Grandpa Chan Faces Hefty $510K Legal Bill

Chan hugs a protester, worried about his safety in 2019

The Hong Kong Department of Justice has no qualms about weaponising the law in prosecuting as many people as possible related to the 2019 protests, and even before that in the Umbrella Movement in 2014.

One senior tried to use the law to hold the Hong Kong Police Force to account by legally challenging it over displaying identification during the 2019 protests.

Chan Ki-kau is known as Grandpa Chan, and he and his group, "Protect Our Kids" made up of other middle-aged and elderly people, tried to stand between the protesters and the police for several months in 2019. 

"Raptors" did not wear identifiable ID numbers

He would wear a cylindrical hat around his head that he fashioned himself out of paper, googles, and a plastic raincoat as he and others tried to convince the police not to physically harm the young people on the streets.

Sometimes members of the group would get tear-gassed and pepper sprayed, and young protesters would help them, including Chan get medical attention. "Protect Our Kids" and Chan also got a lot of attention, showing that even seniors were out on the streets.

One observation during the protests was that the police Special Tactical Contingent (STC) also known as "raptors" did not wear their individual identification badges -- only vague code numbers. That made it impossible for residents to file complaints about specific officers -- and Chan felt this was illegal.

In June 2019 he filed the initial challenge and alleged that it was "unlawful and/or unconstitutional" for the police STC not to display their unique identification numbers during operations on June 12, 2019.

Chan's legal challenge was dismissed

However, in November 2020, Judge Anderson Chow dismissed Chan's application, citing evidence that STC had never been required to display individual identification.

Chan was later ordered to pay the Department of Justice's court fees by January 17 this year.

The DoJ initially asked for HK$510,000 in legal fees, though Master Dick Ho at the High Court decided Chan should pay HK$2,000 less.

Does Chan even have that money to pay such hefty fees? Did the DoJ really spend over half a million dollars in preparing for this case?

Even if people tried to crowdfund to raise money to help Chan pay the fees, it might be considered an illegal act.

That was demonstrated in February last year when an expat wanted to help domestic helpers pay Covid-19 fines for gathering. The fines were HK$5,000, more than the monthly salary of these helpers, but the then secretary for labour and welfare Law Chi-kwong said helping to pay these fines could be considered as "abetting a crime".

Many seniors tried to mediate with the police

There is no word on how Chan will pay this massive legal bill, but the heavy-handedness of the punishment seems overboard to the extreme. The case wasn't even tried in court...