2013年10月11日 星期五

梅國強大律師包攬訴訟案 控方要求加刑 (Barrister Louie Mui's Case - Prosecution Wants to Increase His Sentence)

執業近廿載的大律師梅國強 (Counsel Louie Mui),在5宗民事索償案私下跟客人協議,勝訴後瓜分客人所得合共過百萬賠償金,經審訊後被判「包攬訴訟」罪成,已被判囚3年半。梅昨日在高等法院提上訴,即時給上訴庭法官駁回,控方反指梅刑期過輕要求增加刑期,上訴庭押後書面裁決是否加刑。上訴庭審理這宗包攬訴訟上訴案時,表示關注到該 5宗民事訴訟中,所屬事務律師行的參與程度。

上訴人梅國強 (Barrister Louie Mui)(52歲)被指於1999年至2008年的9年內,跟5名民事案原訴人秘密協議,勝訴後收取賠償得益的兩成半至3成作為佣金,不成功則不收費。司徒敬昨指考慮到梅的上訴毫無理據,根本沒有爭辯餘地,判令他賠償律政司今次應訊所花的訟費。

案件編號:CACC 133/2013 (主審:司徒敬上訴庭副庭長,賴磐德、麥機智法官)

(Source: http://www.hkdailynews.com.hk/news.php?id=301490)

________________________________________________________________

大律師梅國強求減刑 反臨加監

【明報專訊】大律師梅國強於9年間,先後五度與客人私訂協議,若官司勝訴他可從賠償金額中瓜分25%至30%作報酬,多年獲得162.9萬元。梅被裁定5項「分享訴訟成果」罪成,判囚3年半,成為首名因包攬訴訟被定罪的大律師,梅不服定罪及刑期,昨提出上訴,但上訴庭一一駁回之餘,更主動提出認為刑期過輕擬加監。

原判囚3年半

根據大律師公會網頁,梅國強(52歲)已不在執業大律師名冊上。上訴庭昨駁回梅的上訴後指出,梅的3年半刑期明顯過輕,將以書面解釋駁回上訴的理由,以處理擬加監事宜。上訴庭同時要求律政司向法庭報告涉案事務律師有否被警方調查等進度。

事發1999年10月至2008年11月,曾任懲教署督察的梅國強在沒有事務律師代為接洽下接觸客戶,或經客戶的親友介紹接見對方並商討案件。部分案件中,被告更「收兩家茶禮」,當案件勝訴或和解,案件另一方經事務律師行向被告付訟費後,被告再收下客戶協議瓜分給他的「律師費」。

此外,被告會着客人將原來協議的訴訟得益,過戶到一名叫陳玉芳(譯音)的戶口,被告亦有權操作戶口。

【案件編號:CACC133/03】

(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20131009/-2-3085742/1.html)

警員鄭壯寶與同袍黎學宇涉庭上講大話休假受查

涉庭上講大話 兩警休假受查

【太陽報專訊】警隊高度重視旺角警署兩名警員於處理一宗偽鈔案時涉嫌「講大話」的事件,警署管理層昨日已向全體警員重新訓示,提醒他們錄取口供時必須真確無誤,切勿造假。警方發言人表示,正就事件展開調查,並已向律政司索取判詞,如發現有人員違規或涉及刑事責任,必定會根據內部守則依法嚴肅處理。據悉,兩名涉事警員現正休假,暫未有人被捕,有法律界人士指出,若事件屬實,有關警員已構成妨礙司法公正。

九龍城裁判法院前日審理一宗運輸工人涉嫌管有偽鈔的案件,旺角警署警員鄭壯寶在庭上作供時指,事發時與同袍黎學宇拘捕被告,並在其褲袋搜出一張五百元偽鈔,但辯方律師當庭播放現場便利店閉路電視片段,顯示一名的士司機手持偽鈔走入便利店找被告理論,而非鄭壯寶從被告褲袋搜出偽鈔,而鄭更讓該司機離開現場而未有加以調查。鄭解釋是因為避免阻礙的士司機工作,裁判官最後裁定被告無罪釋放,並促請律政司跟進。

據悉,兩名涉事警員隸屬旺角警署軍裝巡邏小隊,其中鄭壯寶去年才加入警隊,黎學宇的警齡則有五年以上,二人目前正在休假。事件引起警隊高層震怒,旺角警署昨已就事件展開調查,正向律政司索取判詞,再決定作出刑事調查,暫未拘捕任何人,管理層亦即時向警署上下重新訓示,提醒警員錄取口供時必須真確無誤,切勿造假。

或涉妨礙司法公正

事件亦在警隊中引起廣泛討論,有警隊中人流傳指,事件中是司機收到偽鈔後向巡警報案,疑有人為求立功,涉嫌着司機將偽鈔交還並離開,再截查疑人當自己搜出偽鈔。不過,有資深警官對此事件版本存疑,因不論警員是否從被告身上搜出偽鈔,案件也是列作檢獲偽鈔案處理,不排除有警員因年少無知才犯下錯誤。大律師陸偉雄指,若事件屬實,涉事警員已構成妨礙司法公正,因警務人員的職責是向法庭說出真相,刪改口供或「貪方便」令證據流失,影響被告獲得公平審訊,已屬違法。

(Source: http://www2.news.sina.com.hk/news/20131011/-2-3087774/1.html)

2013年9月30日 星期一

大律師黃桂生被控使用假文書等共9項罪名 - Barrister Raymond Wong Accused of Presenting a Forged Will

已故甘草演員兼書法家區樹湛,疑遭其女徒弟任職大律師的弟弟 (黃桂生大律師) 利用假遺囑承辦遺產,並提走存款。  黃桂生大律師否認行使假遺囑,案件昨開審,他辯稱當日見證區簽署遺囑,但事後真遺囑遭人調包,指假遺囑上區及他的簽名均遭人偽冒。

大律師黃桂生(51歲)被控使用假文書及副本、經宣誓後作出虛假陳述及盜竊等共9項罪名。控方在開案陳詞指出,已故電視台演員區樹湛(74歲)沒有親屬,他是一名設計師兼書法老師,自80年代起授徒,被告姊姊黃彩竹是其中一名徒弟。

申逆權管有死者單位

案件主要涉及區位於西區西源里的單位,以及他的戶口存款。區曾與被告姊姊及另一名女徒弟一同居住於該單位,但97年他以100萬元售予同在電視台工作而認識的「契仔」張偉明,但契仔仍讓區住在該處。除此之外,契仔每月會給區5,000元作生活費,存入二人在渣打銀行開立的聯名戶口。雖然契仔之後定居愛爾蘭,但繼續以自動轉賬過數給區。

至2009年7月10日,區去世。被告就在區死後一個月,向高院申請逆權管有區的住所,並向遺產承辦處提交聲稱是區於2009年6月16日訂立的遺囑,申請授予遺囑認證及進行宣誓,稱自己是遺囑執行人,其姊則是遺產受益人,遺囑上有一名姓葉的見證人及被告的簽名。一個月後,被告以該遺囑成功向警方領取區的聯名戶口存摺,並在2010年1至3月向渣打銀行提交6張聲稱是區預先簽署的轉賬單,在區的聯名戶口轉賬15,400元至自己戶口,然後提走款項。

「見證人」稱從沒簽署

警方去年9月19日到被告寓所搜查,但被告拒絕開門,警方於是破門入屋。警誡下被告聲稱訂立遺囑時,尚有一名地產公司職員華叔作見證。被告又指是區指示他,要在區死後繼續從聯名戶口以小額提款,藉以騙契仔區仍在生,讓契仔繼續存錢。
控方指化驗證實遺囑及6張銀行轉賬單上區的簽署均是偽冒,葉則稱從沒見證遺囑簽署,地產
公司東主指沒職員叫「華叔」,而且遺囑簽署當日公司尚未開始經營。
案件編號:DCCC158/13

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131001/18445158)
_____________________________________________________

South China Morning Post, Saturday, 22 September, 2012

Barrister Raymond K S Wong (黃桂生大律師) allegedly used a forged will to claim the estate of a late Cantonese film actor and stole funds from his bank account, Eastern Court heard yesterday.

Raymond Wong Kwai-sang, 45, was charged with using a false instrument, using a copy of a false instrument and theft. He did not enter any pleas.

Counsel Raymond K S Wong, a barrister since 1996, is accused of presenting a forged will of Au Shu-cham at the Probate Registry on October 13, 2009. He also allegedly showed a copy of the will at Western District police station on November 25 that year to induce a constable into accepting it as genuine.

Au was an actor who took part in Cantonese films between the 1970s and 1980s. It is believed he died in 2009, aged 75.

The prosecution said Wong knew or believed that the documents were bogus.

Lawyer Raymond K S Wong also allegedly stole HK$15,400 from a Standard Chartered Bank account jointly owned by Au and Cheung Wai-ming between January and March 2010, court papers show. Cheung was understood to be Au's sworn son.

Magistrate Bina Chainrai adjourned the case to November 11 for further police inquiries.

The court heard that police seized a computer from Wong's flat in Sheung Shui and found specimens of Au's signature from his chambers in Central. The prosecution will engage handwriting experts to examine the signatures.

Barrister Raymond Wong was released on HK$50,000 bail. He was ordered to surrender his travel documents and not to leave the city. He must report to Sha Tin police station twice a week.

