Judge’s actions could harm public confidence in Hong Kong’s system of justice
Justice Wilson Chan has been found to have extensively and improperly copied legal arguments in a ruling. And it is not the first time he has done so
The prime duty of a judge is to independently assess court cases, resolving the issues and reaching a decision. It requires exercising judgment. The clue is in the name. But this fundamental requirement was not met by Hong Kong judge, Mr Justice Wilson Chan Ka-shun, in a case involving a dispute over a company’s shares.
Last week, the Court of Appeal took the drastic step of ordering a new trial before a different judge after finding Chan to have extensively and improperly copied legal arguments from the defence into his 2024 ruling.
Almost 95 per cent of the judgment “was incorporated from the submissions of the defendant,” said the court. Chan’s reasoning and findings were copied “almost verbatim” from the defendant’s closing arguments. Not surprisingly, he ruled in favour of the defence.
The extent and “quality” of the copying was so extreme the court took the view the judge did not appear to have applied his mind to the legal issues or fairly considered the plaintiff’s case. The appeal judges did not use the term plagiarism, but that is what it amounts to.
Chan will now be “seriously reprimanded” by the city’s two top judges, the chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal and chief judge of the High Court.
This is bad enough. But it is not the first time Chan has been censured for such conduct. He is a serial offender.