Judge failed to ensure Hongkonger’s right to fair trial in firebomb case 4 years ago, appeal court rules

The bench was also taken aback by the trial judge’s refusal to let the accused rest when she became emotionally unstable during the proceedings.

Mr Justice Derek Pang Wai-cheong, who penned the judgment, said the prosecution’s case was strong and Lam’s conviction would have stood had the irregularities appeared as separate, unrelated incidents.

Magistrate accused of misconduct in protest hearings cleared of wrongdoing

“But, putting them altogether, an informed bystander can hardly dispel the suspicion that the court believed the case was already proved beyond doubt, and that the applicant who chose to plead not guilty and contest [the charges] was merely wasting time, so it was unnecessary to pay heed to her impression on the entire proceedings and examine her defence seriously,” Pang said.

The court ordered Lam to remain behind bars pending submissions from prosecutors and defence lawyers on whether the case should be remitted for a retrial.

Two men involved in the case were each jailed for 50 months, while three secondary school students were given hard labour in a detention centre.

Lam, the only defendant contesting the allegations, maintained she was merely accompanying her boyfriend when she appeared at the scene of the attack in Yau Ma Tei and spent long hours inside a hotel room which the group used to store petrol bombs and related material.

Lin, who sentenced four of the five men pleading guilty, decided that no harm would be done to Lam if he penalised her co-defendants first before her trial started.

The judge, however, categorised Lam as an accomplice when he sentenced the quartet.

The appellate court noted Lin was substantially involved in cross-examining Lam when she tried to establish a defence in the witness box.

2 Hong Kong judges cleared of misconduct accusations over protest cases

It also found the judge’s remarks, such as “what on earth are you saying?” and “why, you do not understand?”, stood in stark contrast to how he had handled the evidence of three police officers serving as prosecution witnesses.

An advisory committee on judicial conduct cleared Lin of wrongdoing but noted he should not have made serious allegations against anyone not allowed to explain themselves in court.