Dr Christopher Tong Yung Man Guilty of Professional Misconduct For Improperly Touching the Breasts and Private Parts of Five Female Patients

SCMP (Monday, 5 November, 2012)

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1075109/doctor-banned-medical-council-secret-photos-women-patients

Dr Christopher Tong Yung Man was found guilty of professional misconduct and permanently deregistered after he secretly took pictures of six women patients and improperly touched the breasts and private parts of five of them.

Dr Christopher Tong Yung Man, 33, was convicted on 11 counts of failing to meet the professional standard for medical practitioners.  The council described Dr Christopher Tong Yung Man, as "scandalous and unethical" after he was found to have several cameras in his Tai Wai clinic.

A total of 34 photos and seven videos of six patients taken in 2007 and 2008 were found.

Dr Allan So Cheuk Wai Found Guilty of Molesting Three Nurses at a Public Hospital.

SCMP (Saturday, 24 November, 2012)

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1089415/doctor-jailed-16-weeks-molesting-three-nurses

Dr Allan So Cheuk Wai was yesterday sentenced to 16 weeks in jail after he was found guilty of molesting three nurses at a public hospital.

Magistrate Ko Wai-hung sentenced neurosurgeon Dr Allan So Cheuk Wai, 36, in Kowloon City Court, for his conviction on three counts of indecent assault and two counts of committing an act outraging public decency.

The court previously heard that Dr Allan So Cheuk Wai molested three nurses, aged between 27 and 41, and exposed himself on various occasions between January 2010 and June last year. One victim said Dr Allan So Cheuk Wai approached her from behind at a nursing station and pressed his genitals against her hand. He was fully dressed at the time. Another victim said Dr Allan So Cheuk Wai, who is married, exposed his pubic hair and penis to her while she was showing him how to use a safety pin to secure his loose trousers.

The judge said an immediate custodial sentence was "the only option" because the offences were serious and Dr Allan So Cheuk Wai showed "no remorse" - insisting on his innocence throughout the trial.

Dr Tsoi Wing Sang Guilty of Professional Misconduct

SCMP (Monday 3 June, 2013)

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1252227/doctor-guilty-over-sexual-remarks

Asking a female patient to pose like a dog that's urinating, and telling her to find herself a man: those were requests made by a doctor that have now landed him in hot water.

Dr Tsoi Wing-sang was found guilty by the Medical Council yesterday of professional misconduct after a 41-year-old former school teacher, known as Ms A, accused him of sexually harassing her.

He was found guilty on two charges - one of making statements of a sexual nature, and another of asking a patient to perform unnecessary postures under the pretext of treatment.

Tsoi was removed from the council's registry for 12 months, but the penalty was suspended for three years. It means he will be able to continue practising unless convicted again within the next three years.

"I was in a short skirt and he asked me to put my left hand up and bend my left leg back, like a dog peeing," said the teacher, imitating the pose at the disciplinary hearing.

The incident took place on May 8 last year, when Ms A was seeking treatment for the flu, rhinitis and insomnia.

"Oh, Ms A, you're so hot, you should get married and go hook up with a man as soon as possible," he reportedly suggested as a way to relieve the insomnia.

Tsoi repeatedly told the council that the insomnia had been caused by Ms A's negative thoughts and depression, but did not present any evidence supporting such a diagnosis when pressed during the hearing.

This is the third time Tsoi has been disciplined by the council in his 20-year career. In 2004 he was found guilty of presenting false credentials, and in 2006 he was handed a warning after failing to disclose a criminal conviction. He had failed to keep a proper register of dangerous drugs.

Tsoi's practice is currently based in To Kwa Wan, eastern kowloon.

Joseph Lau Wan-yee, chairman of the council, said this was the first conviction for verbal abuse. "We have to send a clear message to the public that we will not tolerate this kind of obscene remark," he said.

When asked whether the sentencing was too lenient, Lau said the council had taken into account past sentencing for sexual misconduct by the Medical Council in making their decision. Tsoi denied making any comments of a sexual nature, but admitted he had jokingly told Ms A to get married to a rich man and move to the Mid-Levels to cure her insomnia and rhinitis.

Tsoi had filed a writ with the High Court against Ms A in March, saying she had defamed him with malicious intent by accusing him of sexual harassment, but he later told the council it had been a misunderstanding. A legal officer accused Tsoi of making "contradictory" statements and being inconsistent with his facts.

Dr Barry Tsang Ka Hung Guilty of Professional Misconduct for Having Sex With a Woman Patient

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1194137/doctor-guilty-sex-patient

(SCMP, Tuesday, 19 March, 2013)

Dr Barry Tsang Ka Hung has been found guilty of three charges of professional misconduct for selling insurance to and having sex with a woman patient, the Medical Council announced last night.

