James Peter Chandler
In the Matter of an Application for Admission as a Barrister by James Peter Chandler (19 July 1991)
This was an application by way of notice of originating motion by James Chandler for admission as a barrister of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong under s. 27A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap. 159.
The application was however opposed by the Committee of the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Attorney General, upon an incident in early 1990.
The applicant was enrolled as a New Zealand solicitor in 1967 and then as a barrister in 1968. He then worked in a private firm in Tauranga before accepting a job as crown counsel to Hong Kong. It was during his time in the Tauranga firm that he came to know a certain Warwick Reid. They, and their respective families, became close friends.
The applicant was in a bar in Manila on a Saturday night in early January 1990 and "by absolute chance", he ran into Reid, who had fled Hong Kong and wanted for corruption offence. The applicant did not alert the local authority of meeting with Reid, nor immediately inform the authority upon his return to Hong Kong.
On 5 December 1990 the applicant's service with the Crown was terminated by mutual consent.
The acting Chief Justice, the Hon. Sir Derek Cons, accepted that "having regard to the long friendship between the families the quirks of chance had placed Mr. Chandler in a most unenviable position" but the applicant "made a deliberate and conscious decision which did not match up to the standards that could properly be expected of him by the profession which he now seeks".
In the end, the acting Chief Justice said, the two questions were:
"whether that single lapse, set against 16 years of otherwise dutiful service to the community, is sufficient to warrant his exclusion from that profession for the rest of his life, which is the inevitable consequence of the dismissal of this motion".
and
"whether admission of a man capable of compromising his clear duty to the administration of justice would undermine public confidence in the Bar and ultimately in the administration of justice itself".
The acting Chief Justice answered the two questions in the negative. He said,
"I am not satisfied that Mr. Chandler's conduct, serious though it was, illustrates a permanent unsuitability for the Bar. The consequences so far must surely have driven home the necessary message beyond any possibility of its ever again being ignored or overlooked. To add further what would in effect be lifelong disbarment in this jurisdiction would, in my view, be unnecessary and excessive punishment. Had he done it for himself, had he put his own interest before his duty, different considerations would have arisen. But that is not the position, and it is ironic that loyalty to colleagues and friends would normally be regarded as a virtue, one which, I am sure, in other circumstances the Attorney General would encourage between members of his Chambers. In the instance it was misguided loyalty, but it is nevertheless a factor that I bear in mind and which I feel would also be borne in mind by the general public.".
The applicant was admitted with these words from the acting Chief Justice,
"I propose to make the order in the terms of the notice of motion, but shall adjourn for a few minutes, as was suggested yesterday, to enable Mr. Chandler to robe and properly prepare himself for the usual and formal invitation to take his place within the Bar of this court. I shall resume when I am informed everything is ready."
