As widely expected, judge Alan Wright decided yesterday in the Court of First Instance that former chairwoman of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, Lily Chiang Lai Lei, would have to stand trial before one of
his peers – a judge – rather than before seven of
her peers – a jury – which she'd been holding out for.
The
SCMP article by Peter Brieger notes wryly that it's "unclear why she preferred a jury trial", as she faces charges including allegations of fraud relating to share options granted to staff at
Pacific Challenge Holdings.
A law professor at Hong Kong University, Simon Young Ngai Man, sheds some light on Lily's wish that findings of fact be made by laypeople rather than by legal experts. "They [the jury] might see the alleged crimes as just competitive business rather than dishonesty."
In other words, the sort of thing they'd do themselves if they had the chance ... and the money! I can't believe this is what Lily meant when she was reported in the
Apple Daily in March 2008 as saying she believed she'd get a "fairer" trial at the High Court.
Having dealt with local jurors, Professor Young, an expert in white collar crime and a former prosecutor in Ontario, offers further interesting insights into the psychology of local judicial officers.
"Although judges might stick to the letter of the law, many District Court judges [Lily's case was originally assigned to the District Court], are former magistrates who don't have much time for 'high-priced lawyers and legal niceties'."
And endless attempts to delay things, I would imagine.
Strangely, Alan Wright himself is a former magistrate, who graduated through the ranks to become first a District Court judge and then, a couple of years ago, a High Court judge.
The Pacific Century Holdings story has already claimed one victim,
Brenda Lui Yee Man, one of the founders of the company, who drowned in Deep Water Bay in May 2000. All the more reason for hoping, as I said to Lily's husband
Gino Yu last year, that justice is done in his wife's case.