According to the website of the Bar Association, Counsel Raymond Wong became a barrister in Hong Kong and Britain in 1996. He handles both civil and criminal cases, specialising in company and commercial law.

A conviction for using a false instrument warrants up to 14 years in jail, while the maximum term for theft is 10 years.

It is understood that Wong's sister had lived with Au. She had been Au's calligraphy student since the 1980s.

(Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1042588/hong-kong-barrister-accused-using-bogus-will-claim-late-actors-estate)

劉世祿大律師襲擊罪成 (Barrister Lau Sai Luk Convicted of Assault)

Counsel S K Lau (Lau Sai Luk) Convicted of Assault - 大狀劉世祿襲擊罪成

劉世祿大律師在超級市場用手推車撞傷超巿男經理左腳,經審訊後被裁定普通襲擊罪成。案件原定昨日判刑,但他不僅遲到一個小時才現身法院,更透過代表律師要求獲輕判無條件釋放。裁判官聽罷十分不滿地說:「我係你大律師都覺得尷尬,我寧願畀返錢你,你自己求情!」最後因可憐他,准他將案押後以準備求情信。

被告劉世祿 (Lawyer S K Lau, Lau Sai Luk)(57歲)被指曾多次向尖沙嘴K11商場內的MARKET PLACE超級市場作出投訴,而投訴由姓黃經理處理。

去年12月4日,黃在店內遭被告用手推車步步進逼,令他背貼貨架,手推車終撞向他左腿。黃舉起雙手問被告:「我有乜嘢可以幫到你?」被告回答:「我要避你,所以撞你。」被告再用手推車撞向黃。警方後來接報到場調查,黃送院證實左腿紅腫受傷。

遲到一小時始現身法院

被告早前在九龍城裁判法院不承認控罪,他沒聘用律師而選擇自行辯護,直至昨日接受判刑才委託大律師陸偉雄代表出庭。

陸就被告遲到解釋,指被告因有腰傷及腳傷,擔心車內人多擠逼觸及傷患,花時間等一部乘客較少的車代步。又指被告身為大律師,判刑越輕對稍後召開的紀律聆訊越有利,故懇求裁判官判處有條件釋放,甚至無條件釋放。

裁判官馬保華表示不適宜判被告感化及社會服務令。假如被告認罪,可能判處有條件釋放,惟被告經審訊後定罪,現要求判處無條件釋放,辯方的要求猶如想魚與熊掌兼得,法庭是不能接受。
裁判官續稱被告曾以腳痛等理由,至少五次押後聆訊,昨日再透過代表大律師提出要求輕判,裁判官坦言:「我可憐你同代表你嘅大律師,先畀你押後單案」,排期10月21日再開庭,讓辯方準備求情信呈堂,並准被告保釋。
案件編號:KCCC1270/13

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131001/18445162)

任懿君法官 (Yam J) 被 Sears J 猛烈批評 (Heavily Criticized) - The Degree of Unfairness was Substantial

Dato Tan Leong Min v The Insider Dealing Tribunal  [1998] HKCFI 29; [1998] 1 HKLRD 630; HCAL49/1997 (1 April 1998): -

7. In these two applications, serious and numerous allegations have been made against the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr Justice Yam, and counsel for the enquiry, Mr Peter Davies. Their conduct, it is said, has broken elementary rules of fairness not only to those implicated but also to the public. Large portions of the inquiry have been held in secret. In other words, nobody knew about them and they were never disclosed. Their existence has only been known for a few months. It is submitted that the Chairman has disregarded the important principle of open justice and has provided a result so flawed that it should be quashed...

9. My general conclusions are as follows...
... From the conclusion of the public hearings in August 1996, the Tribunal received evidence which was never disclosed to the parties and he secretly evaluated the evidence with counsel until the end of the year.
... When the Tribunal began to write the report, it secretly received comments from counsel and evidence from some parties. 
... The Tribunal in effect conducted an inquiry which breached the basic rules of fairness and openness and although the Chairman was warned about his unusual procedures, he nevertheless continued with them.
The procedural irregularities are so numerous that I do not consider it necessary to identify them all. The degree of unfairness was substantial. The worse aspect to this sorry saga was that what should have been a public inquiry became instead a private and secret hearing between the Tribunal and its counsel...

... a reading of the minutes demonstrates to my mind that Mr Peter Davies was being very conservative with the truth...
 
(R.A.W. Sears)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
(Source: http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/1998/29.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=Dato%20Tan%20Leong%20Min)

2013年9月25日 星期三

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

黃志偉大律師被終審庭狠批「無能」- CFA Said Barrister Philip Wong (Wong Chi Wai) Was Incompetent

CFA Said Barrister Philip Wong (Wong Chi Wai) Was Incompetent - 黃志偉大律師被終審庭狠批「無能」

See: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=89271&currpage=T

HKSAR v Wong Chi Wai (FACC No. 10 of 2012, September 23, 2013)

121.  There can be no doubt that Barrister Philip Wong's level of competence as a lawyer was low.  In particular, he had a poor grasp of LPP as a legal doctrine.[127] In cross-examination, Mr Wong stated that he could see no difference between confidentiality and LPP and thought that a court could override them both:
“Q: No, this is confidentiality not LPP?
A: Well I see no difference.
...
Q: No, LPP is different, isn’t it, because LPP the court cannot order that the matters be disclosed if they are coved by privilege, confidentiality the court can, that’s the difference, isn’t it?
A: Well I don’t think so, I don’t think so.”
....
Q: .... there are two things there, confidentiality and privilege, they’re different?
A:   Yes, yes different but the effect of a court order is the same.  The court, the order can override the privilege as well as the confidentiality, that’s my understanding.”[128]
122.  Mr Clive Grossman SC, called as a character witness for Mr Wong described him as “a man of integrity who worked hard for his client, but ... not of the highest intellect.”[129] Another character witness, Mr Philip Dykes SC said he was “a man of integrity whose style was enthusiastic and combative” adding that “he had spoken to [Mr Wong] on occasion and advised [him] to moderate [his] approach”.[130]

123.  Stock VP pointed out that:
“One has in a case such as this to take the greatest care to distinguish between misguided professional enthusiasm or even incompetence, on the one hand and, on the other, dishonesty.”[131]
124.  His Lordship continued:
“...although it is clear enough that Wong wished, if possible, to avoid a contested argument in court on the issue of privilege, and although I have not had the advantage, as did the trial judge of hearing the evidence, I still retain some doubt if the suggestion be that Wong had no belief at all in the point. That doubt arises from the evidence of Wong’s aggressive tenacity on behalf of his clients and of the evidence which suggests that he is a facts advocate, not much at ease with arguments of law.”[132]
125.  The opinion of Mr Dykes SC that Mr Wong was “a competent lawyer, well able to look up the law”[133] does not appear to be borne out by the evidence.  Mr Wong does not appear to have done more than look at Blackstone and, when asked by the Judge to produce authority overnight, only managed to re-cycle the case which had been mentioned, with reservations, by Mr Ngai in an earlier note. 
 
126.  The picture that emerges is therefore of a barrister of low competence with a poor understanding of the relevant concepts; doing no effective research; “thrilled” to have discovered the bill of costs, which was regarded as a justification for pursuing the LPP argument; coupled with an aggressive tenacity reflected in the three letters sent to Ms Mak – an unedifying vision, but distinctly more plausible, in my view, than the prosecution’s theory of a barrister well aware of the law but cynically using LPP as a pretext for what in truth was what the Judge had called “a threat simpliciter” aimed at deflecting Ms Mak from her duty.

 

2013年9月16日 星期一

Barrister and Senior Counsel Daniel Fung SC (馮華健資深大律師) Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Barrister Daniel Fung SC (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel, was found guilty of professional misconduct on February 1 by the tribunal, chaired by Peter Ng Kar-fai SC. On June 2, he was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000.

He was found guilty of failing to inform the Court of Appeal in 2005 about clauses of a legislative provision that were unfavourable to his client, Hong Kong Island Development, in a tenancy lawsuit. The firm is a unit of New World Development Group. According to a note on the tribunal's judgment, Fung's failure to draw the court's attention to the point was contrary to the Bar's Code of Conduct. The full judgment has not been made public and the Bar Association says it is not its practice to do so.

(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719003/daniel-fung-panel-took-three-years-form)

We wish to clarify the timing with the following chronology.

The report concerned disciplinary proceedings against Barrister Daniel Fung Wah Kin (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel, which arose from a Court of Appeal hearing in 2005.

Fung received a letter from the Bar Association dated October 27, 2006, informing him the Bar Council had decided the matter be inquired into by a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal, and that it would be submitted to the tribunal convenor.

On May 2, 2007, Tong was requested by the Bar Association to set up the tribunal. He sent Fung a notice dated June 5, 2007, informing him that a tribunal had been constituted, providing names of panel members including Peter Ng Kar-fai SC, who sat as its chairman.

On September 12, 2007, a directions hearing was held before the tribunal and the substantive hearing began on April 24, 2008.

Fung was found guilty of professional misconduct by the tribunal on February 1, this year. He was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000 on June 2.

