2015年9月19日 星期六

梁禮浩大律師陳詞「荒謬,無稽之談」- Submissions of Counsel Lawyer Barrister Lawton Leung "Absurd" - Said the Court of Appeal

Submissions of Lawyer Counsel Barrister Lawton Leung "Absurd" - Said the Court of Appeal (梁禮浩大律師陳詞「荒謬,無稽之談」)

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150919/19301806?_ga=1.228426584.45408766.1403351119

代表大律師梁禮浩陳詞指,上訴人沒意圖促使他人賣淫,案發時只想「試鐘」滿足私慾,又指如果兩名卧底有想做妓女的可能性,便不構成上訴人促使他人賣淫。上訴庭副庭長楊振權聽罷即提出質疑,惟梁仍堅稱「唔可以排除任何可能性」。楊官皺眉回應稱:「荒謬,可能性都係荒謬!」又着梁不用再闡述此上訴理據。楊官裁定梁指卧底女警或想當妓女的說法是「無稽之談」,認為上訴人犯案時唯一目的就是希望女警接客,所作所為已構成促使二字,遂駁回上訴申請。

案件編號:CACC17/15    

2015年9月15日 星期二

謝錦浩律師專業失當罪成 - Lawyer Solicitor Tse Kam Ho Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Lawyer Solicitor Tse Kam Ho Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 謝錦浩律師專業失當罪成

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=3119&c=121

Hearing Dates: 4 and 5 June 2014 Findings and Order:  13 August 2014

Having considered the affidavit filed by the Law Society and the exhibits thereto and given the admission of the Respondent to the First to Fourth Complaints and the Respondent’s Agreed Facts, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the Respondent guilty of First to Fourth Complaints.

The Complaints laid against the Respondent were as follows:

First Complaint

Between 1 April 2007 and 31 December 2009, whilst the Respondent was the sole proprietor of Messrs. Tse and Associates (the “Firm”), he breached Rule 10(1) and (2) of the SAR in that despite repeated warnings by the Law Society, the Respondent had failed to keep properly written up books and accounts. The books and accounts kept by the Firm were not complete and failed to:

i) show all dealings with clients’ money held, received or paid by the Respondent and any other money dealt with by the Respondent through a client account; and

ii) to distinguish such money held, received or paid by the Respondent on any other account.
All these dealings should have been recorded in the books and accounts within three working days after the date of such dealings.

Second Complaint

Between 1 April 2007 and 31 December 2009 (or within such shorter period or periods during these years), the Respondent failed to provide any monthly reconciliation statements of client accounts and listing of client ledger balances in accordance with Rule 10A of the SAR.

Third Complaint

The Respondent and the Firm, breached Rule 5B(1) and (2) of the SPR and Rule 11(1) and (2) of the SAR, in that the Respondent had failed to produce such books of account, bank passbooks, bank statements, statements of account, vouchers every three months for the period of two years between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2009 as required by the Law Society in pursuance of its resolution recorded in its letter dated 31 January 2008.

Fourth Complaint

The Respondent breached Rule 2(d) of the SPR in that he had persistently failed to maintain proper accounting documents and records over a substantial period of time and ignored the requests and warnings made by the Law Society in respect of the provision of accounting documents and such conduct was unbefitting of a solicitor under the common law.

The Tribunal, having considered the Respondent’s submissions in mitigation, ordered, inter alia, that:

(1) In respect of the First Complaint, the Respondent be fined HK$25,000;

(2) In respect of the Second Complaint, the Respondent be fined HK$15,000;

(3) In respect of the Third Complaint, the Respondent be:
(i) censured;
(ii) fined HK$40,000; and
(iii) suspended from practice as a solicitor for a period of one year, and after the said period of one year, the Respondent be allowed to practise only as an assistant solicitor, but not as a sole proprietor or partner, for a period of three years under the supervision of a solicitor of not less than ten years’ good standing;

(4) In respect of the Fourth Complaint, the Respondent be:
(i) censured;
(ii) fined HK$50,000; and
(iii) suspended from practice as a solicitor for a period of one year, and after the said period of one year, the Respondent be allowed to practise only as an assistant solicitor, but not as a sole proprietor or partner, for a period of three years under the supervision of a solicitor of not less than ten years’ good standing.
For the Third and Fourth Complaints, where periods of suspension from practice are imposed, such periods shall run concurrently (which shall result in a suspension for a total period of 12 months).

