Replies to written questions raised by Finance Committee Members in examining the Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04
Controlling Officer : Judiciary
Administrator
Session No. : 11 File name : JA-e1.doc
|
Reply Serial
No. |
Question Serial
No. |
Name of Member |
Head |
Programme |
JA001 |
0122 |
HO
Sau-lan, Cyd |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals Support
Services for Courts’ Operation |
|
0739 |
HO Chun-yan, Albert |
80 |
Courts and
Tribunals | |
|
0740 |
HO Chun-yan, Albert |
80 |
Courts and
Tribunals | |
|
0741 |
HO Chun-yan, Albert |
80 |
Support Services for Courts’
Operation | |
|
0761 |
LAU Hon-chuen, Ambrose |
80 |
Support Services for Courts’
Operation | |
|
0801 |
LAU Chin-shek |
80 |
Courts and
Tribunals | |
|
0854 |
NG Margaret |
80 |
Support Services for Courts’
Operation | |
|
0910 |
TO Kun-sun, James |
80 |
Courts and
Tribunals | |
|
0911 |
TO Kun-sun, James |
80 |
Courts and Tribunals | |
|
0960 |
TSANG Yok-sing, Jasper |
80 |
Courts and Tribunals | |
|
0961 |
TSANG Yok-sing, Jasper |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1005 |
CHOW LIANG Shuk-yee, Selina |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals Support
Services for Courts’ Operation | |
|
1015 |
LEE Cheuk-yan |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1016 |
LEE Cheuk-yan |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1072 |
EU Yuet-mee, Audrey |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1073 |
EU Yuet-mee, Audrey |
80 |
Support
Services for Courts’ Operation | |
|
1074 |
EU Yuet-mee, Audrey |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1303 |
LEE Cheuk-yan |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals Support
Services for Courts’ Operation | |
|
1356 |
HO Sau-lan, Cyd |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1357 |
HO Sau-lan, Cyd |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1375 |
MAK Kwok-fung, Michael |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1490 |
NG Margaret |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals | |
|
1495 |
EU Yuet-mee, Audrey |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals |
Replies
to supplementary questions raised by Finance Committee Members
in
examining the Estimates of Expenditure
2003-04
Controlling Officer : Judiciary
Administrator
Session No. : 11 File name : S-JA-e.doc
|
Reply Serial
No. |
Question Serial
No. |
Name of Member |
Head |
Programme |
S-JA001 |
Oral |
HO Chun-yan, Albert |
80 |
Courts and
Tribunals |
|
Oral |
NG
Margaret |
80 |
Support Services for Courts’
Operation | |
|
Oral |
NG Margaret |
80 |
Support Services for Courts’
Operation | |
|
Oral |
LAU Kin-yee, Miriam |
80 |
Support Services for Courts’
Operation | |
|
Oral |
NG
Margaret |
80 |
Courts
and Tribunals Support
Services for Courts’ Operation | |
|
Oral |
HO Chun-yan, Albert |
80 |
Support Services for Courts’
Operation | |
|
Oral |
NG Margaret |
80 |
Support Services for Courts’
Operation |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
0122 | |||||||||||||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals
(2) Support Services for Courts’ Operation |
| ||||||||||||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||||||||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||||||||||||
|
Question : Regarding
consultancy studies for policy making and assessment (if any) commissioned
by the above bureau and departments, please provide details in the
following format: (1) Please provide the
following details on the consultancy studies for which financial provision
has been allocated respectively in 2001-02 and
2002-03: |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Name of consultants
(if available) |
Description |
Consultancy
fees |
Progress on
consultancy studies (planning/
in progress / completed) |
The Administration’s
follow-up action on the study reports and the progress
made |
Reasons for no
follow-up action on the study reports and whether other measures are
available to deal with the subjects under study |
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
(2) Please
provide the following details on the consultancy studies for which
financial provision has not been allocated respectively in 2001-02 and
2002-03, though consultancy studies have been made during the year: |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Name of consultants
(if available) |
Description |
Consultancy
fees |
Progress on
consultancy studies (planning/
in progress / completed) |
The Administration’s
follow-up action on the study reports and the progress
made |
Reasons for no
follow-up action on the study reports and whether other measures are
available to deal with the subjects under study |
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
(3) Has financial
provision been allocated for commissioning consultancy studies in 2003-04?
