Telling a Hong Kong judge found to have plagiarised submissions in his judgments to retire early is a sufficient penalty, as he has already suffered reputational damage and is losing tens of millions of dollars in forgone salary, allowances and pension payouts, legal experts have said.
A spokesman for the judiciary confirmed on Tuesday that Justice Wilson Chan Ka-shun would be eligible for early retirement benefits calculated in accordance with his period of service. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu also said he respected the chief justice’s decision to take action against Chan.
The spokesman said: “According to the [pension benefits] ordinance, early-retired judges are eligible for pension benefits, which are calculated on the basis of their length of service.”
The spokesman added that Chan’s pension would be reduced proportionately as his length of service would be shorter than usual due to his early retirement.
Chan submitted his retirement application on Monday, after Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung announced that he had asked the judge to retire early after reprimanding him for repeated plagiarism in his judgments.
The chief justice said on Monday that Chan’s plagiarism had adversely affected the interests of the parties concerned, imposed an unnecessary burden on appellate judicial resources and undermined public confidence in his ability to discharge his duties.
Chan, born in 1962, will leave about six years earlier than the usual retirement age of 70 for judges when he finishes his last working day on Friday.
He presided over two cases in the High Court on Tuesday, attracting about a dozen journalists.
One of those cases was originally slated for trial next month, but is now expected to be rescheduled and heard before another judge following Chan’s retirement.
The other case, a retrial of two defendants accused of trafficking HK$7 million (US$890,000) worth of cocaine, concluded on Tuesday with a jury clearing the accused. Chan will pass sentence on Thursday on a third defendant who pleaded guilty before the trial.
The judge joined the judiciary as a District Court judge in 2013, and was appointed to the High Court four years later. Chan began in private practice in 1986.
The chief executive said on Tuesday that he acknowledged public concerns and expectations regarding the professionalism of judges, and that he respected the chief justice’s decision to take appropriate measures to uphold public confidence in judges performing their duties independently and professionally.
“I am also confident that judges and judicial officers at all levels of the courts will uphold their judicial oaths and discharge their duties diligently, independently and professionally,” Lee said.
Chan was accused of extensively copying large swathes of submissions for judgments at least seven times, with two instances resulting in a “serious reprimand”.
His duties were adjusted last year so that he would primarily adjudicate criminal cases that did not require written judgments.
The chief justice said on Monday that a number of appeals had arisen concerning Chan’s judgments, with some leading to orders for retrial.
Executive Council member Ronny Tong Ka-wah told the South China Morning Post that requesting Chan to take early retirement was a good arrangement and the “only solution” given concerns over his work.
The senior counsel said judges could only be dismissed under two circumstances – when they were incapable of carrying out their job, such as due to illness, or for misconduct.
“Legally, [the request for early retirement] is not a penalty, but in reality, it is one,” he said.
Chan’s departure would increase the workload of other judges and add to the strain on the entire legal system, he noted.
“If we have around 10 vacancies for judges at any given time, and our scheduling of cases is measured in years, this isn’t a great phenomenon,” Tong said.
Judiciary data shows 27 judges serve in the High Court’s Court of First Instance and 13 in the Court of Appeal, with seven and two vacancies, respectively.
Thirteen recorders – practising barristers taking up the role of part-time judges – have also been appointed to the High Court.
Exco convenor Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, a former civil servant, said early retirement was a sufficient penalty for Chan as his case was of gross negligence but it was not a crime.
“There are no provisions in the pensions ordinance for summary cancellation or reduction of a judge’s pension unless he is bankrupt, subject to disciplinary proceedings or convicted of a serious criminal offence connected with the public service,” Ip said.
Legal sector lawmaker Nick Chan Hiu-fung said that someone in Chan’s position would be losing around six years of pay and allowances, as well as their professional reputation.
A report on a judicial pay review in 2024, which was later authorised by the chief executive, showed the recommended monthly salary of a judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court to be HK$343,750.
The judiciary also said in a reply to lawmakers’ questions at a Legislative Council Finance Committee meeting this year that High Court judges were entitled to judiciary quarters.
When quarters are not available, they can receive an allowance of HK$185,752 per month until quarters become available, or opt for a non-accountable cash allowance of HK$60,610 per month if they choose not to live in quarters allocated to them.
The review also showed that judges were entitled to a medical insurance allowance, leave passage allowance, judicial dress allowance and a local education allowance for their children – all of which are reviewed annually.
“We need a balance for this. We shouldn’t impose too heavy-handed penalties. This would also discourage [judicial officers] and we shouldn’t act on our emotions,” Chan said.
Additional reporting by Brian Wong and Matthew Cheng -- SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
