‘Dragon Slaying Brigade’ leader accused of lying about alleged teammate’s role in 2019 Hong Kong bomb plot
- Defence lawyer Priscilla Lam argues prosecution witness Wong Chun-keung’s testimony fails to match up with details from team’s Telegram chat records
- Wong testifying in trial of six men and one woman facing charges over plot to plant bombs in Wan Chai to target police officers in 2019
Priscilla Lam Tsz-ying on Friday challenged prosecution witness Wong Chun-keung’s testimony at the High Court, arguing his account in the witness box failed to match up with details from the team’s Telegram chat records.
Wong was testifying against alleged brigade members Cheung Chun-fu, Cheung Ming-yu, Yim Man-him and Christian Lee Ka-tin.
The four, alongside Lai Chun-pong, Justin Hui Cham-wing and Lau Pui-ying, are facing charges under the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance. The six men and one woman have all pleaded not guilty.
The six men were also alleged to have conspired in a plot to plant two bombs in Wan Chai on December 8, 2019. Wong has pleaded guilty to the same charge.
The prosecution earlier cited evidence that suggested the six had entered into an “agreement” to carry out the plan.
But Lee’s defence lawyer argued her client had not attended the three meetings that Wong claimed had covered details of the bomb plot.
“Lee was not involved in this whole plot because he did not even have a clue of what your plan was, do you agree?” Lam asked the witness, who disagreed with the contention.
According to Wong’s testimony, the brigade held three major meetings between November and December of 2019.
The first took place on November 17 after Lee and a teammate had joined fellow ringleader Ng Chi-hung’s squad to allegedly test out some firearms and explosives in the latter’s possession, the witness had said.
Wong previously said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the results of the weapons tests with Lee.
But defence lawyer Lam on Friday showed the team’s Telegram group chat to the court, with the records indicating Lee had joined a protest at Polytechnic University that day and was trapped there as police laid siege to the campus.
She accused Wong of lying about Lee’s presence at the meeting, but the witness argued Lee had attended before heading to the university afterwards.
He also insisted Lee had joined the second and third meetings on November 25 and December 7 of that year.
The defence disputed his testimony placing Lee at the second meeting, arguing he had gone to the wrong location and was unable to get there in time.
Wong previously told the court that Ng had passed the defendant a gun during a weapon test in November of that year.
The witness on Friday said he had not physically seen the gun, but denied Lam’s contention that Lee’s possession of a firearm was a lie.
Wong said he knew for certain that Lee had a gun, as the latter had told him the firearm was returned to Ng in early December.
The trial continues on Monday.
