Judge denies bias, accuses defendants of ‘losing focus’
A judge presiding over a riot trial stemming from the anti-government unrest in 2019 has hit back at defendants for “losing focus” on the case after they accused him of being biased towards the prosecution.
Twelve out of 23 defendants on trial at West Kowloon Court filed a joint application last week asking Judge Johnny Chan Jongherng to withdraw from the proceedings on reasons that he had prevented their lawyers from cross-examining witnesses and attacked their defence strategies, often with sarcastic remarks.
Delivering his decision yesterday, Chan – declining to recuse himself – found no issue in his own handling of the trial, and instead said the defence had lost focus on contentious matters in the case and ran the risk of dragging out proceedings.
The application was made after 52 days of trial in relation to a disturbance in Sheung Wan on July 28, 2019, when demonstrators blocked roads and clashed with police in protest against officers’ use of force in dispersing a rally that took place a week before.
The 23 were jointly charged with one count of rioting, with two facing additional charges of assaulting a police officer and unlicensed possession of radio communications equipment.
The trial centred on whether a riot had occurred on the night concerned, and, if so, whether the accused were involved.
Defence lawyer Steven Kwan Man-wai, on behalf of the 12 requesting a new judge, said Chan had barred the defence from questioning police witnesses on details of the time and place of events, thereby preventing them from establishing their case. Kwan also accused the judge of harsh criticism and attacking lawyers’ professionalism by suggesting they dragged out the case for money. But Chan denied the accusations, saying all doubt he had cast on the defence was for the sake of case management as he feared the trial, initially slated to last 60 days, would overrun.
While acknowledging the question of whether a riot had taken place deserved scrutiny, Chan found it unhelpful for lawyers to persistently ask police giving evidence to clarify the timeline of events. That did not mean he had prematurely turned down the defence case, the judge reiterated, adding that he had kept an open mind to the contention.