(5) The Respondent shall over the period of 36 months commencing from the date of his suspension, enrol in courses amounting to no less than 20 RME points related to the practice of solicitor’s accounts under the Compulsory Professional Development programme run by the Law Society; this sentence imposed upon the Respondent is in addition to the yearly RME requirements that the Respondent has to comply with; written approval shall be sought from the Law Society as to whether any course fits the purpose of the Tribunal’s Order dated 13 August 2014 and permission for which, from the Law Society shall not be unreasonably refused. Provided always that no less than six such points must be earned within the period of 12 months commencing from the date of his suspension; and no less than 14 such points must have been earned within 24 months commencing from the date of his suspension;

(6) The Respondent is to pay the fine above totalling HK$130,000 by monthly instalments with the first instalment of HK$10,000 to be paid on or before 31 August 2014 and the balance of HK$120,000 by 12 monthly instalments of HK$10,000 each to be paid on or before the last day of each month thereafter; and

(7) The Respondent shall pay the costs of the Law Society of these proceedings, and the costs of the Tribunal’s clerk, to be taxed if not agreed on an indemnity basis.
_______________

聆訊日期: 2014年6月4日及5日 裁斷及命令:  2014年8月13日

律師紀律審裁組(下稱「審裁組」)經考慮律師會送交存檔的誓章和所附證物後,基於答辯人承認第一至第四項申訴內容屬實及他的同意事實書,裁定答辯人犯了第一至第四項申訴所指的違規事項。

針對答辯人提出的申訴如下:

第一項申訴

答辯人於2007年4月1日至2009年12月31日期間,他是謝錦1762.jpg律師事務所(「律師行」)的獨營執業者之時,雖然被律師會三番四次警告,但仍不備存妥為詳細記敘的簿冊和帳目,違反了《律師帳目規則》(第159F章)(「《帳目規則》」)第10(1)及(2)條的規定。由律師行備存的簿冊和帳目均不完整及沒有:

i) 顯示答辯人就他所持有、收取或支付的當事人款項,以及他經由當事人帳戶處理的任何其他款項所作出的所有交易;及
ii) 將上述由答辯人持有、收取或支付的款項與他為任何其他帳戶所持有、收取或支付的款項區分。
上述所有交易都須在交易的日期後三個工作天內記錄在簿冊和帳目之內。

第二項申訴

答辯人在2007年4月1日至2009年12月31日期間(或在這兩年多裡的一段或多段較短期間)沒有按照《帳目規則》第10A條的規定提供當事人帳戶的每月對帳表及列出當事人分類帳結餘的清單。

第三項申訴

根據律師會在其日期為2008年1月31日的信函中所記錄的律師會決議案,律師會要求答辯人於2008年1月1日至2009年12月31日兩年間,每三個月出示一次他的帳簿、銀行存摺簿、銀行結單、帳目報表、付款憑單,但答辯人沒有如此辦,答辯人及律師行因而違反了《律師執業規則》(「《執業規則》」)第5B(1)及(2)條的規定,以及《帳目規則》第11(1)及(2)條的規定。

第四項申訴

答辯人長時間經常不備存妥善的會計文件和記錄,無視律師會要求他提供會計文件及其後就此發出的警告,違反《執業規則》第2(d)條的規定,而且根據普通法,答辯人作出了不合乎律師身分的行為。

審裁組經考慮答辯人的求情陳詞後作出命令,其中包括:

(1) 就第一項申訴,命令答辯人支付罰款港幣25,000元;

