Lawmaker Wong Yuk-man’s assault trial continued at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, with Wong questioning whether evidence had been tampered with. He also claimed that the information provided by the prosecution was incomplete.
Wong, 63, is facing charges for allegedly throwing a glass at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying during a Legislative Council question-and-answer session in July 2014. He was charged with common assault last August and pleaded not guilty.
Leung Chun-ying arrived at court in the morning to continue testifying as a witness. Meanwhile, members of localist group Civic Passion clashed with Leung’s supporters outside court and knocked over barricades, Commercial Radio reported. The police said that protesters had affected public safety and ordered them to leave.
In court, Wong said that he received documents from the prosecution at 4pm on Wednesday afternoon. They included a newly drafted version of the admitted facts of the case and a notebook belonging to the police officer who recorded Leung’s witness statement, RTHK reported. However, Wong questioned whether the notebook had been tampered with.
Wong said that he did not agree with the prosecution’s version of the facts and accused them of withholding information from him.
He said he only learnt on Tuesday that four officers had taken Leung’s statement during his cross-examination. He asked the court to order the prosecution to hand over all information that had not been used and requested the hearing be adjourned for two days so that he may look over it.
The prosecution said that there were only some deletions in the new version of the facts and that Wong had never complained about the contents previously.
Magistrate Chu Chung-keung said that it was not uncommon for unused facts in a case to be incomplete. He said that the number of officers present when Leung’s testimony was being taken did not affect the hearing, and the defence could still cross-examine them.
The magistrate rejected Wong’s request to adjourn, saying that the prosecution had already provided the defence with sufficient information. He said that the redacted parts in the notebook were irrelevant to the case and – unless Wong could prove otherwise – the prosecution had done their part.
The court also rejected Wong’s application to summon pro-establishment lawmaker James Tien as a witness and said Wong could apply for special leave again should he wish to call on Tien.
