There is some misunderstanding on reports by journalists that the judge abruptly ceased the cross-examination during my session of testimony. Here I hope that the situation can be clarified.
The work of an expert witness consists of two parts: to write a report based on the witness statements by various witnesses with reference to the field of expertise of the expert witness. In this case it is Feng Shui (known as Fung Shui in Hong Kong). The second part is to appear in court to be cross-examined by the barrister of the opposite side. Usually the cross-examination is focussed on the expert witness report. Most of the time, the barrister tries to find fault with what is written.
The first expert witness Mr. Szeto was cross-examined and it was pointed out that his report plagiarized a website and contained false information. It took over 3 hours and the barrister tried to impress the judge that his report is not trustworthy.
When it was my turn, the barrister did not mention anything from my report but instead began with my biography that is on my website. He asked whether my standpoint of vowing to destroy the superstitious part in Fung Shui. My answer was positive.
He then asked whether I considered Mao Shan and black magic Fung Shui practices. My answer was negative. He then asked whether I know Mao Shan and black magic and I admitted that I did not know and this topic was beyond my scope of expertise. He then asked whether I consider anything I did not know as not Fung Shui. I explained that even though I may not know certain practices, I could use common sense to tell that they were not Fung Shui.
At this point the judge took over to ask me whether my Fung Shui knowlege came from self-study. I said it was 90% from books and the other 10% was guided study by my master. When I asked the master something, there was no direct answer but he pointed to certain chapters of a certain book. When I thought I understood something, then I reported to my master. If he turned away without a comment, then I knew I was wrong and did further research until he was satisfied with my research work. That was the way I learned.
The judge then asked if I encountered something that I did not understand but made no sense to me, would I consider it not Fung Shui. I said I would not consider it Fung Shui as Fung Shui is a study that is based on logical development.
The judge then told the barrister there was no need to further cross-examine me. What I understood was that the judge had asked the questions on behalf of the barrister and he fully understood the point and therefore there was no need to carry on. He then asked the barrister who defended Tony Chan whether he had anything to supplement. He said not and the cross-examination was over.
It must be noted that the judge did not order to adjourn the cross-examination and had the barristers wanted to continue, the cross-examination could have continued.