If yes, please provide the following details: |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Name of consultants
(if available) |
Description |
Consultancy
fees |
Status of consultancy
studies (planning/ in progress / completed) |
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. HO Sau-lan,
Cyd |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Reply: (1) No specific financial
provision has been made for consultancy studies in 2001-02 and
2002-03. (2) The Judiciary has deployed
$0.7 million from its Save and Invest Account to fund the following study
in 2002-03: |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Name of consultants
(if available) |
Description |
Consultancy
fees |
Progress on
consultancy studies (planning/ in progress /
completed) |
The Administration’s
follow-up action on the study reports and the progress
made |
Reasons for no
follow-up action on the study reports and whether other measures are
available to deal with the subjects under study |
| ||||||||||||
|
Sir Anthony Mason,
former Chief Justice of Australia |
A study on the
appropriate system for the determination of judicial remuneration in Hong
Kong having regard to the experience in a number of overseas
jurisdictions |
$700,000 |
completed |
– |
The Chief Justice is
considering the report on the study. |
| ||||||||||||
|
(3) No financial provision has
been set aside in 2003-04 for consultancy studies. |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
|
0739 | |||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals |
| ||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Question : As given in
paragraph 5 under the 2003 (Plan) column, in Court of Final Appeal the
average waiting time of Criminal matters from notice of hearing to hearing
is anticipated to increase from 83 days in 2002 to 100 days and that of
Civil cases from 63 days in 2002 to 120 days. What is the reason for that?
Is it due to an insufficiency of resource? How much resource will be
needed if the actual average waiting time in 2002 is to be maintained?
|
| |||||||
|
Asked
by:
Hon. HO Chun-yan, Albert |
| |||||||
|
Reply: The planned waiting
times for 2003 are set with regard to the target waiting times shown under
the Target column. The fact
that the actual waiting times were shorter than target meant that we had
over-achieved. Taking the
experience of the past years and the many factors (e.g. availability of
non-permanent judges and counsel’s diary) that may affect waiting times
into consideration, it would be prudent to set the planned waiting times
for 2003 at the same level as the target waiting times. Nevertheless, the Judiciary will
strive to keep the actual waiting time as short as
practicable. |
| |||||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
|
0740 | |||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals |
| ||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Question : As given in
paragraph 5 under the 2003 (Plan) column, the average waiting time of all
types of cases in Lands Tribunal is anticipated to increase sharply,
particularly those of Building Management cases and Tenancy cases are
anticipated to be more than two times and nearly three times as much as
before respectively. What is the reason for that? Is it due to an
insufficiency of resource? How much resource will be needed if the actual
average waiting time in 2002 is to be maintained? |
| |||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. HO Chun-yan,
Albert |
| |||||||
|
Reply: The target waiting
time in the Lands Tribunal for appeal, compensation and building
management cases is 100 days for each category. In the light of actual
performance, the respective waiting times under the 2003 (Plan) have
been shortened to 80 days.
Nevertheless, the Judiciary will strive to keep the actual waiting
time as short as practicable. |
| |||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
0741 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Programme: |
(2)
Support Services for Courts’ Operation |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Question : Please provide
figures on how much resource has the judiciary allocated to each level of
the courts for ensuring that litigants can use Chinese in court
proceedings in order that the target of Use of Chinese at all court levels
can be reached. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. HO Chun-yan,
Albert |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reply: The Judiciary
maintains a bilingual court system through enhancing the bilingual
capacity of the Judges and Judicial Officers (JJOs) and the provision of
an interpretation service in courts. Without detriment to
judicial and professional quality, the policy of the Judiciary is to
strive to increase the number of bilingual JJOs. About 63 % of our
existing JJOs are fully bilingual and their spread is as
follows:
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have sufficient
JJOs to conduct hearings of cases which are considered suitable to be
heard in Chinese. Court Interpreters are
deployed at various levels of courts to provide interpretation services
when needed. The deployment of resources for such services is as
follows: |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
|
0761 | |||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||
|
Programme: |
(2)
Support Services for Courts’ Operation |
| ||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Question : In 2003-04, the
Judiciary will improve the services for the jurors. What are the details
of the plan and the expenditure involved? |
| |||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. LAU Hon-chuen,
Ambrose |
| |||||||
|
Reply: At
present,
220 and 150 jurors are summoned to attend court on Mondays and Wednesdays
respectively. If on the day
of summon, jury empanelling is not required by any of the courts or the
jurors are among those not selected, they will be asked to re-attend a
second time in the same week.