(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719306/corrections-clarifications)

Barrister Stanley Ma (馬浩輝大律師) Suspended For 30 Months For Having Stolen a Woman's Bra

Counsel Stanley Ma also known as Barrister Stanley H F Ma or Barrister Ma Ho Fai (馬浩輝大律師) Suspended For 30 Months For Having Stolen a Woman's Bra (因為偷女人胸圍停牌30個月).

(Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=16084089&extra=page%3D9)



2013年9月14日 星期六

Barrister Russell Coleman Guilty of Professional Misconduct (高浩文大律師專業失當罪成)

South China Morning Post, 1999

Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) has been fined $150,000 by a disciplinary tribunal for conduct which may bring the profession of barrister into disrepute.

Russell Coleman, 37, a former member of the Bar Council, was also censured by the barristers' disciplinary tribunal and ordered to pay costs.

The fine, believed to be the highest ordered by the tribunal, was imposed after the barrister admitted breaching the barristers' code of conduct by committing a criminal offence.

He pleaded guilty at Western Court last June to helping his domestic helper breach employment conditions and was fined $4,000 by a magistrate.

The tribunal, imposing the disciplinary penalties, said: 'We have come to the conclusion that Mr Coleman's behaviour at the very least showed a reckless indifference to the relevant provision of the Immigration Ordinance and to the possible consequences of such a breach.' But it decided not to suspend him because although it was a serious breach, the circumstances were exceptional.

The tribunal ordered that its findings be circulated to the Secretary for Justice, the Director of Legal Aid and the Law Society.

For the first time, it also said copies should be made available to the media on request.

Counsel Russell Coleman, a barrister since 1986, breached immigration laws by allowing his male domestic helper to work as a caretaker at the building where he lived in Bisney Road, Pok Fu Lam.

The tribunal accepted the barrister had originally only allowed the helper to take the job so he could use the guardhouse accommodation of the building.

But the job evolved into a caretaker role and he was paid $10,500 a month, with the cost shared between tenants of the building.

Gerard McCoy SC, for the Bar Council, said it had agreed to withdraw any allegations of dishonesty against Mr Coleman.

The tribunal was told by Graham Harris, for Mr Coleman, that the 'unfortunate events' had led to the barrister withdrawing his application to become a Senior Counsel last year. He had also stood down as a member of the Bar Council.

Mr Coleman had suffered adverse publicity, humiliation and 'become a victim of gossip and an object of ridicule', Mr Harris said.

Character references were provided by a High Court judge, a former chairman of the Bar Association, a former attorney-general and a former chairman of the Bar Disciplinary Committee.

The tribunal - Cheung Huan SC, Peter Callaghan and Professor Kenneth Young - accepted that the criminal conviction, by itself, would be 'a very severe punishment'.

(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/311905/record-fine-barristers-code-breach)

2013年9月12日 星期四

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

裁判官黃汝榮遭上訴庭狠批 - Magistrate Symon Wong Criticized Heavily by the Court of Appeal

上訴庭狠批黃官的措詞偏頗,以致作出不公正的裁決,下令撤銷涉案3 名上訴人的控罪。

http://leehangkei.mysinablog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=974735

裁判官言詞偏激再被轟
嘲被告棄自辯做法「聰明」 上訴庭狠批未審先判 2008年1月22日

【明報專訊】曾多次在法庭上「語出驚人」的裁判官黃汝榮,繼早前被上訴庭批評在判決時用詞不當後「重蹈覆轍」,在審理一宗偷竊羅漢松案時,直指被告選擇不自辯是「聰明」的做法,黃官又在審訊期間多次使用偏激的言詞,甚至有嘲諷和侮辱被告的成分。上訴庭狠批黃官的措詞偏頗,以致作出不公正的裁決,下令撤銷涉案3 名上訴人的控罪。

一被告撤罪 兩人須重審

上訴庭法官張澤祐直言,在近代判決書中從未見過如此偏激的用詞,其餘兩名上訴庭法官楊振權及袁家寧,亦花了不少篇幅批評當時為暫委區院法官黃汝榮的做法。3名上訴人陳華、張仁有和高軍,陳及張雖獲撤罪,但案件須發還重審;至於高則由於已完成大部分刑期,毋須重審。

「剝削被告享公平審訊權」

張澤祐昨在判辭中,振領提綱直斥黃汝榮早前審理串謀偷竊羅漢松串謀的案件時,在庭上的言詞和態度及予人不持平、不中立的印象,甚至剝奪了眾被告享有公平審訊的權利。

張官引述當日審訊期間,案中被告合法地選擇不自辯,黃官以「聰明」作諷刺回應,使人覺得被告若選擇作供即屬不智,不但自討沒趣甚至多言多敗,整體予人未審先判的不良印象。

上訴庭又指出,黃汝榮的判辭偏頗激進 (見圖) ,他在庭上指被告作供把自己塑造成行屍走肉,是「字字虛言,句句妄語」,又形容被告的證供言之無物,任君隨意演繹、不值一信。黃官又斬釘截鐵地描述多名被告的辯護理據「數位一體,目的一致,全是一丘之貉」。

張官昨指出,若法官作出偏激、嘲諷和侮辱味濃的判辭,顯示他對被告存有偏見,這已構成上訴的理由。

上訴庭法官楊振權和袁家寧亦認同張官的批評,重申法官在審訊及判決程固然要履行公義,但執行公義的過程必須彰顯於人前,否則不能服眾。楊官更引用另一宗同由黃汝榮當「主角」的案件作案例,指黃官當時以「非人非鬼」形容被告,說明黃官未能以專業態度審案。

以被告為笑柄 官失尊嚴

袁官認為,在嚴肅的法庭程序中,偶爾插入富幽默感的語句「未嘗不可」,然而黃官卻以被告為笑柄,既失去法官應有的尊嚴,又令人覺得他沒有鎮靜持平的心態。

上訴庭又援引由司法機構編製的《司法文書製作淺談》,指文學性言語與司法文書大異其趣,前者務求引起讀者無限想像,後者則旨在教育大眾,使人理解明瞭,以說明司法文書因寫作目的不同,其措詞、風格亦應跟其他文書有分別。

本案上訴人陳華、張仁有和高軍,去年在裁判法院被黃汝榮裁定非法留港罪成、串謀盜竊及無許可證在郊野公園內切割植物罪成。

【案件編號:CACC344/06】

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

語出驚人欠莊重 黃汝榮屢遭狠批
2008年1月22日

【明報專訊】裁判官黃汝榮經常「語出驚人」,時有出位語句,其撰寫的判辭不時夾用四字成語,或把案情描繪得如小說一樣。他曾把摸胸說成「撫弄其嶺上雙梅」,又形容搶劫案的被告「非人非鬼」,又曾揚言「大炮」(有資歷的大律師)遇覑他便要「倒楣」。去年黃官曾先後遭高院及上訴庭狠批,指他在判辭中用字欠缺莊重。

描繪案情如小說

黃官於06年裁定一名被告非禮罪成,他在判決書中羅列接納受害女童證供的理由,指其「縱有仙人點路,指點迷津,還得配合自然演繹,及經得起盤問,才可瞞天過海」,故不可能說謊。黃又指被告「敲鑼擊鼓,高調地反覆強調」其清白,但被盤問後,「整條狐狸尾巴,已展露無遺」。

案中被告去年9月向高院提出上訴,法官湯寶臣指黃官「這種誇張的形容,在一份嚴肅的法律文章裏出現,難免會令人覺得有欠莊重」。

曾指被告「非人非鬼」

此外,黃於06年出任區院暫委法官其間,審理一宗搶劫案時以「非人非鬼」來描述被告,及後上訴庭直指出,黃在判辭採用感性措詞,難免令閱讀判辭的人覺得黃已失去應有的專業態度。

黃官曾於02年與資深大律師清洪於庭上「針鋒相對」,清洪指黃汝榮曾說過身為裁判官,時時要面對很多「大炮」(有資歷的大律師),又指這些「大炮」遇覑他便要「倒楣」,當時黃官不排除自己曾說過這番話。

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

終身委任法官 犯錯仍保飯碗
2008年1月22日

【明報專訊】案件的主角——區域法院暫委法官黃汝榮,原為裁判官,處理本案期間於區域法院當暫委法官 (Deputy Judge)。雖然黃汝榮已非首次被上級法院批評,但對其仕途未必會造成影響,最低限度,其法官「飯碗」就未必會因而失掉。

行為不檢可被免職

據了解,目前的裁判官 (Permanent Magistrate) 分為終身委任或者合約制,終身委任的裁判官只有在極罕有的情下才會被解除法官身分,否則就可以一直留任至60歲退休。

根據《基本法》,法官只有在無力履行職責或行為不檢的情下,行政長官才可以根據由終院首席法官任命的獨立審議庭的建議將其免職,至於合約制的裁判官,其任命年期則按合約而定。

司法機構昨日沒有回應黃汝榮屬終身委任還是按合約聘任,但有法律界人士表示,黃獲委任為裁判官的年代,絕大部分裁判官均屬終身委任制。

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

判辭天書:忌文學修辭
2008年1月22日

【明報專訊】司法機構發言人表示,判辭中提及的《司法文書製作淺談》(下稱《淺談》) 乃供司法人員內部使用,不會公開給公眾參閱。資料顯示,本案主審的上訴庭法官之一楊振權,亦曾向本港執業律師講授上述《淺談》。楊官亦對推動香港司法界使用中文不遺餘力。

根據司法機構年報,司法機構會不定期舉行由本地及內地大學主辦的判辭寫作課程及講座,供司法人員參加。

判辭引述了《淺談》部分內容,指司法文書應以事實及法律解決問題,教育大眾,司法文書不應選用文學言語,或藝術修辭手法,例如以誇張、諷刺、比喻或影射方法描述,因這與司法文書莊嚴的風格不配合。

Magistrate (now District Judge) Josiah Lam 林偉權裁判官 (現為區域法院法官林偉權)

Magistrate (now District Judge) Josiah Lam 林偉權裁判官 (現為區域法院法官林偉權)

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=56250

HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG AND OTHERS; Reported in: [2007] 1 HKLRD 797; (2007) 10 HKCFAR 148

"Turning now to the magistrate’s conduct of the trial...

