Prosecution opposes Tonyee Chow calling Taiwan professor as expert witness in Hong Kong Alliance subversion trial

Prosecutors strongly objected to fourth defendant Tonyee Chow Hang-tung summoning National Taiwan University sociology professor Ho Ming-sho as an expert witness in the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China subversion case, arguing his report is irrelevant and he lacks qualifications, objectivity, and neutrality.

Chow sought to introduce Ho’s report, which defines “democracy” and “one-party dictatorship,” claiming it helps the court understand the meaning of the Alliance’s platform and slogans. 

She argued public perception in Hong Kong society matters more than the organization’s own interpretation.

The three judges questioned the necessity—if the platform’s meaning is common knowledge, why need an expert; if not, why rely on a Taiwan-based academic unfamiliar with Hong Kong locals’ views? They noted expert witnesses typically assist on specialized topics unfamiliar to laypeople, such as triad terminology or forensic analysis.

Prosecutors contended the report has no connection to the case issues, Ho’s opinions fall outside his claimed expertise, his stance is clearly biased, and he fails to meet the impartiality required of experts. 

They stressed the court can determine the ordinary meaning of “ending one-party dictatorship” from evidence without external help, citing legal precedent that unnecessary expert opinion should be excluded.

Chow defended the report’s relevance by noting it discusses achieving regime change through peaceful, legal means like assemblies and protests. 

She compared it to the Tong Ying-kit case, where an expert explained slogan origins and contemporary meaning.

After hearing arguments, the court adjourned the application and will rule on whether to allow Ho as an expert witness next Monday.