Teacher sacked over Facebook comments made during 2019 Hong Kong protests granted judicial review

Toffee Tam Yuk-fun, a teacher from Hong Kong, was dismissed from her job due to comments she made on Facebook during the anti-government protests in 2019. She has now been granted a judicial review, a process where a court re-examines her case. Her legal team argued that her freedom of expression was excessively curtailed. The High Court deemed her application for a judicial review as reasonably arguable, based on the written submissions provided by her legal counsel. Tam, who had a 27-year tenure in the civil service, was terminated in July and stripped of all retirement benefits following an internal inquiry that found her guilty of misconduct. Disciplinary proceedings concluded that Tam had not lived up to the standards expected of a teacher and had tarnished the government's reputation with her Facebook posts. A pro-Beijing newspaper accused her of inciting hatred towards the police by posting malicious and vengeful comments about officers and their families. The judicial review filing did not reveal the offensive statements Tam allegedly made. Tam, who last taught at the Jockey Club Government Secondary School in Kowloon Tong, was deeply distressed by the continuous acts of doxxing against her, a practice where personal information is publicly disclosed. She took sick leave on September 6 that year before her suspension. Civil service minister Ingrid Yeung Ho Poi-yan in July adopted recommendations to dismiss Tam and forfeit all her retirement entitlements, as well as leave and emoluments earned during her suspension. This decision was made despite a medical report suggesting Tam had a psychiatric condition at the time of the incident. In their application for a judicial review, Tam’s lawyers argued that her online comments were private and would have never been publicised if not for the unauthorised dissemination of her Facebook posts. They contended that Tam should not be penalised for an act which was neither intended nor caused by her. They highlighted Tam’s impeccable track record and the absence of evidence that her remarks had hindered her from performing her professional duties. They argued that Tam’s dismissal was an unjustifiable intrusion into her right to freedom of expression and privacy. They asserted that any punishment should not be so severe as to constitute a disproportionate interference with her fundamental rights. The court has yet to schedule a date to hear full arguments from Tam and the Civil Service Bureau.