Hong Kong protests: magistrate committed ‘serious error’ by sending man guilty of assaulting officer to psychiatric centre, High Court judges find
- Panel of three High Court judges investigating Magistrate Debbie Ng concludes former teacher was detained in facility without any objective basis
- But decision to send Yeung Pok-man to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre did not amount to misconduct, they say

A Hong Kong magistrate will be “strongly advised” to reflect on her handling of cases after she committed “a serious error” by detaining a former teacher found guilty of assaulting a police officer during the 2019 protests in a psychiatric hospital ahead of sentencing, the judiciary has revealed.
A panel of three High Court judges investigating Magistrate Debbie Ng Chung-yee concluded she misused her judicial powers by sending Yeung Pok-man to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre without any objective basis to show he was mentally unstable or incapacitated. But her actions did not amount to misconduct as Ng had not deliberately abused her position or acted maliciously, they said.

The inquiry finding was one of three the judiciary announced on its website on Tuesday in relation to a large number of similar complaints against judges’ conduct during proceedings stemming from the unrest.
Ng found Yeung guilty of kicking Sergeant Chung Wang-yip when the officer pulled him over at an elevated roundabout in Sheung Shui during a citywide strike on November 11, 2019. Yeung had denied the assault. He said police had attacked him and nearly thrown him off the bridge after he was subdued.

Following his conviction, the former teacher and beach volleyball player was sent to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for a pre-sentencing assessment by Ng, who questioned whether any “latent defects” or “hidden” psychological problems were behind his “insane behaviour” in the witness box.
Yeung spent six days in hospital before winning bail in the High Court. Madam Justice Maggie Poon Man-kay explained at the time that Ng’s decision to call for assessment reports could appear in the eyes of the public as a pretext to strip the defendant of his freedom.