Re Cheng Kai Nam, Gary

The right under Article 9 of the Basic Law to use Chinese (Cantonese) in Hong Kong courts does not extend to a constitutional right to be tried by a bilingual judge who understands the litigant directly without interpretation; assignment of a monolingual judge with competent interpretation does not infringe that right (the existing 'right to legal representation under HKBOR Art 11' description is incorrect: this case concerns language rights under Basic Law Art 9, and it is a CFI not Court of Appeal decision).