(2) 就第二項申訴,命令答辯人支付罰款港幣15,000元;

(3) 就第三項申訴,命令:
(i) 譴責答辯人;
(ii) 答辯人支付罰款港幣40,000元;及
(iii) 暫時吊銷答辯人的律師執業資格一年,一年完結後,答辯人三年內不得出任獨營執業者或合夥人,只可在具有不少於10年良好資歷的律師的監督下從事助理律師工作;

(4) 就第四項申訴,命令:
(i) 譴責答辯人;
(ii) 答辯人支付罰款港幣50,000元;及
(iii) 暫時吊銷答辯人的律師執業資格一年,一年完結後,答辯人三年內不得出任獨營執業者或合夥人,只可在具有不少於10年良好資歷的律師的監督下從事助理律師工作。
就第三和第四項申訴分別判處的暫時吊銷執業資格將同期執行(因此暫時吊銷執業資格共12個月)。

(5) 答辯人在被暫時吊銷執業資格之日起計36個月期間,須報讀由律師會在強制性專業進修計劃下開設,且與執業律師帳戶有關的風險管理教育課程,修畢不少於20個學分;這20個學分,是答辯人除了遵照規定每年修讀風險管理教育課程所取得的學分以外,被判處必須額外取得的學分;就審裁組2014年8月13日的頒令的目的而言,其他課程是否合用,須經律師會書面批准予以確定;律師會不得無理拒絕給予批准。但答辯人必須在被暫時吊銷執業資格之日起12個月內,修畢不少於6個學分;在被暫時吊銷執業資格之日起24個月內,修畢不少於14個學分;

(6) 上述罰款合共為港幣130,000元,答辯人須以分期方式繳付,2014年8月31日或之前繳付首期款額港幣10,000元,餘額港幣120,000元分12個月每月最後一天或之前繳付港幣10,000元;及

(7) 答辯人須支付紀律程序費用中律師會的費用,以及審裁組書記費用;如雙方未能就費用金額達成協議,按彌償基準評定。

Lawayer Solicitor Wan Hok Wai Henry Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 尹學偉律師專業失當罪成

律師尹學偉專業失當罪成 - Lawyer Solicitor Henry Wan Guilty of Professional Misconduct

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=3120&c=121

Hearing Dates: 6 and 7 February 2012 Statement of Findings: 6 June 2013 Reasons and Order: 17 January 2014

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the following two complaints proved after hearings held on 6 and 7 February 2012 respectively:

First Complaint

Breach of Principle 6.01 of the Guide and Rule 2(a), (c) and (e) of the SPR while acting for a Mr. Chan (“Chan”) and a Madam Ma (“Ma”) in the proposed assignment between them concerning their jointly owned property (the “Property”) which was part of a development of the Hong Kong Housing Authority under the Home Ownership Scheme by:-

(i) procuring Chan and Ma to execute the Deed of Assignment (the “Deed of Assignment”) before approval from the HKHA had been obtained, and arranging for the registration of the Deed of Assignment when the Respondent must have known that the Deed of Assignment was void;

(ii) swapping the pages of the Deed of Assignment so that it incorporated the HKHA’s amendments and attached the execution page containing Chan’s and Ma’s signatures; and

(iii) acting dishonestly or fraudulently in connection with the execution of the Approval Letter and the Deed of Assignment by arranging for Chan’s father (the “Claimant”) to sign the docket to the Approval Letter when the Respondent must have been aware that he was breaching the undertaking to the HKHA which required the Approval Letter to be signed by the Assignee Chan.

Second Complaint

Breach of Principle 13.01 of the Guide and Rule 2(a) of the SPR by concealing or failing to disclose to the Hong Kong Solicitors Indemnity Fund Limited that as part of the Respondent’s proposed settlement with the Claimant, the Respondent would obtain a personal interest in the Property.

