Removing judge no help in showing justice

It's unheard of for a judge to be taken off a case as District Court judge Kwok Wai-kin has been.

The judge raised many eyebrows with his lengthy expression of sympathy for an assailant who had stabbed three young people, leaving one critically wounded, during a debate near a "Lennon Wall" in Tseung Kwan O last August.

Yet the decision by Chief District Judge Justin Ko King-sau to remove Kwok from a case also linked to last year's anti-government protests begs further clarification from the Judiciary.

A further statement does not necessarily have to be made to justify the decision but it would surely help the community to better understand the decision. After all, legal principles are often too difficult to understand readily.

Naturally, judges do have their own political opinions but Kwok appeared to be carried away by his own views in the court. When he called the accused Tony Hung Chun - a tourist guide made redundant during anti-government protests - an honorable man forced to make an "uncontrollable howl," eyebrows were raised.

A question asked was whether Kwok's sentencing of Hung had been unduly influenced by his political beliefs.

In sentencing Hung to 45 months, the judge apparently adhered to sentencing guidelines, starting with six years' imprisonment to be reduced by one third due to mitigating factors. Few have queried the length of the sentence which cannot be said to be lenient.

It is true Kwok's judgment sounded more like a political speech rather than a court judgment based on legal principles. In so doing, Kwok left a question mark in many people's minds about whether he had heard the case fairly.

Bear in mind that being fair isn't good enough - the courts must also be seen to be acting fairly.

Was the judge overwhelmed by his own political opinions?

Kwok unwittingly opened himself up to the risk of falling into a political trap. A disproportionate statement was certainly the last thing needed.

However, as Kwok's senior in the Judiciary removed him from a further case involving a taxi driver charged with arson after he was allegedly found in possession of petrol bombs, he may unintentionally allow himself to fall into a similar trap too.

The explanation offered by the Judiciary was short, saying the chief district judge was aware of recent disputes over the reason behind the sentencing of a case handled by Kwok and, hence, the arrangement was made at this stage.

Obviously, the statement was too scanty to clear the air.

It is not uncommon to hear conflicting arguments from judges as cases navigate through the judicial system from a lower to an upper court. But removing a judge from a case prior to a trial is extraordinary.

In taking Kwok off the taxi driver case, it also gives the impression that the Judiciary bowed to public pressure - as claimed by localist activist Ventus Lau Wing-hong.

Though that may not be the truth, this could still reflect the feelings in some sectors of society.

It is imperative to clear the air so that justice is not only done, but soon to be done.