Independent Committee in relation to fire at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po continues its review in current form
The following is issued on behalf of the Independent Committee in relation to the fire at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po:
The Chairman of the Independent Committee in relation to the fire at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po (Independent Committee), Mr Justice David Lok, said today (June 22) that after careful consideration of various factors, the Independent Committee had decided not to make recommendation to the Chief Executive for turning the Independent Committee into a statutory commission of inquiry. The Independent Committee would continue its work under the current approach.
Mr Justice Lok announced the decision at the evidential hearing of the Independent Committee today. He pointed out that, as a matter of principle, the purpose of a public inquiry was to "identify what happened in the incident and why it happened". Criminal and civil matters and the Government's internal accountability did not fall within the scope of the inquiry. "Whether an investigation should be conducted under a particular approach is a strategic decision. The Independent Committee must weigh the pros and cons of various options with the legal principles and the overall public interest in mind. In making this decision, the Independent Committee has thoroughly considered five factors," he said.
The first factor considered by the Independent Committee was that it had so far received a substantial amount of information (including more than one million files) from different parties. Mr Justice Lok said, "With the assistance of its legal team, the Independent Committee has obtained sufficiently comprehensive information on the roles and responsibilities of different parties in relation to the fire and related matters, as well as whether there are systemic problems in the tendering process of large-scale building maintenance and renovation works. The Independent Committee is confident that it can identify what happened in the incident and why it happened, and analyse and draw conclusions on the matters set out in its terms of reference (ToR). In view of the above, the Independent Committee considers that even if it were to turn into a statutory commission of inquiry, it would be unlikely that the conversion could bring any distinct material help in further clarifying the facts. In fact, even if an involved party decides to forego the opportunity to attend the hearings to give oral evidence, the Independent Committee can still make adverse findings based on the information that it has already obtained. Neither will this affect its ability to draw conclusions on the party's roles and responsibilities." Mr Justice Lok added, "Although a statutory commission of inquiry can compel witnesses to attend and give evidence, whether they will co-operate remains uncertain. Indeed, the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) have already laid charges against a number of individuals and companies involved in the case and commenced criminal proceedings. This has made the situation more complicated."
The second factor was the longer time that an investigation of a statutory commission of inquiry would require as a legal procedure. Mr Justice Lok explained that this involved rather technical legal considerations. The legal procedure of a statutory commission of inquiry had certain complexity and was comparatively less flexible. As a result, the statutory commission of inquiry might lose procedural control more easily, thereby prolonging the time that the inquiry would take. For example, a statutory inquiry required that notice and time be given to the parties under investigation to prepare and submit witness statements and documentary materials. The parties under investigation might, through legal procedures, make various applications to the commission, including requesting the commission to re-summon persons who had already given evidence to testify again or requesting further disclosure of documents from a certain party. Further, the parties might provide their evidence and materials only when attending the hearings, thereby causing the hearings to proceed in a fragmented manner. All these would inevitably cause the inquiry to take longer to complete.
The Independent Committee had always attached importance to efficiency. When the Government established the Independent Committee, it set a target for it to complete its work within nine months from the time the committee commenced operation. This was because, taking into account the number of fatalities and injuries and the scale of the fire, the fire at Wang Fuk Court was the gravest incident in Hong Kong in recent years. Apart from the families of the deceased and injured as well as the victims, the public also expected the Independent Committee to identify the causes of the incident as soon as possible and make recommendations to prevent similar incidents from occurring again. In addition, based on past experience, the pursuit of such matters as criminal and civil liabilities and accountability of officials generally awaited the completion of the public inquiry. Meanwhile, some large-scale building maintenance and renovation works in Hong Kong were currently being put on hold, pending the findings of the Independent Committee's review and its reform recommendations. In view of the above reasons and considering the wider public interest, there was a need for the Independent Committee to complete its work and submit its report in an efficient manner, so as not to affect the pace of calling those responsible into account and of reform.
The third factor was that turning the Independent Committee into a statutory commission of inquiry might affect other legal proceedings, including ongoing or subsequent criminal and civil proceedings. Mr Justice Lok reiterated that the Independent Committee's purpose was to identify what happened in the incident and why it happened, while personal accountability should be pursued through criminal and civil proceedings. If personal responsibility was investigated by means of a statutory inquiry, it might make the ongoing or subsequent criminal and civil proceedings more complicated and protracted, and create further uncertainty for the prosecution. The work of the LEAs would become more difficult if the hearings of a statutory commission of inquiry and the investigations of the LEAs were to take place concurrently. Also, to avoid affecting ongoing or subsequent criminal proceedings, the LEAs would not be able to disclose the contents of their investigations to the statutory commission of inquiry or the public. This would in turn affect the commission's work.
Mr Justice Lok said the fourth factor was that, compared with a statutory commission of inquiry which must proceed in accordance with arrangements applicable to other legal proceedings, the current modus operandi of the Independent Committee offered greater flexibility. The Independent Committee had more room and could be more lenient over the evidence-giving process and media coverage of the hearings. Outside the hearings, it could allow witnesses or residents to respond to and comment on the evidence, on who should be held responsible, and on whether certain procedures and practices were appropriate. The Independent Committee could therefore conduct its review in a relatively more open manner, while still upholding the principles of fairness and impartiality.
The fifth factor was whether the presence of bid-rigging and irrgularities or not in the large-scale maintenance and renovation works of Wang Fuk Court should be investigated by means of a statutory commission of inquiry. Mr Justice Lok said the ToR(2) of the Independent Committee was to examine whether such behaviours existed in various stages of large-scale building maintenance and renovation works across the territory, not targeting Wang Fuk Court in particular. Therefore, while this was a matter of grave concern to the residents of Wang Fuk Court and the Independent Committee had never shied away from this issue, the Independent Committee considered that bid-rigging or irregularities in the maintenance and renovation works of Wang Fuk Court should be followed up by the LEAs. In fact, over the past months, the LEAs (including the Police, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Competition Commission) had filed cases against, arrested, and laid charges against parties involved in the fire at and the maintenance and renovation works of Wang Fuk Court. Further enforcement action to bring the suspected criminals into justice had not been ruled out.
Mr Justice Lok stressed, "The work of the Independent Committee must base on facts and evidence. The Independent Committee may need to make some difficult decisions. But, we can assure the public that all decisions made by this judge-led Independent Committee are grounded in legal principles and the public interest. Political and public relations considerations play no part in the Independent Committee's deliberations."
Based on the above five considerations, the Independent Committee had decided to complete its investigation under the current approach, with the aim of completing the work within the scheduled timeframe. Under the current plan, the Independent Committee would hear the final submissions of the involved parties from July 15 to 17. Details would be announced separately. After the final submissions, the Independent Committee would continue to process the large volume of written evidence and other materials received, and prepare its report.
The Chief Executive established the Independent Committee in relation to the fire at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po to review the causes of the fire and related issues, and to make recommendations to prevent similar incidents from occurring again. The ToR of the Independent Committee provides that issues concerning legal liabilities of those involved in the fire are matters for the LEAs' investigation. Such matters fall outside the scope of the Independent Committee's ToR.
The Independent Committee formally commenced its work on December 19, 2025. The evidential hearings commenced on March 19, 2026. Four rounds of 24 hearings have been held, and the fifth round is under way. The Independent Committee clarifies the relevant facts through oral evidence given by witnesses in the evidential hearings, written submissions from different parties, and other evidence submitted by other means. These provide an important basis for the preparation of its report and recommendations.