On 17 January 2014, the Tribunal ordered:

(a) That in relation to the First Complaint, the Respondent be fined HK$40,000.
(b) That in relation to the Second Complaint, the Respondent be fined HK$80,000.
(c) That the Respondent bears and pays for:
i. the costs of the Clerk, which are summarily assessed and allowed at HK$115,000; and
ii. the costs of the Law Society in its investigation into the matter and the costs of the solicitor for the Law Society, to be taxed if not agreed.

On 2 April 2015, the Court of Appeal held that:-

(1) The Respondent’s appeal in CACV 20/2014 be allowed. The decision of the Tribunal in respect of the Second Complaint be set aside and be dismissed, and the Law Society to pay 85 percent of the costs of the Solicitor in this appeal.

(2) The appeal by the Law Society in CACV 78/2014 be allowed. The penalty imposed by the Tribunal in respect of the First Complaint be set aside, and the appropriate penalty should be a suspension for two years with the condition that when the Solicitor (the Respondent) resumes practice after the suspension, he is prohibited from practising as a sole proprietor or partner or manager of a solicitors firm until the Law Society is satisfied that he is fit to do so. The Solicitor (the Respondent) shall pay the Law Society’s costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.

On 30 April 2015, the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in CACV 78/2014.  On 10 July 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondent’s Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal with costs to the Law Society assessed at HK$60,000.
________________________

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=3120&c=121

聆訊日期: 2012年2月6日及7日 裁斷陳述書: 2013年6月6日 理由及命令: 2014年1月17日

律師紀律審裁組(「審裁組」)分別於2012年2月6日及7日聆訊本案,經兩日聆訊後裁定,事實證明以下兩項申訴成立:

第一項申訴

陳先生(下稱「陳」)與馬女士(下稱「馬」)是香港房屋委員會(下稱「房委會」)居者有其屋計劃下某單位(下稱「該單位」)的聯名業主;答辯人在馬擬將業權轉讓陳的交易中代表二人行事時:

(i) 在上述轉讓取得房委會批准之前,促致陳和馬簽立轉讓契據(下稱「該轉讓契據」),並安排註冊該轉讓契據,但其時答辯人一定知道該轉讓契據是無效的;
(ii) 對調該轉讓契據內頁,使得房委會的修訂成為該轉讓契據的一部分,但保留載有陳和馬的簽名的簽名頁;及
(iii) 就「批准信」和該轉讓契據的執行,安排陳的父親 (「申索人」)在「批准信」上加簽,是不誠實地或欺詐地行事;按照房委會的規定,「批准信」須由陳 (承讓人)簽署,答辯人其時一知道自己正違反房委會這項規定;

因而違反《指引》原則6.01以及《執業規則》第2(a)、(c)及(e)條的規定。

第二項申訴

答辯人隱暪香港律師彌償基金有限公司或沒有向香港律師彌償基金有限公司披露,他曾向申索人提出他個人會獲得關乎該單位的利益的和解建議,因而違反《指引》原則13.01以及《執業規則》第2(a)條的規定。

2014年1月17日,審裁組:

(a) 就第一項申訴,命令答辯人支付罰款港幣40,000元。
(b) 就第二項申訴,命令答辯人支付罰款港幣80,000元。
(c) 命令答辯人承擔及支付:
(i) 循簡易程序評定及獲准予的書記費用港幣115,000元;及
(ii) 律師會調查案件的費用和律師會的律師費用,如雙方未能就金額達成協議,則須交由法院評定。

2015年4月2日,上訴法庭裁定:

(1) 答辯人在CACV 20/2014上訴得直。審裁組有關第二申訴的判決被擱置及撤銷,律師會須支付涉案律師在這宗上訴案中的訟費的85%。

(2) 律師會在CACV 78/2014上訴得直。審裁組就第一項申訴判處的懲罰作廢,合適的懲罰應是暫時吊銷律師執業資格兩年,涉案律師(答辯人)在兩年結束後恢復執業的條件是,他不得以律師行獨營執業者或合夥人或主管的身份執業,直至律師會相信他適合以這些身份執業為止。涉案律師(答辯人)須支付律師會的上訴訟費,如雙方未能就金額達成協議,則須交由法院評定。