During Mr Leung’s final speech, the magistrate asked him – an unrepresented defendant who had given evidence and was then making his submissions – how many cars had been obstructed. That was a matter of evidence on which Mr Leung, when he was in the witness-box, could have been cross-examined by prosecuting counsel or even questioned in an impartial manner by the magistrate himself. But it was inappropriate for the magistrate to question him on it during his final speech. That involved extracting evidence from him, perhaps in the nature of an admission against his interests, at a stage of the trial not meant for receiving evidence. Mr Leung obviously appreciated as much, for he said to the magistrate that it was a matter of evidence for the prosecution to have adduced. Undaunted, the magistrate invited Mr Leung to give an estimate of how many vehicles had been obstructed...

That was followed by Mr Leung responding, accurately, to the effect that he was not obliged to supply evidence by making the estimate which he had been invited to make. Whereupon the magistrate pronounced that everyone had to assist the court on the extent of the inconvenience caused to the public. The obvious problem with that pronouncement is simply this. By that time the magistrate was hearing final speeches. And while he could seek assistance by way of submissions, he could not gather evidence : most especially and emphatically not by extracting anything in the nature of an admission from an unrepresented defendant whose evidence had concluded and who was then making his final speech...

After Mr Robert Lee had said what he wanted to say in his final speech, the magistrate asked him when the obstructing cars had been removed. This involved supplying evidence, and Mr Robert Lee no doubt wondered how a prosecuting counsel was expected to supply evidence in his closing speech. Pressing on, the magistrate invited both the prosecution and the defence to provide him with the information which he was seeking. Mr Kwok objected to that as unfair. For making that legitimate objection, he was rebuked by the magistrate. Raising his voice, the magistrate said that as a lawyer Mr Kwok had a duty, together with his clients, to tell the magistrate what he wanted to know.

Still in a raised voice, the magistrate proceeded to insist that both the prosecution and defence tell him when the obstructing cars had been removed. And if they could not tell him that, the magistrate said, then they were duty-bound to call witnesses who could. One can readily imagine how bewildering the defendants must have found this assertion of the magistrate’s to the effect that they were duty-bound to complete the case against themselves. Matters were made worse when the magistrate said that the case could not be considered as at an end until the matter was clarified. Did this mean, one is naturally left to wonder, that the defendants would remain on trial indefinitely until the magistrate got what he wanted?

Narrating such conduct on the part of the magistrate is a painful duty...

When quashing the convictions on the basis of the magistrate’s conduct of the trial, the judge said this :

“In my judgment, unfortunately, even if justice was done, it was not manifestly seen to be done. This would constitute a material irregularity, and on this ground alone, the appeals against conviction must be allowed”.

In our view, it is plain beyond reasonable argument to the contrary that the magistrate’s conduct of the trial had lost him the appearance of impartiality...

Barrister Derry Wong (Wong Hak Ming of Counsel) Guilty of Professional Misconduct

王克明大律師專業失當行為罪成 - By a Statement of Findings dated 28 June 2011, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal (BDT) found Barrister Derry Wong (Wong Hak Ming of Counsel) (王克明大律師) guilty of three complaints of Professional Misconduct.
 
On 28 June 2011, the BDT ordered inter alia that:
      
(1)For each of Complaints 1, 2 and 3, Wong be suspended from practice for a period of six months, such period of suspension to commence from the time when he applies for renewal of his practising certificate, the suspension for each Complaint to run concurrently;
  
(2)Wong shall pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings of the BDT, to be taxed by a master of the Court of First Instance, on a full indemnity costs basis.
  
The suspension ordered by the BDT takes effect from 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2013 (both dates inclusive) following Wong’s resumption of practice on 1 July 2013.

(Source: http://www.hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/index.html)

Barrister Kelvin Y C Leung (Leung Yiu Cheung of Counsel) Guilty of Professional Misconduct

梁耀祥大律師專業失當行為罪成 - Barrister Kelvin Leung (Leung Yiu Cheung of Counsel) Guilty of Professional Misconduct

By a Decision dated 21st September 2011, a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found four (4) charges of misconduct against Mr. Leung Yiu Cheung (also known as Kelvin Y.C. Leung) (“Leung”). Subsequently, by a Decision on Sentence dated 20th December 2011, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered inter alia that Leung be suspended from practice for a total period of 3 months.

On the 9th January 2012, Leung appealed against the suspension order. On 21st November 2012, the Court of Appeal dismissed Leung’s appeal. As a consequence of the dismissal of appeal, the suspension ordered by the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal takes effect from 21st December 2012 to 20th March 2013 (both dates inclusive).

Charge 6: -

In May 2008, Barrister Leung Yiu Cheung (also known as Kelvin Y C Leung) of Counsel (梁耀祥大律師) acted or attempted to act in the dual capacities of counsel and witness in the same matter (namely a litigation in the High Court between Right Star Investment Company Limited and Grand Palace Limited), which is prejudicial to the administration of justice and contrary to the ethics and etiquette of his profession, contrary to paragraphs 6(b) and 6(c) of the Code of Conduct of the Bar.
http://hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/Decision%20on%20Sentence.pdf

Paragraph 9: -

"We consider that the facts of this case are rather serious, particularly because as a result of [the conduct of Barrister Leung Yiu Cheung (also known as Kelvin Y C Leung) of Counsel (梁耀祥大律師)] and the gentle reminder letter from the Court of Appeal, the Respondent's client was forced to engage another barrister for the case on very short notice."
(Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=15692999&extra=page%3D17)

2013年9月11日 星期三

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

本身係大律師嘅陳家昇暫委裁判官衰多口 - Mr CHAN Ka Sing (Barrister-Turned-Deputy-Magistrate) Talked Too Much

本身係大律師嘅陳家昇暫委裁判官衰多口  Mr CHAN Ka Sing (Barrister-Turned-Deputy-Magistrate) Talked Too Much

http://insider20120514.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/magistrates-apparent-bias/

http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20110412/00412_001.html

http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20111124/00407_026.html

原審裁判官 (陳家昇大律師 Barrister and Lawyer Chan Ka Sing) 衰多口三漢上訴脫罪

警方派臥底潛入黑幫兩年蒐證後,拘捕二十多人控以三合會罪名,但因原審裁判官 (陳家昇大律師 Barrister and Lawyer Chan Ka Sing) 犯錯,令三名被裁定罪成的男子昨獲判上訴得直。高院法官在判詞指,原審裁判官 (陳家昇大律師 Barrister and Lawyer Chan Ka Sing) 曾在庭上聲言「我亦都唔係第一次做黑社會,我亦都唔係第一次審黑社會」,法官認為此言不應出於裁判官之口,會令人覺得已認定涉案被告是黑幫成員,令裁決不穩妥。

三名上訴人為何國柱、許文俊及黃文勇。案情指警方在○六年十一月展開臥底行動,警方根據其蒐集之情報,○九年採取行動,拘捕包括三名上訴人在內的大批人士。據臥底在裁判法院出庭的供詞指,花名「四眼柱」的何國柱曾自稱是「和×和」成員,許文俊及黃文勇則被指曾以三合會成員身份行事,在其所屬幫會成員「吹雞」後到一間網吧聚集。而三名上訴人均裁定涉及的三合會控罪罪成,三人早前在高院提出上訴。

法官昨頒下判詞裁定三人上訴得直,法官指裁判官 (陳家昇大律師 Barrister and Lawyer Chan Ka Sing) 於庭上訓斥本案上訴人時,曾宣稱「我都唔係第一次做黑社會,我亦都唔係第一次審黑社會。我做大律師嘅時候,我亦都代表過一啲龍頭阿哥,所謂個阿公,我都代表過對方,打過官司!」法官指此話絕對不應出自正在審案的裁判官之口,亦不是裁判官提醒被告要尊重法庭的恰當表達。

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=76044&QS=%2B&TP=JU: -

48.  就第 1 項理據,謝大律師的陳述如下(書面陳詞第 8 段): 「裁判官在審訊時對上訴人及/或當時案中的其他被告存有偏見,或至少令人看起來感覺如此,其詳情包括在聽取證供時裁判官明顯地(或似乎是如此)已把他們當成是黑社會份子。 (a) 早於聆訊的第一天即2009 年11 月2 日,裁判官向當時的所有被告人包括上訴人宣稱:『我亦都唔係第一次做黑社會,我亦都唔係第一次審黑社會,我做大律師嘅時候,我亦都係代表過一啲龍頭阿哥,所謂個阿公,我都幫佢代表過,打過官司。』 ……」

