The Plagiarism Issue in the Courts
The prime duty of any judge is to independently assess court cases and resolve complex legal issues. However, Hong Kong judge Mr. Justice Wilson Chan Ka-shun recently failed to meet this fundamental requirement. Last week, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for a corporate dispute because Chan extensively copied legal arguments from the defense in his 2024 ruling. Specifically, almost 95 percent of the judgment was incorporated directly from the defendant’s submissions. Consequently, the extent of this copying was so extreme that the judge did not appear to apply his own independent mind to the case.
A Serial Offender Facing Consequences
Unfortunately, this is not the first time Chan has faced severe censure for such improper conduct. In June 2023, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung chastised him for replicating more than 98 percent of the winning side’s arguments in a 2021 judgment. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found him guilty of blatant plagiarism again in August 2023. As a result, the chief justice publicly described his repetitive conduct as totally unacceptable. Because Chan has been a judge for 13 years, he should not need targeted training on how to write legal judgments. Therefore, the judiciary recently adjusted his duties, primarily assigning him to criminal cases that do not require written rulings.
Systemic Implications and Accountability
While it is common practice for judges to reference lawyers’ submissions, they must constantly demonstrate independent thought. Anyone reading a ruling should clearly see that the judge resolved the case impartially. Therefore, public confidence in Hong Kong’s entire justice system heavily depends on this transparency. Although judges enjoy strong security of tenure under the Basic Law, repeated plagiarism wastes precious time, money, and judicial resources. Ultimately, litigants face stressful and expensive trials, so they rightfully deserve rulings that reflect an active, independent, and impartial judicial mind.
Reference
Buddle, C., & Buddle, C. (2026, 25 julio). My Take | Judge’s actions could harm public confidence in Hong Kong’s system of justice. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/opinion/article/3361853/judges-actions-could-harm-public-confidence-hong-kongs-system-justice?share=OKhyBvYc1CQihVv7QGk4R5tC3%2F8RTd9os9F0Jht%2FmuZKdzGAnIM9yVQArFgBvpoJOfvrYE3RhjwEghNL5tBTIbw28BqkH8MumnB5VGFu33w%3D&utm_campaign=social_share