Hong Kong’s chief justice is set to issue a second formal reprimand within a year to High Court judge Wilson Chan Ka-shun following repeated findings of plagiarism in his written judgments. The judiciary confirmed that Chan will also be required to undergo targeted training after large portions of his rulings were found to replicate submissions made by parties in several cases.
The announcement comes after a series of incidents dating back to 2023, in which Chan was reported to have extensively copied legal arguments from counsel without sufficient original analysis. These events prompted adjustments to his caseload last year, with Chan being primarily assigned to criminal cases that generally do not require written judgments, a move intended to reduce opportunities for excessive judicial copying.
Despite these measures, the Court of Appeal identified further instances of “impermissible judicial copying” in a 2024 case where approximately 95 percent of Chan’s judgment was taken from the defence counsel’s submissions. The panel subsequently ordered a retrial. In a separate ruling issued days later, the Court of Appeal also found that Chan had duplicated significant portions of arguments from multiple parties, describing the practice as “highly undesirable.” However, the court noted some independent judicial reasoning was evident in Chan’s authored analysis, concluding that the copying did not ultimately affect the appeal’s outcome.
The judiciary emphasized that judges must demonstrate fairness, impartiality, and independent judgment in their rulings. While it acknowledged that incorporating parties’ arguments into judgments is commonplace under the common law system to some extent, excessive replication raises serious concerns about a judge’s exercise of independent discretion. “Excessive judicial copying must be firmly avoided in all circumstances,” a judiciary spokesperson said.
Following the latest findings, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung and High Court Chief Judge Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor will jointly issue a serious reprimand to Chan and require him to undertake specialized training aimed at addressing the issue.
Legal expert Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a non-official member of Hong Kong’s Executive Council, noted that although Article 98 of the Basic Law outlines the judiciary’s autonomy, there is no specific legislation detailing how the chief justice should handle cases of plagiarism by judges. Under Article 89, the removal of a judge for inability or misconduct involves a process initiated by the chief executive after recommendations from a tribunal of at least three judges appointed by the chief justice.
The latest developments mark at least the seventh documented episode of Chan’s extensive copying, raising broader questions about judicial standards and oversight within Hong Kong’s legal system. The judiciary’s response reflects efforts to uphold the integrity and professionalism expected of its members while balancing mechanisms for accountability within existing legal frameworks.