Hong Kong court rejects claim judge may be biased due to police report seen during earlier trial

Lai is one of the three judges appointed to lead the ongoing process of members currently resolved The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Chinese Patriotic Democratic Movement, the organizer of the city’s annual festival Vigil in Tiananmen Square.

Judges Alex Lee Wan-tang, Johnny Chan Jong-herng and Lai said they had “full confidence” that the defendants would receive a fair trial before them.

“The members of this court will honor and act in accordance with their judicial oath, deciding cases solely on the basis of the law and the evidence, free from any internal or external pressures that may influence the court’s decision,” they said in the 23-page ruling.

Chow, a lawyer, has been charged with inciting subversion in connection with her previous role as vice-chair of the alliance.

The three-judge panel rejects a defendant’s claim that one of them may be prejudiced by the contents of a police report seen at an earlier trial. Photo: Sun Yeung

The charge, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison under Beijing’s national security law, also involved the alliance and two now-detained senior members of the group – Lee Cheuk-yan, who was its chairman, and former vice chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan.

Prosecutors accused the alliance of undermining China’s system of government by seeking to overthrow the Communist Party-controlled central government.

Judge Lai heard the full report as she oversaw an appeal stemming from an earlier case in which Chow and two other members of the alliance were ultimately convicted. I lost the challenge against their convictions and prison sentences for refusing to assist in the police investigation into the alliance.

However, the report was never released in its entirety to Chow because of an exception to “public interest immunity” granted by the court, which was intended to spare prosecutors from having to disclose evidence related to ongoing national security investigations.

Chow noted the risk of bias on the part of the judge because she had to review “extremely serious” allegations in the report, including some that could not be proven or were irrelevant to the last trial.

But the three judges said no honest observer would have believed the report could prejudice Lai and the defendants in the sedition trial.

They explained that Lai only read the medical privileged materials after receiving a request from defendants in a separate case, including Chow, and his sole purpose was to determine whether the judge’s decision to order the report struck out was justified.

The judges noted Lai’s findings that the hidden parts of the report were unrelated to the alliance.

They said they found Chow’s suggestion that the report would likely become the basis for impeachment to be self-contradictory.

The judges also emphasised the benefit of having three judges presiding over the trial as it reduces the risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The sedition trial is expected to begin at the West Kowloon Court next year at the earliest.