The Court of Final Appeal has agreed to hear an appeal by prosecutors against judges' decision three months ago to overturn barrister Kevin Egan's conviction for attempting to reveal the identity of a protected witness in a criminal trial. The court also agreed to hear appeals by solicitor Andrew Lam Ping-cheung and co-defendant Mandy Chui Man-si, who were jailed for four years and 21/2 years respectively in connection with the same case and whose convictions were upheld three months ago by the Court of Appeal. All three were accused of trying in July 2004 to prevent a secretary who was a protected witness co-operating with an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into her former boss, businessman Derek Wong Chong-kwong, 41. In June 2006 the District Court convicted Mr Egan, 62, of attempting to reveal the secretary's identity to a South China Morning Post journalist. The court also convicted Lam, Wong and Chui of conspiring to pressure the ICAC into releasing Wong's secretary, but cleared Egan of that charge. Chui was convicted of attempted perjury. Egan and Lam were acquitted of a joint charge of conspiring to disclose information about the identity of the witness. The barrister was the first person to be convicted under the Witness Protection Ordinance. Wong, the former head of Semtech International Holdings, was convicted in absentia in June 2007 of bribing a former banker and an ex-broker to manipulate the share price of his company. Prosecutor Martin Wilson told Mr Justice Kemal Bokhary, Mr Justice Patrick Chan Siu-oi and Mr Justice Roberto Ribeiro yesterday that the prosecution disputed the Court of Appeal's finding that it must prove Mr Egan believed the secretary was in the witness protection programme in order to sustain his conviction. Mr Wilson said it was enough that Mr Egan disposed of the information about her identity. But Guy Reynolds, representing Mr Egan, maintained that proving his belief was essential, and that there was evidence inconsistent with the notion he believed Ms Wong was a protected witness. Clare Montgomery, representing Lam, argued that solicitors were entitled to contact witnesses and that hence her client's role as a solicitor had to be taken into account in considering the accusations against him. Chui's lawyer, Michael Clapman, said there were different measures of what constituted witness tampering and that the top court needed to consider them. Some such measures might include any action that influences a witness, while others would require that the action include threats or financial inducement. The court granted bail to Lam, 57, and Chui, 29.