49.  謝大律師認為(見第 11 段): 「裁判官作出以上的聲稱及提問,很明顯是因為他在審訊還未完結前已經一早有了他的裁斷,把上訴人及/或其他被告當成是黑社會份子,對他們存有偏見。至少,從客觀角度來看,一個公平和知情的旁觀者會斷定真的有可能或有危險法庭是這樣。」

50.  有關的謄本記錄可見於上訴綜卷第 590 頁L‑M行。謝大律師向本席解釋過事情的背景。裁判官是因為某被告人似乎對法庭的表現有欠尊重而不滿,因此作出上述的表達。

51.  主審裁判官有責任去維持法庭的尊嚴及秩序,如有人對法庭表現不敬,裁判官當然可以直接提出甚至以藐視法庭的原則處理。但不論情況如何,本席認為,類似的說話,絕對不應出自正在審案的裁判官。從某角度看來,他的表達也確實會令旁觀的第三者覺得他認為接受審訊的被告是黑社會人士,或是與黑社會有關人士,但其地位不比他以前代表過的龍頭阿公,或阿哥,因此不應在他面前表現囂張。本席認為,這絕對不是提醒被告人須要尊重法庭,尊重法律的恰當表達。這對裁判官必須持平審訊的原則必定構成負面的影響。
…. ….

結果
55.  本席認為原審時有不公平的情節,而控方的證據基礎亦顯得不穩妥。因此本席裁定上訴得直,三名上訴人的定罪撤消,刑罰擱置。

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20111124/00407_026.html

【本報訊】九龍城法院暫委裁判官陳家昇 (陳家昇大律師 Barrister and Lawyer Chan Ka Sing) 兩年前審理一宗警方反黑案時,出言「兇」一名對法庭不敬的被告人,陳官指自己做大狀時曾代表「龍頭阿哥」和「阿公」打官司,以警告被告不要囂張。此事成為案中被告上訴得直的其中一個理由,高院於半年前撤銷其中三人的定罪,案中另兩人用相同理據上訴,陳家昇大律師 Barrister and Lawyer Chan Ka Sing這次先向高院「認衰」,高院昨再撤銷該兩人的定罪。

2013年8月18日 星期日

梅國強大律師 (Barrister Louie Mui) 包攬訴訟囚3年半

梅國強大律師 (Barrister Louie Mui) 包攬訴訟囚3年半

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130326/-32-2928093/1.html

2013年3月26日 - 星島日報: -

曾遭大律師公會停牌半年的大律師梅國強 (Counsel Louie Mui) 涉嫌五度包攬訴訟,早前被裁定5項包攬訴訟罪罪名成立,今日下午在區域法院被判處入獄3年半。法官判刑時表示,被告違反專業,利用客戶不熟悉索償法律程序,違反對他們的誠信,案情嚴重,必須判監。法官同時下令,被告須向5宗索償案件的客戶,賠償他瓜分了的大部分款項。52歲的大律師梅國強涉嫌於99年至08年期間,五度在民事索償案中,主動要求與申索人攤分勝訴賠償,在沒有事務律師在場下給予法律意見,承諾「不成功不收費」,更「吃兩家茶禮」,同時接受申索人及事務律師行支付的律師費,收受利益總額超過170萬。


Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=16004076&page=1

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1200505/history-made-barrister-louie-mui-jailed-illegal-deals-clients

History made as Barrister Louie Mui is jailed for illegal deals with clients
 
A barrister (Lawyer and Counsel Louie Mui - 梅國強大律師) was sentenced to 3½ years' jail yesterday for what a judge said were "obnoxious" deals to buy into his clients' lawsuits and gain more than HK$1.6 million from their damages payments.

Louie Mui Kwok-keung, 53, made Hong Kong history by becoming the first barrister convicted of the archaic common-law offence known as champerty - the act of one striking an illegal deal with a party in a lawsuit to obtain a share of its proceeds.

The five offences took place between 1999 and 2008, when he persuaded five clients to pay him 25 to 30 per cent of the damages they would receive if they won their claims, or had their cases settled out of court.

District Court Judge Amanda Woodcock said in her ruling: "As a barrister, the defendant's conduct posed a genuine risk to court process." She said that his act amounted to "exploitation" of the laymen involved who had no legal knowledge.

"They paid what they thought was the legal fee," she said.

Woodcock ordered Mui to repay a total of HK$1.5 million to four of his clients by August, saying she was sure that they were not aware of the illegality of the agreements.

She said that the agreements were "pure champerty" and "in a more obnoxious form", because Mui had skirted stated procedures and initially dealt directly with all the five clients without involving a solicitor.

2013年8月17日 星期六

鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 被法官狠批「做法不專業,損人不利己」

鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 被法官狠批「做法不專業,損人不利己」

香港特別行政區 訴 袁郁鈞 (Reported in: [2007] 1 HKLRD 819) HCMA730/2006 (裁判日期:2007年1月23日)

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=55815&QS=%2B&TP=JU

「上訴人的大律師鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 本身對刑事審訊接納證據的基本法則一知半解,胡亂指控聆訊時代表上訴人的大律師不稱職,不切實際地提昇上訴人對成功上訴的期望、做法不專業,損人不利己,絕對不值得鼓勵或仿效。」 - 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦


Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=15432730

2013年8月10日 星期六

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

胡漢清資深大律師 - Hong Kong Barrister Alan Hoo SC and His Mum (Part IV)

Source: http://hk.next.nextmedia.com/index.php/article/1203/16879502

2013年3月28日 (壹週刊) 第1203期 (探熱針): -

資深大律師胡漢清 (Barrister and Senior Counsel Alan Hoo SC) 母子不和事件,日前胡漢清公開向母親認錯,更直認資金周轉有困難。

公開認錯

爆出胡漢清母子不和事件後,不斷被傳媒追訪的胡母,身心俱疲,目前足不出戶,留在朋友家中靜養。

家事公開,連日胡漢清均未有公開露面,日前他透過雜誌,公開向母親認錯,後悔沒有顧及老人家的感受,承認因為要照顧三頭住家,包括母親、前妻余慧敏和一對子女,以及現任太太江希文,每月支出極大,加上英國物業需要重建而向銀行借貸二千萬,導致資金周轉有困難,但仍希望盡力解決母親的需要。

本刊日前致電胡漢清,對方稱不在,稍後由一名李姓男子代覆說:「現正冷靜處理事情,不適宜作公開回應。」

對於兒子求和好,莊永楚態度保留,而上週四母子和頭飯局後,記者貼身追訪她數天也未見胡漢清主動聯絡過母親,至於莊永楚有否主動聯絡兒子?她說:「我打電話,佢都唔肯聽!咁多日,佢都冇搵過我!」母子關係膠着。

胡漢清資深大律師 - Hong Kong Barrister Alan Hoo SC and His Mum (Part III)

胡漢清資深大律師 - Hong Kong Barrister Alan Hoo SC and His Mum (Part III)

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/entertainment/art/20130401/18213227
2013年4月1日 – 蘋果日報 (Apple Daily, 1st April 2013):

揚言被屈 江希文數家姑

江希文下嫁資深大律師胡漢清 (Barrister and Senior Counsel Alan Hoo SC) 不久,胡漢清即與84歲母親莊永楚發生金錢糾紛,上月21日胡老太在好友白韻琴陪同下開記招,哭訴胡漢清侵佔其2,000萬家產。

事件沉寂多天,江希文昨日凌晨突然連發13條微博講解事件。身在外地的白韻琴對江希文發微博「申冤」頗為不屑,她昨日在電話中說:「叫佢做新抱嘅收吓嗲,講少幾句好過講多幾句,遲早後悔鬧家婆,佢話家婆為錢返港,有乜出奇!佢係返嚟攞番自己嘅嘢,亦都冇冤枉佢,清白嘅毋須申冤。」

Alan Hoo SC (胡漢清資深大律師) And His Mum (Part II)

Alan Hoo SC (胡漢清資深大律師), a Hong Kong Barrister, Accused of Eviction - By His Own Mother

Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1196611/top-barrister-accused-his-mum

I've been locked out and can't get my money back, says mother of Basic Law Institute Head.
 
The elderly mother of Alan Hoo SC, a Hong Kong Barrister, accused her only son of locking her out of their home in Pok Fu Lam and refusing to take her phone calls for the past six months.

Linda Chuan Yun-chuu, 84, also claimed her son, Alan Hoo SC, a Hong Kong Barrister, had thrown her out of a home she owns in Shanghai and refused to return HK$11 million in cash.

Chuan said she believed Hoo was upset after she refused to attend his third wedding because his second divorce had cost her a lot of money.

Hoo, a senior counsel, chairman of the Basic Law Institute and a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate, could not be reached by the South China Morning Post at his office yesterday.

Alan Hoo says he loves his mother very much.

According to a statement he was reported to have sent to some of the city's media, he denied the accusations and stressed he loved his mother very much.

Chuan told a press conference how a lawyer had turned up at her Shanghai home in October claiming her son had sent him.

He told her that she had to move out by the end of November because the property was to be rented out.

