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)
2013年9月30日 星期一
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)
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...
... a reading of the minutes demonstrates to my mind that Mr Peter Davies was being very conservative with the truth...
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)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
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
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
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)
123. Stock VP pointed out that:
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:
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]“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]
124. His Lordship continued:“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]
“...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)
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)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=16084089&extra=page%3D9)
.jpg)
.jpg)
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)
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
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
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。
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 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...
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:
| ||||||||
| 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)
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
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
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。
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。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)