On the second attendance, if they are again not selected, or there
is no court asking for empanelling, they will be exempted for jury service
for 2 years. To reduce
inconvenience to jurors, we are planning to introduce in May this year a
system whereby 120 jurors will be summoned every day of the week. With that, jurors will be required
to attend court only once under a summons. The same exemption arrangements
will apply if they are not selected. |
| |||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||||||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
0801 | |||||||||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
000 |
| |||||||||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals |
| ||||||||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||||||||
|
Question : Regarding the cases
handled by the Labour Tribunal in the last two years, how long did it take
on average for a case to proceed from the date of appointment to the
conclusion of trial in each of these two years? Is it expected that there
will be improvement in work efficiency in 2003 as far as this aspect is
concerned? |
| |||||||||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. LAU
Chin-shek |
| |||||||||||||
|
Reply: The
information is as follows : |
| |||||||||||||
|
|
Year |
Average
time taken from appointment
to conclusion of cases (including
award, dismissal, settlement
and withdrawal) |
| |||||||||||
|
|
2001 |
59
days |
| |||||||||||
|
|
2002 |
56
days |
| |||||||||||
|
The
improvement was achieved despite an increase in caseload from
10
450
cases in 2001 to 12
326
cases in 2002. The same level
of service is expected to be maintained in 2003. |
| |||||||||||||
|
|
Signature |
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
| |||||||||||
|
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| |||||||||||
|
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
|
0854 | |||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||
|
Programme: |
(2)
Support Services for Courts’ Operation |
| ||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Question : In respect of
exploring opportunities for using information technology to replace manual
work, what specific plan does the Judiciary have for the year 2003-04 and
what will be the expenditures involved? |
| |||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. NG
Margaret |
| |||||||
|
Reply: The
Judiciary’s specific plans to use information technology to replace manual
work for 2003-04 are as follows: 1.
Setting
up an information kiosk in the High Court lobby to ease the workload of
the information counter. 2.
Transmission
of information on potential jurors from the Immigration Department
electronically to eliminate manual data input. 3.
Consolidate
management information, reports and statistical data and providing them
on-line so as to eliminate the manual compilation of separate
reports. 4.
Electronic
processing of applications for trial transcripts with the Digital Audio
Recording and Transcription Service provider to replace manual
ordering. 5.