"I was also told that my son had changed the lock of our home on Sassoon Road in Hong Kong and asked me not to return to Sassoon Road," Chuan said.

"I told the lawyer I would wait for my son in the doorway, but the lawyer said he would pay for a hotel for me to stay in for one week." Since then, she has been staying with a nephew and niece.

She said Hoo refused to take her calls or to see her. "As soon as he hears my voice, he hangs up the phone," she said. "When I call his office, his secretary simply asks me to leave a message."

Chuan, who was accompanied by district councillor and friend Pamela Peck Wan-kam and Peck's partner Paul Tse Wai-chun, a legislator, said she wanted her son to return all her assets.

Catering-sector lawmaker Tommy Cheung Yu-yan, a friend of Hoo's, said he got a phone call from Hoo a couple of hours before Chuan's press conference.

Cheung said Hoo wanted him to pass a message to his mother and the media that he was willing to discuss the matter with her face to face and would try to meet any requests. He said Hoo was handling a legal dispute and so was unable to attend the press conference.

One of Hoo's close friends told the Post that Hoo and Chuan had been due to meet on Tuesday but she cancelled the appointment because of stormy weather. The friend said the mother and son might meet as early as last night.

Hoo, whose first wife was socialite Flora Cheong-Leen, married his third wife, former actress Liz Kong, last year.

Alan Hoo SC (胡漢清資深大律師) And His Mum (Part I)

胡漢清母子為房產爭拗 (Alan Hoo SC, a Hong Kong Barrister, alleged to have argued with his mum over some apartments)

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130321/-2-2924000/1.html

(星島日報報道)

資深大律師兼全國政協委員胡漢清,被八十四歲的莊永楚母親指控霸佔其資產,包括千萬現金以及現值二千萬人民幣的上海豪宅。莊永楚接受本報訪問時表示,自去年十月五日(即胡的生日)後,兒子已沒有與她說話,她去年十一月更被趕離上海大宅,當時她手上有三十粒安眠藥,傷心欲絕打算自殺。但胡漢清昨日發出聲言,強調自己愛錫母親,各地物業仍任母親進出自如,還稱母親是個「老頑皮」,經常「玩失蹤」。但胡母反斥︰「全部講大話!」

莊永楚昨日接受本報電話訪問時稱,自己遺囑已表明所有財產會留給胡漢清,自己極信任兒子,名下資產也交由兒子保管,「但他個人變晒。」莊指胡去年十月五日生日時,宣布第三次結婚,「他第一、二次結婚、離婚時,使了我好多錢,我已話過第三次結婚時,唔好搞我。」胡漢清當時向母索取結婚禮物,但莊稱大粒的鑽石已用完,「不知是否因為咁嬲了我。」胡就改為索取他給母親六十歲生日的禮物──鑲鑽粉盒作結婚賀禮。

莊表示,自己因為要坐輪椅,欲把加拿大的複式物業換成一層公寓樓花,總額為一百一十三萬加元(約八百五十四萬港元)。頭兩期共十一萬加元的首期她已繳清,還剩下第三期,共五萬六千五百元的首期,她未能支付,遂向胡取回名下財產。莊稱自己在九七年移民時,出售了麥當勞道物業,共一千一百五十萬現金寄存在兒子那裏,但胡向她表示該款已全數蝕掉。她想變賣上海現市值二千萬元的物業套現,但胡卻稱物業已做信託,不能變賣。她搬回上海小住,卻收到胡委託的上海律師通知,說物業已出租,要她搬走。胡又禁止她進入沙宣道的胡家大宅。

莊稱,這半年間,胡跟她一句說話也沒有說過。她在胡首次結婚時,給了他一百萬元舉行婚禮,胡之後每月給母親二萬二千元當利息收入,也是零用錢。但兩母子齟齬後,胡曾威脅只要母親向傳媒說一句話,就不會再發零用。莊稱自己仍未知道兒子是否真的停發零用,「可能他已cut了,我未看到銀行單」。

但胡漢清發聲明反駁,指昨天周刊報道他和家人的內容「有不盡不實之處」。他指自己一向十分愛錫母親,廿多年來一直照顧她生活所需,尤其近年均越洋給她找醫生,對她悉心照料;而在加拿大、上海的物業,均為供母親專用,她也一直穿梭往返香港、上海、溫哥華三地居住,各地物業向來進出自如,迄今無變。胡又指,母親最近在朋友游說下,以最高峰價在溫哥華買下一個豪華複式頂樓物業,又保留現有居所,涉及大量現金周轉,他需多些時間處理有關事宜。而他更直指母親是個「老頑皮」,經常給他「玩失蹤」,一直和他玩捉迷藏,她近日在港期間,到一些傳媒朋友家中暫住,他更衷心感謝朋友於母親在港期間的照顧。

不過,胡母聽到胡的聲明後,怒斥「他全部講大話」,強調自己沒有花過他一分一毫,她移民至加拿大時,樓與房車也是她自己購買,在四、五年前她的座駕在雪地打轉,她要求兒子用她的存款改買一部,胡也只叫她換了四條輪胎就算。而且她在上海樓物被趕走,沙宣道大宅的門鎖更全換掉,遑論進出自如。

鍾嘉欣 (Actress Linda Chung) 誤做第三者:我唔知喎!

Source: http://hk.next.nextmedia.com/article/1111/15364826

2011年6月23日 (壹週刊) 第1111期 (探熱針): -

鍾嘉欣 (Actress Linda Chung) 誤做第三者:我唔知喎!

在《點解阿 Sir係阿 Sir》飾演 Miss Koo的鍾嘉欣,慘遇情場騙子陳豪,哭崩全城。現實生活中,鍾嘉欣亦被本刊踢爆與在加拿大讀書時的舊同學李傲寰大律師 (Barrister Felix Li) 秘密拍拖。

不過,鍾嘉欣的大律師男友 Felix,原來有個拍拖多年,同是大律師的親密女友梁凱思大律師 (Barrister Joyce Leung)。本週一(六月二十日),記者將 Felix一腳踏兩船一事告知鍾嘉欣,她恍然大悟說:「我……唔知喎!」矇查查做了第三者,鍾嘉欣戲如人生。

向女友自首

上月十日,趁新劇《學府藏龍》未開工,同奀星男友伍允龍暗拍亦暗散的鍾嘉欣,戴帽戴眼鏡,一身樸素打扮,與新歡 Felix到情侶拍拖勝地赤柱撐枱腳。  其間因為發現有記者,二人飯都唔食,坐番上車劈住走。

背女友偷嗒鍾嘉欣東窗事發,但 Counsel Felix Li 繼續瞞住鍾嘉欣,同時向正印女友 Counsel Joyce Leung 自首,訛稱當晚相約鍾嘉欣純粹是傾談借 band房事宜,不過報導出街,正印依然火遮眼。

唔知有正印

本週一下午,鍾嘉欣在電視城拍攝新劇《學府藏龍》,提到 Felix 其實早有一要好女友,她表現得一臉茫然。

壹:依家同 Felix發展成點?
鍾:朋友囉!
壹:感情有冇更進一步發展?
鍾:感情事唔講。
壹:你知唔知 Felix有女朋友?
鍾:(愕一愕)……唔知喎!
壹:上次你哋赤柱拍拖報導出街,佢哋吵到要分手喎!
鍾:我唔知呢啲事。
壹:驚唔驚俾人話你係第三者?
鍾:人哋想點寫就點寫,支筆喺記者度,私事一向低調,唔會影響我工作。我同佢係好(講完好字發覺唔對路,即停)……係朋友咁簡單。

有份家庭樂

東窗事發後, Felix除了返工便是與男性友人食飯飲嘢,並無異常。早前週末,記者發現 Felix與女友及媽咪 Barrister Jennifer Tsui 三人一齊離開銅鑼灣莊苑寓所,兩女一男夾手夾腳把一袋二袋行李,搬上 Felix的黑色日產座駕上,其間,紮住馬尾,鼓埋泡腮的 Joyce甚少跟 Felix交談,反而與其母有講有笑,明顯熟落。

之後,由 Felix揸車,一車人過海到九龍塘。 Family day都預埋正印 Joyce,可見二人關係密切;被蒙在鼓裡的鍾嘉欣,醒吓啦!

男友偷食純情鍾嘉欣,現場所見 Barrister Joyce Leung 樣貌一般,確實唔夠「第三者」鍾嘉欣省鏡。

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

馬官批評辯方大律師鍾建康 - Magistrate Mr Wahab Criticises Defence Counsel Mr K H Chung

【明報專訊】 (2013年2月21日)

塌樓慘劇審訊原定審20天,結果花了28天才審結。裁判官馬保華 (Magistrate Mr Abu Bakar bin Wahab) 昨裁決時,斥責控辯雙方延誤審訊,認為「案件押後又押後,與辯方律師的做法很有關係」。

馬官先斥責控方大律師謝志浩 (Barrister C H Tse),指他未了解控方專家證人作供需時多久,案件預審時卻不反對將審訊期定為20天。馬官之後批評辯方大律師鍾建康 (Barrister K H Chung),指他盤問證人遲遲不達重點,質疑他表達能力大有問題,拖長審訊、浪費法庭時間,一度要求被告更換律師或加律師。

馬官舉例說,本案被告是朱偉榮,但辯方盤問屋宇署測量師作供時,花了很長時間問屋宇署處事態度,及指屋宇署做錯事,實在不明所以。

此外,辯方所傳召的專家證人的報告,最後又不接納為呈堂證供,馬保華對辯方處理專家證人證供手法「深感遺憾」。

(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130221/-3-2900056/1.html)

Soler 單官司 Soler 輸晒 - 欠債600萬 被判破產

Soler 單官司 Soler 輸晒 - 欠債600萬 被判破產

樂壇孖仔組合Soler與蜂鳥音樂因合約糾紛而被索償近600萬,由於長期拖欠賠償,昨日高院正式向他們頒令破產,蜂鳥老闆張丹更鬧爆「潛水」的兩子是「縮頭鴕鳥」,誓要追債追到天腳底!