2015年4月30日,答辯人針對上訴法庭在CACV 78/2014的判決,呈交申請向終審法院上訴的許可的動議通知書。2015年7月10日,上訴法庭駁回答辯人申請向終審法院上訴的許可的動議,評定為港幣60,000元的訟費歸予律師會。

2015年9月3日 星期四

Judge Zervos Lodged a Formal Complaint Against Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland

Judge Zervos Lodged a Formal Complaint Against Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland

http://newsofhksar.blogspot.hk/2015/07/letter-of-complaint-from-judge-zervos-to-the-hong-kong-bar-association-concerning-lawyer-counsel-barrister-mark-sutherland.html
 
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=99602&currpage=T

HCMA 685/2013 and HCMA 425/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 685 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC NO 4933 OF 2012)
________________________
BETWEEN
 HKSARRespondent
and
 HARJANI, KISHORE MOHANLALAppellant
_______________________
 
AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 425 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC NO 4933 OF 2012)
________________________
BETWEEN
 HKSARRespondent
and
 MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLANDAppellant
 
________________________
 
Before: Hon Zervos J in Chambers
 


Date of Hearing: 27 July 2015
Date of Decision: 27 July 2015

________________________
D E C I S I O N
________________________
 
1.  This is a directions hearing in relation to two magistracy appeals in order to consider an application to consolidate the two appeals and transfer them to the Court of Appeal for determination.

2.  HCMA 685/2013 is an appeal by the defendant against his conviction of indecent assault where he alleges that he was incompetently and improperly represented by counsel and HCMA 425/2014 is an appeal by the counsel of a wasted costs order of $180,000 imposed upon him by the magistrate who conducted the trial of the defendant.  There are also two additional applications by counsel.  One is for an anonymity order of the name of counsel involved in both of the appeals and the other is for my recusal from the directions hearing and any subsequent hearings of both appeals.

3.  It is necessary that I provide a brief description of the two appeals so as to put the matters under consideration in their proper context.

4.  The appellant in HCMA 685/2013 was convicted of indecent assault after trial on 30 September 2013 and was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.  It was alleged against the appellant that while watching a film in a picture theatre he indecently assaulted a woman who was sitting in the adjoining seat to him by touching her thigh with his hand.  The trial lasted 17 days with 4 earlier appearances which included 2 pre-trial reviews.  The major complaint in the appeal concerns the conduct of counsel who had the carriage of the case on behalf of the defendant. It is submitted that this was a straightforward and simple case that should have taken no more than a day to be heard.  It is alleged that the length of the proceedings was created by counsel’s conduct, including his cross examination (by its prolixity and repetitiveness) and by the introduction of numerous irrelevancies.

5.  This brief description of the case gives the basis of the grounds of appeal against conviction where it is claimed that the appellant was denied a fair trial by the serious improper conduct of his counsel; by counsel acting, or appearing to act, in his own self-interest rather than in the best interests of the appellant; by counsel’s attitude towards and/or the counsel’s statements and/or responses to the magistrate; and by counsel’s prolix, irresponsible, absurd and/or frivolous cross-examination of the complainant.  I will refer to the appellant in this appeal as to the appellant/defendant.

6.  The appellant in HCMA 425/2014 is the counsel who represented the appellant/defendant who appeals a wasted costs order imposed upon him by the magistrate on 30 June 2014 under section 18 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Cap 492, following a hearing on 22 and 23 April 2014.  The appeal is brought under section 19 of the Ordinance and the sole ground of appeal is that the magistrate erred in making the wasted costs order because there was no basis in either law and/or fact for such an order.  I will refer to the appellant in this appeal as the appellant/counsel.

