Firstly, the jury in the Hong Kong courts were fully European. Indeed, the jury consisted of six men (as opposed to twelve in England) drawn from the European inhabitants of Hong Kong. Furthermore, all of the proceedings in court were conducted in English, a language the vast majority of defendants did not speak. Naturally, the services of interpreters were required. However, most trials in that period were interpreted by Daniel Caldwell, who was ousted to be corrupt and involved in piracy. So, what started out as a fair and benevolent attempt to “civilise” justice in Hong Kong, quickly transformed into a judicial system in which European men tried Chinese for crimes committed against other Chinese in the colony, but also well outside the bounds of the Colony. Needless to say, the inherent bias of such a court hardly constitutes as fair rule of law.