CACV 40/2009 HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LIMITED v DINO ACCONCI & GIULIO ACCONCI

CA's Judgment: -

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=69194&QS=%28%7BDINO%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU

Hon Rogers VP:

1. This was an appeal from a judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Carlson given on 22 January 2009.

2. The judge held in the plaintiff’s favour. He awarded damages of $5,058,000 and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim. At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal judgment was reserved which we now give.

30. In summary, the arguments raised on behalf of the defendants in respect of restraint of trade have no merit.
33. In my view this appeal falls to be dismissed. I would make an order nisi of costs in favour of the plaintiff.

Mr CY Li & Mr Kenneth Chung, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Mr Ambrose Ho SC & Ms Joyce Leung, instructed by Messrs Haldanes, for the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Appellants

(Source: http://www.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=21411682)

資深大律師清洪指裁判官黃汝榮 (Magistrate Symon Wong) 與女生有染

法 官 被 指 與 女 生 有 染
( 星 島 日 報 報 道 ) 裁 判 官 黃 汝 榮 昨 在 一 宗 「 師 爺 」 被 控 意 圖 妨 礙 司 法 公 正 案 , 以 控 方 證 人 身 分 作 供 時 , 受 到 辯 方 不 斷 揭 露 他 未 做 法 官 前 的 私 生 活 , 包 括 當 年 任 職 大 律 師 時 與 被 告 打 麻 雀 及 同 赴 澳 門 夜 總 會 , 又 在 大 學 教 書 期 間 和 女 學 生 發 生 關 係 。
律 師 行 文 員 涉 嫌 妨 礙 司 法 公 正 案 中 , 二 十 九 歲 被 告 「 師 爺 」 郭 永 業 , 被 控 一 項 意 圖 妨 礙 司 法 公 正 罪 名 受 審 。 控 方 證 人 兼 當 日 主 審 有 關 案 件 的 裁 判 官 黃 汝 榮 , 昨 日 供 述 被 告 約 他 午 膳 , 企 圖 為 當 時 正 由 他 審 理 的 區 議 會 選 舉 「 種 票 」 案 女 被 告 李 佩 英 說 情 。
現 年 四 十 七 歲 的 黃 汝 榮 , 去 年 二 月 二 十 六 日 獲 委 任 為 裁 判 官 , 案 發 時 是 西 區 裁 判 官 , 現 任 小 額 錢 債 審 裁 官 。 他 昨 日 接 受 控 方 引 導 作 供 時 僅 耗 用 四 十 分 鐘 , 但 被 辯 方 資 深 大 律 師 清 洪 盤 問 了 近 四 小 時 , 經 常 問 非 所 答 , 需 要 主 審 女 法 官 重 複 問 題 。
他 承 認 早 於 一 九 九 五 年 和 資 深 大 律 師 駱 應 淦 受 聘 於 鄧 耀 榮 律 師 行 , 替 一 毒 販 打 輸 官 司 , 當 時 法 官 下 令 充 公 毒 販 資 產 , 結 果 他 無 法 收 取 應 得 之 律 師 費 。 他 乃 於 二 ○ ○ ○ 年 三 月 正 式 向 律 師 會 投 訴 , 要 求 索 回 該 筆 欠 付 的 約 五 十 萬 元 律 師 費 。
黃 汝 榮 亦 承 認 與 被 告 午 飯 時 , 曾 透 露 自 己 曾 花 三 分 一 資 產 投 資 股 票 , 而 致 損 手 爛 腳 , 尤 其 買 重 中 國 移 動 (941) 。 他 在 席 間 更 埋 怨 因 美 國 「 九 一 一 」 事 件 , 再 令 股 票 大 跌 。
不 過 , 他 在 庭 上 否 認 因 投 資 失 利 , 而 決 定 追 討 多 年 前 的 律 師 費 用 。 他 承 認 在 本 年 六 月 撤 回 該 投 訴 , 原 因 是 連 較 他 資 深 的 駱 應 淦 亦 是 「 白 做 」 , 都 沒 有 追 究 。
但 辯 方 大 律 師 清 洪 則 在 庭 上 指 黃 當 日 是 主 動 約 被 告 午 飯 , 目 的 是 要 被 告 替 他 做 一 份 誓 章 , 內 容 指 明 他 當 年 絕 非 以 贏 官 司 才 能 收 款 的 方 法 來 計 算 律 師 費 ﹔ 但 被 告 拒 絕 這 樣 做 , 被 告 更 指 不 要 將 其 擺 上 台 。 但 黃 不 同 意 上 述 指 控 。
黃 汝 榮 表 示 , 在 一 九 九 四 年 因 工 作 關 係 , 認 識 當 時 在 鄧 耀 榮 律 師 行 工 作 的 被 告 ﹔ 於 執 業 大 律 師 期 間 , 主 要 的 收 入 來 自 被 告 任 職 律 師 行 聘 用 他 打 官 司 。 他 曾 與 被 告 打 麻 雀 , 兩 人 又 因 公 事 到 澳 門 的 新 花 城 夜 總 會 消 遣 。 但 他 否 認 到 夜 總 會 叫 四 名 小 姐 相 伴 及 往 按 摩 場 所 。
辯 方 大 律 師 更 指 黃 在 大 學 擔 任 講 師 時 , 和 一 女 學 生 有 關 係 , 一 度 恐 怕 女 方 報 警 , 但 法 官 反 對 此 提 問 , 結 果 黃 毋 須 回 答 。
案 件 編 號 ﹕ 區 域 法 院 三 三 一 — — 二 ○ ○ 二 。

(Source: http://www.singtao.com/archive/fullstory.asp?andor=or&year1=2002&month1=10&day1=31&year2=2002&month2=10&day2=31&category=all&id=20021031a08&keyword1=&keyword2)

Barrister Kevin Poon of Counsel in HCMP 1739 / 2012 (a Public Judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal)

Barrister Kevin Poon of Counsel in HCMP 1739 / 2012 (a Public Judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal)


http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=83731&currpage=T

"The 1st defendant has attached to its summons a draft Notice of Appeal with 28 grounds settled by Mr Kevin Poon who was also the trial counsel. These grounds are prolix, repetitive and I do not find them helpful...

The 1st defendant has not met the threshold onus for leave to appeal to be granted, so this application must be dismissed.

As the application is entirely without merit, I would make a further order pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8) that no party may under rule 2A(7) request the determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes"

(Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=15404363)

Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel in HCMA 357 of 2012 (A Public Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Wright dated 8 March 2013)

Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel in HCMA 357 of 2012 (A Public Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Wright dated 8 March 2013)
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=86263&QS=%2B&TP=JU

HCMA 357/2012
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court
Dates of Hearing and Decision: 21 February and 6 March 2013
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 8 March 2013
_______________________
REASONS FOR DECISION
_______________________

4. Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel appeared for the applicant as his lawyer at trial and again on the appeal. He then made application for a certificate for leave to refer a total of 14 questions, 13 in regard to conviction and one in regard to sentence, to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, asserting that each of those questions constitutes "... a point of law of great and general importance... involved in the decision..." on appeal.

5. This application was listed for a 30 minute hearing on 21 February 2013 at 09.30. When it did commence, belatedly, counsel sought to hand in a bundle of authorities which had not previously been served on the respondent or filed in court. A jury trial had been set to resume at 10.00 that morning. It was perfectly plain, despite counsel’s expressed belief to the contrary that it would finish in time, that the matter would not permit of the timeous resumption of the jury trial. It was accordingly adjourned to today with an order that any submissions and authorities be filed and served on or before 1 March.

10. None of the questions was a question of law; none was of great importance; none was of general importance; more particularly none was of great and general importance.

11. The application was consequently dismissed.

12.Presenting entirely unmeritorious appeals or applications in this fashion is unacceptable. It does nothing to further the interests of an accused person; the interests of justice; the interests of the courts; the interests of the community as a whole. That these proceedings have been funded by the general public via either the Duty Lawyer Scheme at trial or the Department of Legal Aid in respect of the appeal and of this application is a matter for real concern. I direct that a copy of this decision be referred to the Director of Legal Aid.
(A R Wright)
Deputy High Court Judge

Ms WONG Kam Hing, SADPP of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel and Lawyer, instructed by Department of Legal Aid, for the Appellant

(Source: http://barbrarab.blogspot.hk/2013/06/mark-sutherland.html)

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) Convicted and Fined HK$4,000 in Western Magistrates' Court on June 3, 1999

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) Convicted and Fined HK$4,000 in Western Magistrates' Court on June 3, 1999
Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/286231/convicted-lawyer-faces-bar-inquiry

(South China Morning Post, June 25th, 1999, Alison Smith)

Convicted Lawyer Faces Bar Inquiry

Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) has stepped down from the Bar Council pending an investigation that could lead to disciplinary proceedings.