7.  On 14 May 2015, Mr Gerard McCoy, SC, (who appears with Mr Richard Donald and Ms Chrystal Choy) for the appellant/defendant, in a memorandum to the court sought directions for the two appeals to be consolidated and for them to be listed in the Court of First Instance for a transfer application under section 118(1)(d) of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227.  On the following day, Lunn VP directed that the two appeals be heard together before me for directions on 27 July 2015.

8.  On 8 June 2015, I granted an order for the provision of transcript as requested by the appellant/defendant and at the same time I gave directions to the parties in both appeals in relation to the filing and serving of any written submissions and authorities for the directions hearing.

9.  On 10 July 2015, the solicitors for the appellant/counsel by way of two letters made an ex parte application for an anonymity order in respect of the appellant/counsel in relation to the directions hearing and all and any subsequent hearings, and for my recusal from the directions hearing and any subsequent hearings for both appeals.

10.  There were two grounds in support of the recusal application.  The first ground was that at the date at which the prosecution indicated that it would apply for a wasted costs order against the appellant/counsel on 9 July 2013, I was the Director of Public Prosecutions and would have therefore approved, either directly or indirectly, the making of the application.  The second ground was that I had submitted a letter of complaint to the Hong Kong Bar Association dated 4 February 2015, concerning the professional conduct of the appellant/counsel in the context of another case.
____________________________________________

What was the letter of complaint from Judge Zervos to the Hong Kong Bar Association concerning Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland about?  What did Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland allegedly do?

區玉麟律師專業失當罪成 - Lawyer Solicitor Anthony Au (Au Yuk Lun) Guilty of Professional Misconduct

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=1821&c=121

Lawyer Solicitor Anthony Au (Au Yuk Lun) Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Hearing date:  22 - 23 August 2011 and 27 February 2012
Findings:   12 December 2011
Order:   7 March 2012

The Complaint
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found the following complaint against the Respondent proved:

Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent failed to give prompt and satisfactory explanations or replies to the Law Society’s enquires by its letters of 13 January 2009, 5 February 2009, 20 February 2009, 17 August 2009 and 23 September 2009 concerning the Respondent’s professional conduct or to explain his conduct when required to do so by the Law Society.

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=1821&c=121

區玉麟律師專業失當罪成

聆訊日期:2011年8月22 -23日及2012年2月27日
裁決: 2011年12月12日
頒令: 2012年3月7日

投訴
律師紀律審裁組(下稱「審裁組」)裁定以下針對答辯人的投訴成立:

違反《操守指引》「第6.04項原則」,理由是答辯人未能就律師會所發出的,日期分別為2009年1月13日、2009年2月5日、2009年2月20日、2009年8月17日及2009年9月23日的各函件,當中就答辯人的專業操守所作的查詢,給予迅速而令人滿意的解釋,或是給予律師會答覆﹔或是在律師會提出有關要求時,就其行為作出解釋。

Lawyer Solicitor Lee Siu Hong (Hong Lee) Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 李紹康律師專業失當罪成

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=2910&c=121

Lawyer Solicitor Lee Siu Hong (Hong Lee) Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Hearing Date: 1 December 2011 and 13 June 2012
Findings of Facts: 5 March 2012
Order: 8 August 2012

On 1 December 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) heard both the Applicant’s case and the Respondent’s defence. The Respondent denied the complaint against him. On 5March 2012, the Tribunal found that the complaint had been proved and that the Respondent, being the sole practitioner and principal of Messrs. Hong Lee & Co., was in breach of Principles 12.04 and 12.05 of the Guide in that he, in the absence of reasonable excuse, refused and/or failed to pay barrister’s fees within 2 months from the submission of a fee note.

On 8 August 2012, the Tribunal ordered that:

a) the Respondent be censured and be fined HK$100,000; and
b) the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the Law Society, the Prosecutor and the Clerk to the Tribunal, be paid by the Respondent, to be taxed on party-and-party basis, if not agreed.

