Official Languages and Bilingualism in the Courtroom: Hong Kong, Canada, the Republic of Ireland, and International Law

Abstract

Whilst Hong Kong is now part of China enjoying a high degree of autonomy, English continues to be the lingua franca of its education, commence, and legal process. The Chinese language (Cantonese) continues to be subjugated in Hong Kong's judicial and legal practice, even though it is constitutionally and by legislation recognised as an official language in the former British colony. In Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary, the defendant, facing trial which might, and ultimately did, lead to his imprisonment, sought that the judge presiding over his trial be able to directly understand Chinese with which he self-identified most intimately. Adopting a comparative approach by reference to and scrutinising Canadian, Irish, and international jurisprudence, this paper argues that an individual, on the basis of his or her language use rights and right to fair trial, is entitled to choose to use an official language with which he or she self-identifies most intimately in judicial proceedings affecting his or her rights and interests, and that fluency in the dominant official language and availability of interpretation during the relevant proceedings are immaterial and do not affect the individual's aforementioned rights. The author concludes that the unfortunate outcome and reasoning in Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary illustrated that the adverse effects of colonialism continue, in its altered neo-colonial ego, to be pervasive in post-colonial Hong Kong.