Russell Coleman, 36, is under investigation by an independent tribunal after he failed to tell the Bar Association's executive committee of his conviction this month for a criminal offence.

Association Chairman Senior Counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC said yesterday he was 'a little upset' after learning of the barrister's conviction by reading about it in the South China Morning Post.

'He told me he was naturally a little embarrassed to reveal the matter to me . . . He thought the conviction wouldn't attract media attention,' Mr Tong said.

Mr Coleman is among nine elected members of the Bar Council - the body appointed to uphold standards of professional conduct and discipline among barristers.

He confirmed last night that he had not offered to resign but had agreed to step down while the investigation takes place.

'As you know, I have agreed pending the usual processes, not to take part in Bar Council and subcommittee deliberations,' he said.

Senior Counsel Ronny Tong SC said Russell Coleman only offered to step down after he broached the matter outside the last meeting of the executive committee.

'I learned on the morning of the Friday and I was a little bit unprepared. When it was revealed in the SCMP, the name was Langley Coleman and I was frantically trying to get hold of him to find out what the position was,' he said. 'I think he quite naively thought the matter wouldn't attract attention.' Mr Coleman was fined $4,000 in Western Court on June 3 for helping his domestic helper work as a caretaker - an offence under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and Immigration Ordinance.

The name on the charge sheet was Langley Coleman, Russell Adam. Mr Coleman is known professionally as Russell Coleman but he said Langley was in the full name on his identity card.

Under association rules, barristers convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty or 'which may bring the profession into disrepute' must report the conviction to the Bar Council.

There have been 12 complaints against barristers lodged so far this year and of those, three were referred to the tribunal - an independent panel of three people who investigate and act as prosecutors if necessary.

(Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/06/lawyer-counsel-barrister-russell-coleman.html)

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) Found to Have Deceived the University of Hong Kong

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) Found to Have Deceived the University of Hong Kong
Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/307891/barrister-barred-deceiving-university

(South China Morning Post, February 12, 2000, Cliff Buddle)

Barrister Barred for Deceiving University

Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.

George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.

The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.

Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.

'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.

'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.

'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.

Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.

He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.

The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.

He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.

Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.

He could not be contacted for comment.
_______________________________________________________________________

Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20060521/5944835

(蘋果日報 2006 年5月21日之報導)

前大狀以堂費扣稅敗訴

曾參選區議會落敗的前執業大律師朱奉慈,早年申請研究生獎學金時,虛報有一級榮譽學士學位,兼違反暫時放棄執業的承諾,被大律師公會裁定違反專業操守,被停牌半年,兼要承擔紀律聆訊的堂費,他指已付堂費可扣稅,獲稅務上訴委員會接納,稅務局長昨在高等法院上訴得直,推翻委員會的決定。

參選區議會兩落敗

涉案堂費共75萬元,00至03年支付予大律師公會,稅務局長評估利得稅後,朱奉慈要求委員會覆核,委員會去年6月接納堂費是可扣除開支,推翻原本的評稅。

法官鍾安德昨頒布判詞,接納稅務局長上訴指,單純與納稅人業務有關的開支,並不足以視為可扣除開支,必須是「用作產生利潤」的開支才可扣稅,委員會犯了法律錯誤,遂恢復原本的評稅。

現年47歲的朱奉慈於94年成為執業大律師,97年向港大申請研究生獎學金時,虛報82年在加拿大一所大學所獲的學士學位屬一級榮譽,又違反向校方的承諾,一邊繼續執業做大律師,一邊領取兩個月約35,000元獎學金,00年經紀律聆訊,被裁定六項指控成立,朱曾於99年及03年參選區議會,均告落敗。 

(Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/06/lawyer-counsel-barrister-george-chu.html)

大律師公會將紀律研訊馬恩國大律師 - Bar Council to Prosecute Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Lawrence Ma for Professional Misconduct

大律師公會將紀律研訊馬恩國大律師 - Bar Council to Prosecute Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Lawrence Ma for Professional Misconduct
Bar Council to Prosecute Barrister Lawrence Ma (Lawyer and Counsel Lawrence Y K Ma) for Professional Misconduct in the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal (BDT) - 大律師公會將紀律研訊馬恩國大律師

http://lawrenceykma.wordpress.com/

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20130218/51269361

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20130718/51568962

2013年7月18日 蘋果日報 即時新聞 (Apple Daily, Instant News, July 18th, 2013)

立法會政制事務委員會今年2月就港府提交《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》報告召開公聽會,民建聯成員、山西政協馬恩國席間與社民連梁國雄在議事廳開火,更以粗口大罵長毛「You are not even a fxxking Chinese!(你都唔×係中國人!)」,社民連黃浩銘隨即去信大律師公會,早前收到回覆,指公會會對馬恩國進行紀律研訊。

當日馬恩國以香港專業人士協會副主席名義出席會議,更自稱:「我係山西省政協,但我係澳洲大律師喎。」黃浩銘認為,馬恩國言論侮辱整個中國群族,有違專業操守,故去信大律師公會投訴年月日蘋果日報即時新聞

黃浩銘續指,馬恩國作為大律師,在公眾場合說粗話已失去其專業形象,更有同業向他反映,認為馬恩國在立法會的態度以大律師自居,態度囂張影衰律師,現時黃浩銘等待研訊結果,並祝馬恩國好運。

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20130718/51569868

2013年7月18日 蘋果日報 即時新聞 (Apple Daily, Instant News, July 18th, 2013)

馬恩國受紀律研訊 - 湯家驊:大狀侮辱別人不能接受

身為執業大律師的民建聯馬恩國 (Barrister Lawrence Ma) 年初在立會爆粗,辱罵政見迥異的社民連梁國雄,社民連黃浩銘早前向大律師公會投訴,不過曾任大律師公會審裁組召集人十多年的公民黨湯家驊表示,相信馬恩國當日表現不致令他除牌,或會被公會譴責。

湯家驊指出,審裁組由一位資深大律師、一位普通大律師,及一位業界以外公眾人士組成聆訊委員會展開聆訊。大律師公會將聘請一律師行轉介的一名大律師作檢控方,提出檢控的罪行相信為「Conduct unbecoming」,即在公眾場所作出不恰當行為,令行業蒙羞:「一般人對大狀期望都係比較講道理,唔會喺公眾場所用一啲粗言污語,去侮辱意見唔同嘅人,唔係可以簡單接受嘅行為。」

http://billsiu.blogspot.hk/2013/07/blog-post_19.html

立會爆粗馬恩國紀律聆訊


【明報專訊】如果讀者好記性,相信都會記得民建聯成員、執業大律師馬恩國 (Counsel, Lawyer and Barrister Lawrence Y K Ma),喺今年2月出席立法會公聽會時,同社民連梁國雄鬧交,當時仲爆出喊出「Bloody Chinese」、「You are not even a fxxking Chinese」等冒犯性字句,事後社民連成員黃浩銘,以及黃毓民議員助理周峻翹,分別去信大律師公會投訴,事隔數月,大律師公會回覆話會展開紀律聆訊。投訴者覺得馬恩國身為大律師,作出粗鄙、帶有歧視及侮辱言論,係嚴重違反公會行為守則等。

話非以「大律師」開會 唔覺失當

馬恩國話,自己已就事件道歉,又話當日係受到挑釁,因此比較情緒化、控制唔到自己講唔應該講嘅嘢,但當日佢唔係以大律師身分開會,唔覺得自己係專業失當。

(19/7/2013 明報)

我以前為馬恩國寫了5篇 (You are not even a fxxxing Chinese :The Fxxxing Barrister 、The Fxxxing Barrister, part II 、The Fxxxing Barrister, part III 、香煙戰爭 及 香煙戰爭續篇),其中The Fxxxing Barrister, part III 講到他違反香港大律師公會專業守則第6(b)條:

6. It is the duty of every barrister
(a) .........

(b) not to engage in conduct (whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise) which is dishonest or which may otherwise bring the profession of barrister into disrepute, or which is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

就算當日並非以大律師身分出席立法會,罵「長毛」時卻一再強調自己是「大」律師,很明顯使大律師行業蒙羞,現在又要死撐,分割這一度使他自滿得頭昏腦脹的驕人身分。可能他看漏了眼,香港大律師公會專業守則第6(b)條包含(whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise)等字眼,不管你當時是否行使大律師的身分,同樣受約束。偷女人內衣的另一位馬大律師,犯案時也不是帶着假髮穿着律師袍,那他就不用受處分嗎?事實上他沒有受處分,因為他自動除名。馬恩國大律師 (Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Lawrence Ma) 藉此開脫,休想!另外,他又講當日受到挑釁(provoke),因此比較情緒化。好心喇,provocation只是求情理由,provocation 用作抗辯,只可以在謀殺罪應用,温下書喇大律師。

(Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/07/lawrencema.html)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)

Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html

http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/

Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU

Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–

Nazareth VP: -

The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.

(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal