments, and the statute contains no clear intention to apply the amendments retrospectively, the application must be determined under the law in force at the date of filing; therefore the applicant is entitled to admission under the earlier law.