A lawyer for an alleged member of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” behind a 2019 Hong Kong bomb plot has said the group’s leader pressed on with organising the attack despite his client rejecting the use of guns and explosives.
Barrister Thomas Iu Poon-shing said on Wednesday that the evidence provided in cross-examination by group leader Wong Chun-keung suggested he had kept his team in the dark about how the attack would be carried out.
Iu’s client, Cheung Ming-yu, is among six men who have denied involvement in a plot to plant two bombs in Wan Chai on December 8, 2019, to kill police officers.
The prosecution earlier in its closing submission told a panel of nine jurors that the conspiracy was hatched on November 18 that year, when Wong and fellow ringleader Ng Chi-hung met to discuss the roles of their teams.
According to Wong, the pair had agreed that the brigade members would draw police out to the street, with Ng’s team then setting off the bombs.
“Wong made such an agreement with Ng on his own, and that was not consented to by the brigade members. Not all of Wong’s actions represented the brigade,” Iu said.
“Wong had entered into a conspiracy, but that did not equate to the brigade members taking part in it.”
The counsel said Cheung had “made himself very clear” he did not want to use guns to kill police and told Ng that he was not the “right candidate” if that was part of the plan, before heading to Taiwan for military training with the latter’s team.
The two-week camp did not involve serious training and Cheung left early, according to his roommate during the stay, Eddie Pang Kwan-ho. The latter was part of Ng’s team and also became a prosecution witness.
Pang earlier said the training was not related to any conspiracy as Ng at that time did not have a concrete plan for the December 8 attack.
Iu said the group never agreed on the plan discussed by Wong and Ng, even during a meeting on November 17, 2019, the night before the brigade allegedly entered into the conspiracy.
He said Wong clearly conceded in cross examination that his team members did not all agree to personally use guns and explosives to carry out the attack when he briefed them on the plan, and that he was the only one who intended to do so.
The lawyer added the brigade members were kept in the dark throughout, especially as Wong only learned where the bombs and a sniper would be located when he met Ng just days before the planned assault.
“From November 18 to December 7 that year, Wong had not at any point explained the plan to Cheung, not one single detail about the brigade roles,” Iu said.
He said it would be impossible for Cheung to enter into a conspiracy of which he was completely unaware.
“All these answers given by Wong were evidence [we heard] from cross examination. However, the prosecution chose to omit it in its closing submission. They dare not say Wong was lying,” Iu said at the end of his closing statements.
The lawyer will continue to address the jury on Thursday.