The professional ruling body has yet to decide the penalty for Dr Barry Tsang Ka Hung, 42, who could be permanently deregistered as a doctor.

Dr Barry Tsang Ka Hung was seen shaking his head and sighing when the ruling was announced.

Dr Barry Tsang Ka Hung, who has practised privately since graduating from Chinese University medical school in 1994, had sold the woman insurance after saying that he had money problems, the disciplinary inquiry was earlier told.

He denied the allegations.

In the initial hearing in January, the patient claimed she and Tsang had sex twice in his clinic and three times in guest houses in 2009.

The patient said earlier she and Tsang were lovers from February to October 2009, during which time she was also seeing him as a doctor.

They split after Tsang told her he was getting back with his wife. She said Tsang had told her he was divorced and had shown her what he claimed was a copy of his divorce papers.

In October 2009, she tested positive for human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes genital warts. She later said she was not accusing the doctor of giving her HPV, only that there was a possibility he had done so.

The woman also said she had bought insurance to help Tsang after he said he was in financial difficulties in 2008 and 2009.

In February 2011 Tsang was found guilty in Kwun Tong Court of cheating the Department of Health out of HK$960 with false claims that he had given influenza vaccinations to four elderly people in 2009. He was sentenced to 120 hours of community service.

前聯合醫院精神科醫生羅文友與女病人性交永久釘牌 - Former United Hospital Psychiatrist Dr Law Man Yau Banned for Life for Having Sex with a Female Patient

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20090502/00176_033.html

前聯合醫院醫生羅文友涉嫌不正當親近五名女病人的案件，醫務委員會昨日達成裁決，涉及羅的十五項指控中，共有十項指控裁定成立，包括羅被指與精神科女病人A發展不恰當關係，他也因此而被重判極刑即無限期停牌。醫委會主席麥列菲菲狠斥羅濫用精神科病人對醫生的依賴，在病者身上「攞便宜」，更與有關病人發生性關係，是難以接受，故委員一致認為必須處以極刑。今次亦是首次有醫生因與病人發生性關係而遭無限期停牌。

這宗審訊期長達五個多月的案件，終以羅文友被判無限期「釘牌」終結。現年近六十歲的羅文友，原任職聯合醫院精神科醫生，被控以十五項專業失德，醫委會昨裁定其中十項指控成立（見表），包括與女精神病人A發生不恰當個人關係，亦因此被判處無限期停牌，醫委會同時建議被告十年內不得申請復牌；至於向病人處方危險藥物但未有妥善記錄及私下保存病人退回藥物等三項控罪，則分別被判處停牌一個月及三個月，而擅取病人病歷及與女精神病人A有不適當接觸的指控則被予以譴責。

灣仔告士打道解款車跌錢事件中負責押運鈔票的解款公司G4S今日再致歉

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20141225/bkn-20141225184154856-1225_00822_001.html?eventsection=hk_news&eventid=4028828d4a52711d014a7b04c4d16b6f

灣仔告士打道解款車跌錢事件中，負責押運鈔票的解款公司G4S今日再發表聲明，對中銀香港造成的影響及對廣大市民帶來不便致歉，又指公司會按合約內容，處理日後與中銀香港相關的索償事宜。 G4S表示，事發時負責押運款項的3名解款員已被停職；解款車現正被扣留，公司會全力配合警方調查，並承諾會即時作出調整措施，避免類似事件再次發生。

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20141225/18981018

香港安全押運服務有限公司G4S一輛押款車，在灣仔告士打道時「離奇」跌錢，導致眾人撲出馬路搶走1,523萬元現金事件。警方認為事件實屬罕見兼且充滿疑點，當中包括解款員在車上的位置，以及錢箱為何會從車身側門跌出？灣仔警區重案組探員接手調查案件，案發後前往G4S位於長沙灣總部調查，了解該公司的押款程序。

解款員坐車位置有異

昨天下午，重案組探員前往G4S位於青山道481號總部，向肇事解款車車長及三名解款員錄取口供。消息透露，探員初步質疑為何部份以保險紙條帶緊纏的全新500元現鈔，由解款車跌出路面後，竟然「一跌即散」，復隨風飄散至馬路，鈔票的包裝是否出現問題？押送過程中有無被移動過。

警方調查的另一重點是，根據一般情況，解款車上包括司機在內的四名解款員，其中一至兩位持槍解款員需乘坐車廂側門位置，並在側門上落，但今次事件中，四名解款員全部坐在車頭，而錢箱則從側門跌出馬路。警方會了解押送程序及保安措施是否出現問題，過程中是否有其他人參與。

