The Hong Kong Judiciary has confirmed that High Court Judge Wilson Chan will receive a “serious reprimand” from Chief Justice Andrew Cheung and Chief Judge of the High Court Jeremy Poon following the discovery of substantial plagiarism in a recent judicial ruling. This development marks the third time the judge has faced disciplinary action for copying large portions of legal submissions directly into his written judgments, a practice that has prompted retrials in previous instances.
The latest controversy stems from a 2024 trial where the presiding judge was accused by the plaintiff of lifting 95 per cent of the text from the defendant’s opening and closing arguments to form the basis of the court’s judgment. Following these reports, the Judiciary stated that excessive copying of a party’s submissions in a judgment inevitably creates doubt regarding whether a judge has applied an independent mind to the facts and issues of a case. The Judiciary emphasized that judges are expected to exercise their functions independently and professionally to ensure fairness and justice.
The Judiciary’s statement, provided in response to media inquiries on Wednesday, confirmed that in addition to the formal reprimand, Judge Chan has been ordered to undergo “targeted training.” This measure follows two prior incidents in 2023 where the Court of Appeal ordered retrials for cases handled by Judge Chan, resulting in similar disciplinary action from the Chief Justice at that time.
High Court Judge Wilson Chan. Photo: Judiciary.
Judicial Standards and Public Perception
Ronny Tong, a government advisor, barrister and member of the Executive Council, commented on the situation during a broadcast interview on Wednesday. Tong noted that while judges are expected to summarize the arguments presented by opposing sides, the process requires more than simple replication.
“We must demonstrate the extent to which we understand the arguments and whether we comprehend the statements made by both sides,” Tong said. He suggested that the recurring nature of the issue might indicate an “attitude problem” rather than a deficiency that can be resolved through further training. Tong expressed concern that if these basic requirements of judicial duty are not met, public perception regarding the quality and integrity of the local judicial system could be adversely affected.
Executive Council member and barrister Ronny Tong. Photo: PoD Research Institute, via Facebook.
Regulatory Framework for Judicial Conduct
Under the Basic Law, there are mechanisms in place for the removal of judges, though the threshold for such action is high. Ronny Tong indicated that while he respects the decision made by the Chief Justice regarding the current reprimand, he believes the Judiciary must remain attentive to broader public opinion on the matter. The Judiciary’s mandate remains focused on ensuring that all rulings are delivered with the required level of judicial independence.
The current situation remains under review by the leadership of the Judiciary. As of now, no further hearings or specific dates for the completion of the judge’s targeted training have been announced. Updates regarding the administrative status of the judge or changes to the handling of the affected trial will be managed through official Judiciary notices.
The High Court. File photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP.
The public is encouraged to monitor official Judiciary press releases and case filings for any further developments regarding this matter.