Chief Justice Andrew Cheung said on Monday that he hopes some legal proceedings can be broadcast live this year.

In a speech at the opening ceremony of the legal year, Cheung said the judiciary is “actively exploring” the idea.

“With the advent of technology, and given the limited seating capacities of our courtrooms and public health considerations, live broadcasting of proceedings is a natural way forward to further enhance the transparency of court procedures and public confidence in the judicial process,” he said.

But he added that there are concerns and limitations, such as trials involving juries or vulnerable witnesses, the possible misuse of broadcast material, and the doxxing of judges or lawyers.

Cheung said he will appoint a working group, to be chaired by a senior judge, to examine the guiding principles and implementation practicalities of introducing live broadcasting “of at least some court proceedings or at some court level within sometime this year, if reasonably practicable”.

The chief justice said another initiative he is considering is to “make a greater stride in driving the migration to e-litigation”.

He urged the legal profession to give serious consideration to a change away from the paper-based tradition, despite the short-term inconvenience it could bring.

Cheung said he hopes that within three to five years after relevant parts of the new systems are launched, all represented litigation can be conducted electronically, unless otherwise exempted in particular circumstances.

“Full consultation will of course be held with the legal profession as well as other stakeholders, and safeguards of the right of access to court will be put in place. Adequate support and training will also be rendered to our judges and support staff in adapting to the migration. I believe this is a strategically important direction to take in modernising Hong Kong's mode of litigation in this digital era,” he said.

Meanwhile, Cheung reiterated the importance of people having a correct understanding of the function of the courts.

The role of judges is not to make law, public policies or political decisions, he noted.

He said many legal disputes in public law cases, particularly those involving underlying social, economic or political issues, concern rights or interests that pull in opposite or even multiple directions.

“The court has to put all these rights and interests in the balancing scales before a decision can be made. The outcome of the balancing exercise may not always be pleasing to everyone, or even anyone. For, by definition, different stakeholders and different interests are involved. It does not mean that the court has failed in its function in administering justice fairly and equally,” he said.

It is wrong for anyone to criticise a judge simply for applying laws which one does not like or agree with, and judges should ignore this type of criticism and carry on with their judicial duties, Cheung added.