Hong Kong is one of the very few places in the world where the common law can be practiced in a language other than English. Introduced into the courtroom over a decade ago, Cantonese has significantly altered the everyday working of the common law in China's most Westernized city. In The Common Law in Two Voices, Ng explores how English and Cantonese respectively reinforce and undermine the practice of legal formalism. This first-ever ethnographic study of Hong Kong's unique legal system in the midst of social and political transition, this book provides important insights into the social nature of language and the work of institutions. Ng contends that the dilemma of legal bilingualism in Hong Kong is emblematic of the inherent tensions of postcolonial Hong Kong. Through the legal dramas presented in the book, readers will get a fresh look at the former British colony that is now searching for its identity within a powerful China.

This book is designed especially for use in Hong Kong to teach the basic skills of finding legal materials, both printed and computer-based ones. Its objective is to help students explore the range of materials which they will use in the course of their legal education, and thereafter in the practice of law.

This text provides a practical approach to the legal and commercial infrastructure which serves trade and investment in Hong Kong. It provides a panoptic view of what the laws of Hong Kong and its legal practitioners have to offer those who are there to do business. It gives special emphasis to problems and pitfalls which clients may encounter when trading with or investing in Hong Kong. It also specifically addresses practical problem areas relating to inbound investment, and how such investment can be most suitably structured. Hong Kong's potential as a centre for regional trade, not least with mainland China, is also considered.

This project addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Currently, too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. Juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence, as confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years. Following consultation on a discussion paper (LCCP 190, 2009, ISDBN 9780118404655) the Commission recommends that there should be a new reliability-based admissibility test for expert evidence in criminal proceedings. The test would not need to be applied routinely or unnecessarily, but it would be applied in appropriate cases and it would result in the exclusion of unreliable expert opinion evidence. Under the test, expert opinion evidence would not be admitted unless it was adjudged to be sufficiently reliable to go before a jury. The draft Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill published with the report (as Appendix A) sets out the admissibility test and also provides the guidance judges would need when applying the test, setting out the key reasons why an expert's opinion evidence might be unreliable. The Bill also codifies (with slight modifications) the uncontroversial aspects of the present law, so that all the admissibility requirements for expert evidence would be set out in a single Act of Parliament and carry equal authority.