Dr Chung Ho Yin Andrews v The Medical Council of Hong Kong

[2024] HKCA 196, the Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether a doctor who authors a fictional book warning of “protective medicine” and other ill practices in the medical sector may be disciplined for his attendant comments on such practices in a media interview.

The appellant doctor had authored a book featuring a fictitious character called Dr Sherlock Holmes. In the Book Fair held in July 2018, the appellant was interviewed by a number of media outlets about his book. Subsequently, articles of the interviews appeared in the newspapers and their websites, including an article (“

”) published on a media website on 17 July 2018. A video of a part of an interview (“

”) was also published on the same website on 18 July 2018.

Both the Article and the Video Interview referred to fictional stories involving doctors engaging in “protective medicine”, as well as the appellant’s comments to the effect that certain doctors treat their patients as “money trees” and prioritise their self-interests over their patients’ best interest.

By a decision dated 20 April 2021, the Medical Council considered that the appellant’s comments undermined public trust in the professional competence or integrity of other doctor(s). The Council took the view that his comments were “unjustifiable” because there was “no sufficient factual basis”, and made an order that he be reprimanded.

Allowing the appellant doctor’s appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction. Chow JA held that, notwithstanding the fictional nature of the stories, it was necessary to consider whether there was any sufficient factual basis for the comments. However, his Lordship found that those comments were justified, having been inspired by a number of articles published in Ming Pao and the Dean’s Column in the official website of The Chinese University of Hong Kong. The Council erred in dismissing the relevance of those articles on the basis of genuine differences in medical opinion, as the articles plainly disclosed a phenomenon of unprofessional practice of protective medicine by 

The Court left open the issue of whether the Council’s decision was a disproportionate restriction of the appellant’s constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

, instructed by Mayer Brown, acted for the appellant. 

, instructed by the Department of Justice, acted for the respondent.

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Court of Appeal Overturns Medical Council Decision on Whether Doctor Had Sufficient Factual Basis to Criticise ‘Protective Medicine’ in the Medical Sector

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New