A former officer of the Hong Kong Immigration Department has initiated a judicial review proceeding, challenging her dismissal following a 2019 arrest at the MTR Prince Edward Station and subsequent internal disciplinary findings. The High Court convened on Wednesday to hear the case of the former senior clerical officer, identified as Chan Ka-yan, who seeks to overturn her termination, arguing the penalty was disproportionate and unfair. Mr. Justice Coleman presided over the hearing and indicated that a written judgment will be delivered on or before February 13 of next year.
Disciplinary Action Followed 2019 Arrest
Ms. Chan was arrested by police on the evening of August 31, 2019, at the MTR Prince Edward Station platform amid significant public unrest in the city. Police concluded their investigation in August 2020. Subsequently, the Immigration Department launched a disciplinary hearing held over three days in February 2021. The central issue revolved around inconsistencies in Ms. Chan’s account of her travel route preceding the arrest, and whether those discrepancies constituted deceitful behavior during the internal inquiry.
During the initial interview, Ms. Chan stated she and her companion traveled from Tin Hau, changing trains at Central for the Tsuen Wan Line, and alighted at Prince Edward. She reported being arrested after witnessing altercations. The following day, however, Ms. Chan revised her statement, indicating she believed the arrest occurred on the lower platform. She conceded that trains reaching that platform could not have originated from Central, raising doubts about her claimed transit route.
Officer Cited Postpartum Memory Issues
Ms. Chan contended that the disciplinary interviews occurred approximately 18 months after the incident, making precise recollection difficult. Crucially, she highlighted that the interviews took place almost three months after she had given birth. She attributed her flawed memory and confusion to postpartum memory decline, compounded by sleep deprivation from caring for a newborn and significant personal stress, including the recent death of her dog. She insisted that after viewing online footage following the first day of the inquiry, she promptly clarified her location to the committee. She argued that the errors stemmed from an impaired memory, not deliberate untruthfulness.
The disciplinary committee and the respondent, the Civil Service Bureau, rejected this explanation. The Bureau argued that an arrest, particularly for an individual serving in a disciplined service, would be an “unforgettable event.” They maintained that Ms. Chan provided misleading and false information to the department. The Bureau asserted that her changing accounts, when faced with evidence contradicting her initial version, suggested calculated deception rather than mere memory lapses. The Bureau’s core charge centered on her failure to candidly detail her movements on the day of the incident.
Proportionality of Penalty Debated
The Immigration Department ultimately found Ms. Chan guilty of misconduct, leading to her dismissal—the severest sanction possible. Ms. Chan’s legal challenge focuses on the proportionality of this penalty, arguing that termination stemming from an internal inquiry is excessive and unwarranted given the context of her memory difficulties and non-specialist role. She criticized the Bureau for allegedly refusing to accept her mitigating factors without adequate justification.
The forthcoming ruling by Justice Coleman will set a significant precedent regarding the extent to which personal circumstances, such as postpartum health issues, can be deemed mitigating factors in civil service disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of lack of candor. The decision will impact how disciplinary bureaus weigh honest mistakes against deliberate deception when assessing integrity within Hong Kong’s disciplined public service.