It sometimes seems, when listening to lawyers in action, that they live on a different planet from the rest of us. Consider the performance this week at the on-going Wang Fuk fire inquiry from Senior Counsel Jenkin Suen.
For those who have just come in, the Wang Fuk fire was a blaze at a housing estate in Hong Kong last November which left 168 people dead. The inquiry is into causes and the other usual topics.
Inquiries of this kind are often a little gold mine for the legal profession and this one will be no exception. Mr Suen is an eminent practitioner not usually on the government payroll, though he is a part-time High Court judge and chairman of the Copyright Tribunal. However Mr Suen is appearing on behalf of the Hong Kong government, the official permanent legion of lawyers being presumably too busy.
Last week the counsel for the inquiry, another Senior Counsel, Victor Dawes, revealed that the inquiry would be told that the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit – which was supposed to conduct safety checks on building sites, had habitually warned the consultant firm overseeing the Wang Fuk renovation project when an inspection was imminent. The consultants, Will Power Architects, had passed this intelligence to the contractor, Prestige Construction.
Mr Dawes said the contractor had as a result been able to “tamper with” the work site before inspectors arrived.
All this was reported, as you might expect. Mr Suen, addressing the tribunal on the government’s behalf, was not happy with this. In some reports the checking unit was “was portrayed as tipping off or colluding with the firms,” said Mr Suen. “Such characterisations were completely groundless.”
Now we must note in fairness to Mr Suen that this was in Cantonese, so there may be some scope for misunderstandings here. But I think most of us would take that to mean that there was no tip-off, and consequently could not have been any collusion.
Bafflingly, though, Mr Suen went on to explain and defend … the tip-off. There was a practical need for government departments to arrange inspections in advance, he said, so that the inspected party would be available to provide samples and explanations. And, he added, the advance notice was given only a day ahead of the actual inspection.
I am reminded of the woman who was accused of giving birth to an illegitimate baby and said it was “just a small one”.
There is an old joke about a lawyer’s son who got into trouble at school because he hit a cricket ball through the headmaster’s window. Asked to explain himself he said that “the window is not broken; if it is broken it was not by a cricket ball, if it was broken by a cricket ball it was not hit by me, and if it was hit by me it was an accident.”
Lawyers are allowed to do this. Mr Suen’s line appears to be that there was no tip-off, but if there was a tip-off it was a legitimate bid to improve the inspection.
Of course there is a place for inspections with advanced warning. They are often used in military circles. The inspected unit has an incentive and an opportunity to spruce itself up, tick off all the little maintenance items which have been awaiting attention, and put its best foot forward.
Many years ago I found myself unexpectedly the head of the then Department of Communication in what was then the HK Baptist College. I discovered that as well as the teachers I was also responsible for a warren of studios, workshops and darkrooms in which the students could practice the communicative arts with the help of suitably qualified technicians.
I did not know – indeed I still do not know – what the standard academic management solution to this situation is. But I borrowed from the Royal Navy the idea of doing a ground floor-to-roof inspection about once a month, accompanied by the Chief Technician. There was no warning; I did not particularly want to surprise people but I did not want them wasting time preparing for my arrival either.
I suppose we should leave to the inquiry the question whether monitoring renovation projects was an appropriate task for an inspection with prior warning. But I fear the general public’s view will be that an Independent Checking Unit should be a bit more carnivorous.