[The Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal dated 27 August 2012 (CACV 188/2012).
On 28 February 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondent’s appeal with costs of the appeal to the Law Society to be taxed if not agreed. On 28 May 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondent’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal with costs to the Law Society. On 13 April 2015, the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the Respondent’s application for leave to appeal (FAMV 36/2014) with no order as to costs.]

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=2910&c=121

李紹康律師專業失當罪成

聆訊日期: 2011年12月1日及2012年6月13日
事實裁斷: 2012年3月5日
命令: 2012年8月8日

2011年12月1日,律師紀律審裁組(「審裁組」)一併聆訊申請人的案情和答辯人的抗辯。答辯人否認針對他作出的申訴。審裁組於2012年3月5日裁定,事實證明是項申訴成立,答辯人,即李紹康律師行的獨營執業者兼負責人,在沒有合理辯解的情況下拒絕及∕或未有在大律師提交收費單後兩個月內繳付大律師的費用,違反了《指引》原則12.04及12.05。

2012年8月8日,審裁組命令:

a) 對答辯人予以譴責及罰款港幣100,000元;及
b) 包括律師會的費用、檢控人員的費用及審裁組書記的費用在內的紀律程序費用由答辯人繳付,如雙方未能就費用金額達成協議,按訴訟各方對評基準評定。

[答辯人提交了一份日期為2012年8月27日的上訴通知(CACV 188/2012)。 2014年2月28日,上訴法庭駁回答辯人的上訴,訟費歸予律師會,如雙方未能就金額達成協議,訟費由法院評定;答辯人向上訴法庭申請向終審法院提出上訴的上訴許可,上訴法庭於2014年5月28日駁回答辯人的申請,訟費歸予律師會。答辯人向終審法院申請上訴許可,終審法院上訴委員會於2015年4月13日駁回答辯人的申請(FAMV 36/2014),沒有作出訟費令。]

2015年7月20日 星期一

黃汝榮判辭屢遭上級批評 - Magistrate Symon Wong's Verdicts Get Criticised Repeatedly

http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E9%BB%83%E6%B1%9D%E6%A6%AE%E5%88%A4%E8%BE%AD%E5%B1%A2%E9%81%AD%E4%B8%8A%E7%B4%9A%E6%89%B9%E8%A9%95/web_tc/article/20150720/s00001/1437328630713

【明報專訊】裁判官黃汝榮現年60歲,他於1990年在英國威爾斯大學取得法學士學位,兩年後於香港大學取得法學專業證書,其後一直私人執業,2001年獲委任為裁判官,現時在東區裁判法院任職。黃汝榮曾審理著名練馬師簡炳墀於上水鄉事委員會選舉的賄選案、有「小辣椒」之稱的社運人士嚴敏華襲警案,以及音樂人周啟生獨留兒子在家案等。
指偷竊犯自辯怪誕愚昧 被批偏激

黃汝榮在庭上言行不時惹起爭議,甚至被上級法官批評。例如2007年他審理偷竊羅漢松案時,形容被告的自辯屬「靈魂之說,怪誕愚昧」、「露骨無比,幼稚難耐」,批評有關證供「就像替文章起了題目,內容卻空無一物」,當時的上訴庭法官張澤祐直言,「從沒有在近代法官所撰寫的判決書中,看見過如此偏激、嘲諷及含侮辱成分的用詞」。

非禮案判辭 高院批花巧欠莊重

黃汝榮於2006年裁定一名被告非禮罪成,他在判決書中形容事主女童不可能說謊,因為她「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」,相反他批評被告「敲鑼擊鼓,高調地反覆強調」其清白,但被控方盤問後, 「整條狐狸尾巴, 已展露無遺」。當時負責處理上訴的高院法官湯寶臣雖然維持原判,但批評黃官的判決書應該「重理性分析而不重花巧」,認為黃官「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」。

此外,黃官於2002年曾以控方證人身分,為一宗律師行文員涉意圖妨礙司法公正案作供,他曾被辯方指他曾與該文員到澳門新花城夜總會消遣,並叫了4名「小姐」,但黃只承認曾到夜總會。