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)

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)

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.