Anti-violence organization calls for accountability following charges against sitting MLA
Vancouver, B.C. – Recent reporting confirms that Richmond Centre MLA Hon Chan has been charged with assault, assault by choking, and uttering threats in an alleged case of intimate partner violence. The reported timeline is clear: an incident in January 2024, an election in October 2024, a special prosecutor appointed in June 2025, and charges laid in March 2026.
This is not simply a sequence of events. It is a sequence in which known risk moved through systems without interruption.
What was known, when it was known, and what was done with that knowledge remains the central question.
The appointment of a special prosecutor signals that the matter reached a level of seriousness well before charges were laid. This raises critical questions about how information was assessed, where it moved, and why it did not produce earlier action across systems, including those responsible for public office and public safety.
We hope the victim in this case is receiving the support and protection needed, especially given the added weight of high-profile exposure. Experiencing high-risk violence is already dangerous; navigating it in the public eye can deepen the harm and isolation.
The charges themselves are not incidental because strangulation is one of the clearest predictors of homicide in cases of intimate partner violence. Threats are indicators of escalation and control so together, they represent high-risk, high-lethality violence that requires immediate intervention.
Yet once high-risk violence enters formal systems, it is often contained rather than acted upon. Decision-making shifts toward what can be managed instead of what must be stopped so often reputational considerations move quickly and the safety and accountability does not.
This case reflects a broader structural issue that intimate partner violence continues to be treated as separate from public safety, even when the indicators of lethal risk are well established. As a result, risk can move through investigative processes, oversight mechanisms, and public institutions without triggering coordinated action.
The fact that this case involves a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly raises an additional level of concern. It calls into question whether existing standards and protocols are sufficient when high-risk violence intersects with public responsibility and leadership.
Intimate partner violence is not rare, it exists across all sectors, including among those in positions of authority. What distinguishes this moment is not the presence of violence, but the presence of known risk indicators and the absence of interruption.
So, in this case, at a minimum, someone facing charges of this seriousness should step aside while the matter is before the courts. Public office requires trust, and that trust includes women and survivors who must be able to see themselves as safe and represented.
British Columbia is already overrepresented in femicides. Shelters are at capacity. Requests for service continue to rise. These are not isolated pressures. They are evidence of a broader environment in which risk is not being acted on early enough.
“Strangulation is a known predictor of femicide. Said Angela Marie MacDougall, executive director, BWSS, “When that level of risk is managed as information instead of acted on, the danger is being minimized.”
“What was known, when it was known, and what was done with that knowledge is the measure of whether public safety exists in practice.” She continued, “This is not about awareness. It is about what happens after awareness. Risk is being contained instead of interrupted.”
Public safety cannot be defined only by what happens after charges are laid. It must be defined by what happens when risk becomes known.
Until the questions of what was known, when it was known, and why it did not result in action are answered, this cannot be understood as an isolated case.
