Re Chu, Alfred

HCMP1139/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2338

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1139 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

1.It is usual for a judge to make a speech in the end of all admission ceremonies, congratulating the newly qualified lawyers and reminding them of their duty to protect the rule of law and not to do anything which may bring the profession into disrepute.

2.Today’s application is certainly not a usual one.  The Secretary for Justice had received information regarding a message posted in the Applicant’s Facebook account, which eventually led to the appearance of her representative in court today to make an open statement explaining why the Secretary for Justice does not object the admission application.  Though some people may query the truthfulness of the Applicant’s explanation, the two bodies responsible for checking the suitability of applicants for admission as solicitors, namely the Law Society and the Secretary for Justice, have accepted the explanation given by the Applicant after conducting responsible investigations.  In the case of the Law Society, it had obtained evidence on oath from the Applicant and his friend.  Having carefully considered their explanations, the Law Society has written to the court indicating that the Certificate of Eligibility for Admission as Solicitor issued earlier shall continue to have effect.  Under such circumstances, it is not for the court to carry out any further inquiry to verify the truth of the explanation.

3.Further, the Applicant himself has also filed an affirmation, explaining that the message was in fact posted by his friend who had access to his Facebook account.  Upon learning the posting of the message, he deleted the message on his own accord.  He also exhibited a number of supporting letters written by his friends, who all said that they do not believe the Applicant would have published such a hatred-inciting statement.  I must remind the Applicant that, as an officer of the court, he cannot and should not do anything to mislead the court.  On the basis that the Applicant has not done so and his explanation is true, I make an order allowing his admission. If the statement had indeed come from the Applicant himself, the court may require further submissions before deciding whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a solicitor.

4.Perhaps this application may serve as a solemn reminder that a solicitor, being an officer of the court, a professional and a key player in the administration of justice, has a professional standard to meet.

5.No one would dispute that rule of law is one of the core values of Hong Kong.  For many years, we take pride in the fact that we have a good legal system which is able to protect the safety of the public and the rights of individuals.  However, one must not forget that a good legal system depends on the contributions of many people.  It is only when these people discharge, and seen to be able to discharge, their duties in a professional manner, that Hong Kong can enjoy a reputable legal system.

6.The people involved in the administration of justice include, of course, the judges, the lawyers, the prosecution authority, the Legal Aid Department, the police and other disciplinary forces.  As these people all have different duties to discharge, some of them public duties owed to the community at large, it is only natural that disagreements and even conflicts may arise between them.  But even so, there is always mutual respect between these professionals.  Such mutual respect is very much premised on the fact that we recognize the different people involved in the administration of justice have different roles to play and different duties to discharge.  If, after well-informed and objective analysis of the facts which one would expect a professional to do, one disagrees with the work of and the stance taken by others involved in the administration of justice, one should lodge an objection or complaint and put forward his or her arguments in a professional and rational manner.

7.Hence, one would not expect that the statement in the Applicant’s Facebook account would have been published by someone involved in the administration of justice.  In fact, it should not have been published by anyone who values mutual respect as a core value of every civilized society.

8.The message involves a very distasteful and hatred-inciting statement. The statement went well beyond a rational criticism of the work of the police. The statement contained a threat, or at the very least a curse, targeting not just the police officers, but their innocent family members who have nothing to do with their work.

9.I am given to understand that the Applicant did not publish the statement himself.  I also take comfort of the fact that the Applicant and his friends agree that it is a highly offensive and inappropriate statement.

10.For the Applicant, he deleted the offensive message after its publication and eventually deleted his Facebook account.  For his friend, she expressed remorse for her impulsive conduct.  For his other friends who wrote supporting letters for the Applicant, they do not believe that the Applicant would have published such a hatred-inciting statement, which was something quite out-of-character of the Applicant if he had done so.

11.Despite the Applicant had not published the statement himself, he, as a professional, should have been more careful in managing his social media account.  The statement in the Applicant’s Facebook account gave the impression to the readers that the statement came from the Applicant himself, which according to the Applicant was not the truth.  In a way, this is a piece of false information because it gave wrong information about the true identity of the sender of the message.

12.It certainly makes a difference if the statement came from a future-to-be lawyer.  As lawyers have received proper legal training, their words and actions would inevitably come under public scrutiny, who look upon them to determine what is lawful and what is not.  One cannot underestimate the impact of false information because others may act upon it, often in an impulsive manner.  Nowadays, we live in an era flooded with information. Unfortunately, it is not easy to verify the truth of all the information available in the internet world.  This is the price we all have to pay for the freedom of expression.

13.Now turning back to the Applicant.  You certainly would not expect that your admission would become a matter of public interest attracting much attention of the press.  By failing to manage your social media account in a careful and responsible manner, you have to take responsibility for such protracted admission proceedings.  I hope that this would be a lesson for you, making you a more careful and responsible solicitor in the future.  Remember, the robe that you are wearing for the first time today comes with a great responsibility to carry.

14.That concludes the proceedings. 

Mr Tam Man Kam of Hobsons & Ma for the Applicant

Ms Leona Cheung, D.P.G.C. for the Secretary for Justice