Retrial Ordered After Hong Kong Judge Caught Plagiarising Again in Ruling

A panel of Court of Appeal judges has ruled that Mr Justice Wilson Chan engaged in “impermissible judicial copying” for the second time, this time in a 2024 case involving Nam Tai Property founder Koo Ming-kown and his former brother-in-law Charles Chu Chia-chin. The finding is not surprising, given the severity of the plagiarism: almost 95 percent of Chan’s judgment was lifted from the defendant’s counsel.

The appellate court’s decision has sparked widespread outrage, with many calling for greater scrutiny of Hong Kong’s judges and a more robust system of accountability. This latest incident raises questions about the independence of the judge and the integrity of the judicial process. The implications are far-reaching: if judges can plagiarise with impunity, what does it say about their commitment to upholding the law and delivering justice?

The case highlights the ongoing credibility crisis in Hong Kong’s judiciary. Just last year, Chan was reprimanded for plagiarism after copying large sections of text from another judgment without proper citation. He claimed it was an “honest mistake,” but this latest incident suggests that such mistakes may be more than just careless errors.

Hong Kong has a long history of judges being protected from accountability by the very system they are supposed to uphold. This culture of impunity has contributed to a lack of transparency and a failure to address systemic issues within the judiciary. The latest scandal serves as a stark reminder that this must change.

The question now is what will be done to address the issue. Chan’s past reprimand did not seem to have any lasting effect, raising concerns about the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms in place. Will he face further consequences for his actions, or will he continue to serve on the bench without significant repercussions? The answer will say a lot about Hong Kong’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all its citizens.

Chan’s appointment to the High Court in 2020 was surrounded by controversy, with critics questioning the lack of transparency and accountability within the judicial appointments process. If judges can plagiarise with impunity, it raises questions about their suitability for office in the first place. The appointment process must be overhauled to ensure that only the most qualified and capable candidates are selected for the bench.

The Court of Appeal’s decision is a welcome development, but it highlights the need for more robust safeguards against judicial misconduct. To restore public trust and confidence in the system, drastic measures are needed. This includes introducing more robust accountability mechanisms, increasing transparency, and reforming the judicial appointments process to ensure that only the most qualified candidates are selected for office.

Ultimately, the question remains: will anything change? Or will this latest scandal be just another footnote in Hong Kong’s long history of impunity and lack of accountability? Only time will tell.