A defence lawyer in a Hong Kong trial involving an alleged 2019 bomb plot targeting police has asked the jury to weigh evidence from the “Dragon Slaying Brigade” leader with a grain of salt, accusing the prosecution witness of telling “lie after lie” in court to lessen his sentence.
Barrister Dick Lee Kwok-fu on Tuesday began the defence’s closing submission in High Court by asking the nine-strong jury to assess the credibility of brigade leader Wong Chun-keung, arguing part of the witness’ evidence was fabricated to serve his own agenda and to “fill the gaps” of a story that he thought would fit the prosecution case.
“Wong had been untruthful and deceived his teammates. What he had said was a pack of lies, with many doubts casting in his evidence,” Lee told the jury.
“If [you] cannot safely determine whether Wong had told the truth, the benefit of doubt should go to the defendant.”
Lee, defence for the alleged member Cheung Chun-fu, stressed his client thought the brigade would only use fireworks during one of the 2019 protests and never entered into a conspiracy to plant two bombs on Hennessy Road in Wan Chai on December 8 that year.
Cheung was among the seven defendants charged under United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance over the thwarted plot.
The prosecution, in its closing statements, relied on evidence from Telegram messages between Wong and the brigade that suggested all members had acknowledged the use of guns and explosives in a “big plan”.
Wong earlier said he told the group over a few meetings about their roles in drawing police out to the street when the team of plot mastermind Ng Chi-hung were to set off the bombs.
The counsel reminded the jury that Wong had initially denied all the charges, but added he only agreed to testify against others more than three years after his arrest.
Wong had made a plea bargain with the Department of Justice and could potentially receive a maximum 50 per cent discount on his sentence as he served as a prosecution witness.
Lee reminded the jury of the basic legal principle that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, while the defence only needed to argue that there was a possibility that some evidence might not be true.
Based on this principle, he asked the jury not to consider evidence from Wong if they were not certain “which part was true and which part was not”.
Lee summarised the evidence and pointed out discrepancy between Wong’s testimony in court and what had seemed to happen between August and December that year as Telegram messages suggested.
Wong said he believed the team had learned about an escape plan to Taiwan after the attack because he sent out an itinerary of second military training scheduled to take place in late December that year.
However, private messages between Wong and other individuals showed that he only packed for himself and had no intention to take the whole team with him. Under cross-examination, he said his plan was to take the team once he settled in the new place.
The counsel pointed out Wong “came up with” a story to cover his lie.
“We are talking about a bomb plot to kill people, it was impossible that Wong did not tell the team about his plan and ask them to leave together right after,” he said.
Wong also said in court that the phrase “20kg” referred to explosives in the brigade’s channel, but messages appeared in another group chat between Wong and other protesters suggesting the same word was used to indicate fireworks, which was intended at one point to be planted in a police station.
In addition, Wong told the court that the brigade agreed they would not personally use guns and bombs. But messages exchanged suggested Wong had asked Ng for a gun as he wanted to execute the police, Lee added.
“If he had been honest with the teammates and told them guns and bombs were involved in the December 8 plot, none of the members would have joined,” Lee said.
The second defendant Cheung Ming-yu’s lawyer will begin his submission on Wednesday.
