A defence lawyer for an alleged member of a thwarted 2019 bomb plot that targeted Hong Kong police has argued that prosecutors resorted to unreliable evidence from two witnesses and investigators to level false accusations against her client.
In her closing statement for the High Court trial, barrister Priscilia Lam Tsz-ying also urged the jury to disregard a verbal confession from her client Christian Lee Ka-tin, a suspected core member of the “Dragon Slaying Brigade”, during a police investigation over allegations he was waterboarded and beaten by officers after his arrest in 2020.
The lawyer argued that some of the previous evidence from her client was the result of investigators fabricating information to align with the prosecution’s case, including testimony from Wong Chun-keung, a leader of the bomb plot.
“Did Lee tell the truth in the [interview] with police? You can decide whether he had to lie in the interview in accordance with the version which police had come up with,” she said.
Lee is among six men who have denied involvement in the plot to set off bombs in Wan Chai on December 8, 2019. He also faces a separate charge of possessing arms or ammunition with intent to endanger life.
Prosecutors previously alleged Lee’s role in the plot had included possessing a firearm that received from plot mastermind Ng Chi-hung for weapons testing along with Ng’s team at a suburb in November 2019.
Prosecution witnesses Wong and Eddie Pang Kwan-ho, a member of Ng’s team, both testified that Lee had kept the firearm since Wong had requested it from Ng.
But Lee’s lawyer argued the two defendants turned witnesses were unreliable, especially since Pang had given two conflicting accounts about the weapon’s whereabouts.
Pang told police in his initial interview in January 2020 that Ng took all the tested firearms with him, but months later said the latter gave the gun to Lee before they wrapped up the firearms test.
Barrister Lam argued Pang had only changed his testimony and named Lee as he had a “motive” to comply with police since he was giving a non-prejudicial statement in exchange for immunity and the chance to become a prosecution witness.
She added that none of her client’s fingerprints were later found on the gun.
But the court heard that Lee admitted during a police investigation to receiving a Telegram message from Ng asking him to return the gun.
“He only said this to fit the narrative of the police’s story,” his lawyer argued.
Lee at one point told the court that five police officers handcuffed him and locked him inside the toilet in his home for up to 45 minutes following arrest, with one putting a wet towel on his face, lifting his head and turning on the shower.
The defendant said he was repeatedly waterboarded by the officer and feared for his life.
Lam asked the jury to take into consideration the “unimaginable” things that Lee had experienced before he was taken to a police station for questioning.
An inspector from another squad that was at Lee’s house during the arrest had said he received an instruction not to enter the bathroom where the defendant was.
Other officers present for the arrest denied attacking Lee when they testified in court.
But the defence lawyer accused the officers of lying and urged the jury to believe Lee’s allegations of police brutality.
She asked the jurors to completely dismiss her client’s earlier confession and said it was made under fear and coercion.
Lee is the only defendant to have taken to the witness box during the trial, telling the court that he hoped his testimony would help ensure that “justice will be served”.
“You all are the only people who can give Lee the justice [he deserved],” his lawyer said at the end of her closing submission.
The counsel for the fifth defendant, Lai Chun-pong, will start her closing submission on Tuesday.