灣仔警區助理指揮官（刑事）溫兆雄警司表示，肇事解款車當時押運30箱，全是500元面額鈔票的塑膠錢箱，部份錢箱的現金總值1,500萬至1,700萬元。

警方除呼籲取走鈔票人士盡快將現金交還外，並會調查是否牽涉人為疏忽或刑事成份，溫表示，由於大部份失去的現金為簇新鈔票，警方會根據鈔票的編號追查失款下落。另一方面，警方亦會根據現場一帶閉路電視畫面紀錄，追查牽涉今次「搶錢」事件的人士及車輛。

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20141225/18980859

路有財物，你會否俯身執拾？有律師提醒市民，在街上執到財物並且據為己有，可能會觸犯盜竊罪，即使犯案人士事後離開香港，本港警方仍可以向其他國家或地區提供涉案人資料，要求當地執法部門協助追查。

事後離港仍犯法

律師接受訪問時表示，市民在街上執到屬於他人擁有及具有價值的財物，例如現金等，沒有將財物交予警方反而擅自據為己有，其行為等同拾遺不報，有可能已觸犯盜竊罪，一旦罪名成立，最高刑期是判監10年。「因為呢啲財物根本就唔係屬於佢哋（執拾者）。財物擁有人如果表明唔要或者將財物丟去垃圾站，咁嘅情況去執就唔算有罪，未必觸犯到法律」。

對於有網民拍到有疑似內地旅行團，昨日在灣仔告士打道執拾解款車跌下的現金並迅速離開現場，律師稱，如果執到財物及據為己有的並非香港居民，事後並且帶同財物離開本港，本港警方無法跨境執法，在此情況下只能透過涉案人士所在國家或地區的執法部門協助追查，角色被動。

律師補充，能否追討相關財物，還須視乎相關國家或地區是否有防止洗黑錢的法例，如果當地有相關法例，本港警方可以將涉案人及被盜現鈔的資料傳送當地執法部門調查跟進，一旦查到涉案人曾將盜取而來的現鈔兌現並存入戶口，執法部門可凍結該戶口。

上訴庭：不應引導陪審「警較可信」

http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E4%B8%8A%E8%A8%B4%E5%BA%AD%EF%BC%9A%E4%B8%8D%E6%87%89%E5%BC%95%E5%B0%8E%E9%99%AA%E5%AF%A9%E3%80%8C%E8%AD%A6%E8%BC%83%E5%8F%AF%E4%BF%A1%E3%80%8D/web_tc/article/20141224/s00002/1419356966752


【明報專訊】育有兩子的27歲母親，經審訊後原被裁定販毒及藏毒罪成，判囚7年，惟她不服上訴，上訴庭認為案中兩名警員證供不可信，更有杜撰之嫌，裁定上訴得直，撤銷控罪及判刑。上訴庭昨在判辭指出，根據法律原則，法官引導陪審團時不應說因證人是警員，其經驗和訓練會令其證供較可信，認為這只會「引起不必要的爭議」。

警疑涉造假 婦脫販毒

法官潘兆初在判辭指出，控方主要依賴上訴人老嘉盈向警員作出的兩次口頭招認，以及相關紀錄作為證據，法官考慮證供後，認為兩名警員並非可信或可靠的證人。法官稱，當日負責拘捕的警員原在其警員記事冊上將上訴人的住處記錄為「青山道」某單位，後來將其刪改為「福華道621號」、即案發單位。法官指案發時上訴人確住在青山道單位，上訴人稱她曾告訴警員，但警員否認，更解釋因他經常巡邏青山道一帶，才因手民之誤將上訴人的住址寫成青山道，法官認為這樣的解釋是「荒謬之至」，警員能夠寫下青山道地址，必然是因為上訴人曾告訴他。

警辯寫錯 官：荒謬之至

法官認為，警員的意圖明顯不過，是想令人相信上訴人住在案發單位，將她陷入不利處境；法官指這難免令人懷疑有關上訴人作出口頭招認等的紀錄，亦是該警員杜撰。至於另一名警員在記錄有關上訴人的詳細招認時，亦沒記錄自己的提問，同樣有杜撰之嫌。

法官又指出，原審高院暫委法官黃崇厚引導陪審團時曾說，警員「曾經受訓，有職責在身，因此（可能）係較好或者較誠實嘅證人」，但這樣的指引並無需要。案發於前年7月10日，上訴人原被控非法販運14.31克冰毒及藏有0.64克冰毒。

【案件編號：CACC45/14】

50歲游泳教練林德明涉藉按摩療傷揸學生胸

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20141224/bkn-20141224132657792-1224_00822_001.html

報稱游泳教練的50歲男子林德明，涉去年8月在北角歌頓道明興大廈歌頓維多利亞酒店，非禮其20歲女學生。被告今日在東區法院否認非禮罪，案件將在明年2月6日開審，期間被告獲准以一千元保釋。控方透露，會傳召兩名證人；被告就表明會聘請私人律師。

