Hong Kong National Security Law designated judges accused of plagiarism

Chen Jiaxin, a judge of the Hong Kong National Security Law High Court, was accused of plagiarizing the plaintiff's words by 98%of the ruling in a trial of an infringement case.The Chief Judge of the Court of Court of Court of Appeal of Hong Kong pointed out that plagiarism is unfair to both parties in the lawsuit and also affects the public's confidence in judicial justice and cannot accept it.

Comprehensive Hong Kong Internet media Hong Kong 01 and Ming Pao reported on Tuesday (June 13) that Chen Jiaxin, judge of the Hong Kong National Security Law Higher Court, was accused of trying the plaintiff's words on the word when he tried the infringement case.Copy in the final ruling, 98%of the ruling, and the remaining 2%, none of them were sentences written by the judge in their own text.

After the defendant was defeated, he refused to accept the decision and filed an appeal.The Judge of the Court of Appeal believes that Chen Jiaxin's approach will make the outside world feel that he is taking a shortcut. When judging the case, the judge should think independently and plagiarize one of the words in large quantities, which will inevitably cause the outside world to doubt whether the judge has considered the other party.The Appeals Division has ordered the case to give the case to another judge for trial.

Zhang Jingsen, the Court of Hong Kong's Final Appeal, said on Tuesday that he fully agreed with the opinions of the appeal court and believed that plagiarism was unfair to both parties in the lawsuit and also affected the public's confidence in judicial judicialness and must not be accepted.

The plaintiff of the case is the old Hong Kong old name "Yodao Qiqi Oil", and the defendant is Xingzhou Pharmaceutical, which produces "Yodao Double Materials".The main dispute between the two parties is whether the defendant violates the plaintiff's product trademark.The original judge Chen Jiaxin ruled the defendant in April 2021 and the defendant did not accept the appeal. One of the reasons was that Judge Chen's verdict involved "judicial plagiarism".