In Secretary for Justice v Poon Chuk Hung [2026] HKCFI 1986, Au-Yeung J imposed one month’s imprisonment for criminal and civil contempt in making insulting and abusive remarks about a Labour Tribunal officer and disclosing the trial transcripts in breach of an undertaking provided to the court.
By way of background, the Secretary for Justice sought an order of committal against Poon Chuk Hung (“Poon”) for criminal and civil contempt arising from Labour Tribunal proceedings involving a company with Poon as the sole director. Poon obtained the trial transcript by signing an undertaking that it would only be used for purposes in connection with those proceedings and not for any other purpose, and would not be reproduced or disseminated to any other person or body. Nonetheless, Poon published screenshots of the transcript on Facebook and referred to its contents in YouTube videos. Furthermore, he made insulting and abusive remarks about the presiding Labour Tribunal officer in one of his videos. The publications reached a substantial audience through his social media platforms and remained publicly accessible for a considerable period.
Au-Yeung J held that the abusive remarks were personal attacks rather than reasoned criticism of judicial error. They scandalised the Labour Tribunal and risked undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. Further, the transcript undertaking was equivalent to a court order. Poon knowingly published the transcript for purposes unrelated to the proceedings and invited the public to inspect it. In the circumstances, both criminal and civil contempt were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge emphasised that contempt sanctions protect the administration of justice and reinforce that court orders and undertakings must be obeyed. Imprisonment is generally appropriate for serious criminal contempt and may be justified for deliberate breaches of undertakings. In particular, the Court should uphold strict compliance with the undertaking to deter misuse of transcripts by litigants. The judge rejected Poon’s contention that the publications were merely impulsive because they occurred on three separate dates after the Tribunal award.
The judge imposed two months and six weeks’ imprisonment for criminal and civil contempt respectively, reducing both to one month for Poon’s mitigating circumstances to run concurrently. Poon was also ordered to pay the costs of the Secretary for Justice on an indemnity basis.
Read the judgement here: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=179202&currpage=T
Mr Justin Lam acted for the Secretary for Justice.
