Abstract:
For years Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure were degree-level pre-requisite subjects Hong Kong law students had to pass before reading the vocational level course, the Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (PCLL), and eventually entering the legal profession. They will soon no longer need to study them at degree level. The lead up to these changes, and their consequences, have prompted questions about the value and role of procedural subjects.
As a student of law I trained in a jurisdiction that virtually gave no compulsory training in procedural subjects. As a teacher of law in London I taught students a most practical compulsory procedural syllabus, though only at vocational level. On arriving in Hong Kong I found myself teaching a most comprehensive procedural regime that required both academic coverage at degree level and a PCLL course that resembled its English counterpart.
Which regime is best? Having taught Civil Procedure a decade and a half, I know what I prefer. But I would like to know your preferences and reasons. Among other issues we might discuss:
- Why do we study procedural subjects at any stage of education?
- How do different institutions and jurisdictions fit procedural subjects in their legal education models?
- What are the pedagogic, structural and practical reasons for or against the various models?
Speaker:
Mr. Matthew Cheung, Professional Consultant, Faculty of Law, CUHK
Matt Cheung was educated, practised international commercial and corporate litigation and taught law across three continents. His teaching experience is eclectic. He tutored in Jurisprudence at the University of Auckland. He served as Associate Director of Design at the University of Law in London, England, among other things designing the bespoke Civil Litigation course for Linklaters LLP’s London headquarters. At CUHK he has led the Juris Doctor programme, second-led the PCLL programme, seven law school subjects and various University and general subjects.