Standardizing
and computerizing the payment collection arrangement of the Accounts
Office in order to reduce data re-entry. It
is intended that any additional costs arising from the above improvements
will be absorbed within the existing resources of the
Judiciary. |
| |||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
|
0910 | |||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals |
| ||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Question
: (a) Will the Judiciary Administrator inform this Council the estimated number of bankruptcy petitions to be received by the High Court for 2003-04? What is the average waiting time in respect of this type of petition? (b) Does the Judiciary have any specific measures to cope with the increasing number of bankruptcy petitions and what is the amount of financial provision allocated for this purpose? |
| |||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. TO Kun-sun,
James |
| |||||||
|
Reply: (a)
There
were 26
916
bankruptcy petitions filed in 2002, averaging 2
243
cases per month. In the first
two and a half months of 2003, the monthly average dropped by about 9% to
2
040. If this declining pattern sustains
for the rest of the year, we estimate that there would be about
24
000
bankruptcy petitions in 2003. The
average waiting time for hearing is about 5 to 6
weeks. (b)
Since
April 2002, the Judiciary has doubled the number of Masters’ sessions to
hear bankruptcy petitions from two half-days to four half days per
week. The number of petitions
to be heard in a session has also been increased with enhanced staffing
support to deal with the pre-hearing procedural matters. These measures are achieved
through deployment of existing resources. |
| |||||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
0911 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Question : The number of cases
handled by Labour Tribunal in 02-03 increased by over 17% when compared
with that in 01-02, and it is estimated that the figure will further go up
by 7 %. What provision the
Judiciary has made and how many staff members will be so employed or
redeployed by the Judiciary to cope with the expected increase in caseload
and workload? |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Asked by: Hon. TO Kun-sun,
James Reply: Over the past few
years, the Labour Tribunal has implemented the following enhancement
measures: (i)
increasing the number
of Tribunal Officers from 29 in 1999 to 38 at
present; (ii)
setting up three
additional day courts since January 2000, making 13 days courts in total
to increase the capacity of the courts to deal with
trials; (iii)
deploying judicial
resources flexibly, e.g. shifting callover (first hearing) and trial
courts internally so that incoming claims and those ready for trial could
both be handled within reasonable times; (iv)
enhancing the quality
of support staff by providing Tribunal Officers with training courses on
mediation skills and other training programmes so as to upgrade their
knowledge and skills in working with the litigants. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
With
the implementation of the above measures, the average waiting times at the
Labour Tribunal have been maintained well within targets as follows
:
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Judiciary will continue to improve efficiency in the Labour Tribunal. It is not anticipated that extra
resources will be required. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Signature |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
|
0960 | |||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals |
| ||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Question : May the Judiciary
inform this Council on what basis it estimates that regarding Criminal
cases in the District Court, the waiting time taken from first appearance
of defendants in the District Court to hearing will increase drastically
by 47% in 2003? |
| |||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. TSANG Yok-sing,
Jasper |
| |||||||
|
Reply: The
number of criminal cases in the District Court increased from
1
192
in 2001 to 1
334
in 2002, but the waiting time from first appearance to hearing was
shortened from 92 days in 2001 to 68 days in 2002, against the target
waiting time of 100 days. The
Judiciary expects that the number of criminal cases in the District Court
would stay at a high level and there may be a need to deploy resources to
relieve pressure on civil cases, so it is prudent to keep the 2003 (Plan)
waiting time the same as that of the target waiting time. Nevertheless, the Judiciary will
always strive to achieve an actual waiting time as short as
practicable. |
| |||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
|
0961 | |||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals |
| ||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Question : May the Judiciary
inform this Council: The Judiciary
estimates that the average waiting time of cases to be handled by the
Family Court will be within target in 2003. However, this still means an
increase over the actual waiting time in 2002. In this regard, will any
reform be introduced to shorten the waiting time? If so, what are the
details? |
| |||||||
|
Asked
by: Hon. TSANG Yok-sing,
Jasper |
| |||||||
|
Reply: Apart from noticeable improvements in the actual waiting times for cases under the special procedure lists in 2002, for which the 2003 (Plan) waiting time has been reduced from 35 days to 30 days, it would be prudent to keep the planned waiting times for other cases in 2003 at the same levels as the target waiting times. Nevertheless the Judiciary will strive to keep the actual waiting times as short as practicable. |
| |||||||
|
Signature |
|
|
Name
in block letters |
Wilfred
Tsui |
|
Post
Title |
Judiciary
Administrator |
|
Date |
21.3.2003 |
|
|
|
Examination of Estimates of Expenditure 2003-04 |
Reply Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
CONTROLLING OFFICER’S REPLY TO |
||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
Question Serial No. | |||||
|
|
|
|
1005 | |||||
|
Head: 80
Judiciary |
Subhead(No. &
title): |
|
| |||||
|
Programme: |
(1)
Courts and Tribunals
(2) Support Services for Courts’ Operation |
| ||||||
|
Controlling
Officer: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Director of
Bureau: |
Judiciary
Administrator |
| ||||||
|
Question : Please
provide: | ||||||||