As law students, we have inevitably been thrown into the various neatly organised and spelt out fact patterns in cases. However, the real world functions far differently from that. In a way, courts act as a source of authority over what actually happened, regardless of the veracity of what is stated in judgments. I write this to urge you to think critically about your role as future lawyers and judges, and your relationship with the foundation of public discourse.
Reflecting on my journey to Osgoode, I have never been described as one to pursue the cause of justice. This changed after I observed the events that transpired in Hong Kong on 21 July 2019. What unfolded in Yuen Long train station may properly be described as something that shocks the conscience. A large gathering of people wearing white T-shirts paraded into the station and proceeded to use rattan canes to beat those who wore black clothes (the typical attire of protestors). 24,000 calls were made to the police, yet no police appeared on the scene until the mob dispersed. This horrendous incident has since become infamous in Hong Kong, symbolising the dubious ties triad organisations have with the government and the police’s complicity with such ties.
Numerous statements by the authorities (the government, police, so-called Independent Police Complaints Council, and the Department of Justice) described what happened that night as a brawl instigated by protesters in black and counter-protesters in white. However, the trial process revealed what had actually occurred that night. It was found that the “counter-protesters” in white dealt “indiscriminate violence” to citizens, some dressed in black and some innocent. To defend themselves, these citizens wielded umbrellas and were shielded from the “counter-protesters” in white by several courageous youths.
It’s been four years already, so why am I bringing up this now? It is because a trial commenced a few weeks ago where some of the black-clad protestors were charged with rioting. When the defence read out the uncontested facts, which included video recordings taken that night, the judge took issue with some of the video titles and claimed that they were prejudiced, misleading, and had a pre-determined stance. Examples of these titles include “Yuen Long Indiscriminate Attack on Pedestrians,” which the judge claimed was indicative of a stance because of the word “indiscriminate.”
Even if this objection had substance, it hinted at the judge’s preconceived notion of what happened that night. The judge’s stance was contrary to the finding of fact at a previous trial court that supposedly offered a conclusive declaration of what happened that night to the public. The video title was describing factually what happened and even adopted the exact same wording as the trial court judgement. Additionally, the infamy of the incident precluded the possibility that the current trial judge was unfamiliar with it. Although the justice system may already be regarded as a joke by local citizens, this seemingly offhanded comment may bring the justice system into further disrepute. It also unfortunately foreshadows a future where the facts of that night will be rewritten to reflect the authorities’ version of events.
This report of the trial in progress on the opposite side of the world in my hometown reminds me of the importance of the role we have in the legal profession to adhere to the truth. We cannot be ignorant of the significance of our positions, as future lawyers, and even more so as judges. As much as one detests or supports certain political movements, our actions as legal professionals do shape public discourse.