據悉，被告與事主為師生關係，案發當日被告以短訊聯絡事主，指可為其傷勢按摩。當事主上課完畢後，被告就帶她到案發地點，事主脫去上衣，只剩下一件頭泳衣，被告就涉伸手入事主泳衣內並揸胸。事主之後一年繼續跟隨被告學習游泳，直至其母親埋怨事主的游泳技術退步，事主向親友反映事件，親友再告知事主母親才揭發案件。

Blinded by Desire for High Life, Rafael Hui Jailed for 7½ years; Thomas Kwok Imprisoned for Five Years

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1668566/blinded-desire-high-life-hui-jailed-712-years-kwok-sentenced-five

Disgraced Rafael Hui Si-yan, who was "blinded by the desire to sustain the high life", was yesterday jailed for 7½ years, becoming the highest-ranking former Hong Kong official ever to be locked up.

Property billionaire Thomas Kwok Ping-kwong was sentenced to spend the next five years in a cell, as a key chapter closed in the biggest graft trial in the city's history.

The High Court's landmark ruling sends a clear warning against business-government corruption in today's Hong Kong.

"Like all tragic characters, you had a flaw," Mr Justice Andrew Macrae said as he sentenced the stony-faced Hui, 66. "Whether one uses the pejorative word 'greed' or puts it more kindly that you were blinded by the desire to sustain the high life to which you had been accustomed."

He added: "Had it not been for this case, you [Hui] would probably have gone down in history as one of Hong Kong's finest chief secretaries in recent years.

"It is quite clear to me that you were very adept at using your anticipated position to gain as much advantage for yourself," Macrae told the former government No 2, who pocketed HK$8.5 million from Kwok up to a few hours before he was sworn in as chief secretary in 2005. "High-ranking officials in particular owe a duty ... to the people of Hong Kong," Macrae said. "The breach of that duty and trust is a significant aspect of your culpability."

Hui took a total of almost HK$20 million in bribes to be favourably disposed to Sun Hung Kai Properties. He was found guilty of five out of eight counts, including misconduct in public office and bribery.

"It would have been very easy for useful information [such as] government thinking or policy to be communicated to someone outside the government," the judge said. "I am not so naive as to suppose that just because no specific quid pro quo can be identified, there was not."

Hong Kong had for years lived with a perception of government and business cosying up to each other, Macrae said. "Regrettably this case will have done nothing to dispel that perception." It was vital for the two sides to remain corruption-free - "particularly when the mainland is taking obvious and positive steps to eradicate the cancer of corruption".

The judge also imposed a HK$500,000 fine on Kwok, who was SHKP co-chairman until last week, a punishment he said was "necessary to deter others tempted" to bribe public officials.

Kwok's former subordinate Thomas Chan Kui-yuen - an SHKP executive director until his conviction - was jailed for six years and fined the same amount. Francis Kwan Hung-sang, a former stock exchange official, wept when he was sentenced to five years in jail.

Chan and Kwan were involved in all the payments, including an HK$11.182 million bribe in 2007. Hui was ordered to pay that sum to the government under bribery laws - although this will have little meaning as he has already declared bankruptcy.

The case came to light in 2008 when the graft-buster received an anonymous report, and arrests were made in 2012.

_________________________________

Full Text of the Reasons for Sentence: -

I will begin if I may by making some observations about this particular case which I have now lived with as judge since the first application connected with these proceedings was made on 15 July last year. Although preceded by several pre-trial applications, the trial proper started on 8 May 2014, more than 7 months ago. The jury of nine heard evidence from more than 80 witnesses. My summing-up alone took 5 days to complete. 

At one stage,  there were listed in front of me 21 counsel, 5 of them from the English Bar, and amongst the 21, no less than 8 leading counsel. As one might expect in such circumstances, the proceedings have been difficult not only in terms of the evidence and the time it has taken, but in the multiplicity of issues which have been engaged and which I have been required to deal with during the trial process. However, in all of that process, nothing has been more difficult than the sentencing of the defendants in front of me today.

It is often said that sentencing is an art and not a science. If it were a science, it would no doubt be an easier exercise to conduct. In truth, sentencing is one of the most difficult functions a judge can perform, particularly when dealing with offences where there are no guidelines beyond various expressions of judicial opinion in other cases dealing with the same offence but with very different facts.  And it is particularly difficult when one is dealing with otherwise decent men, who are not young but who have committed serious offences. 

For the two facets of sentencing, the first which requires a judge to exercise a public duty in dealing effectively and consistently with serious crimes, and the second which requires him to mitigate the harsh effects of that sentence by acknowledging in an appropriate way the personal circumstances of the individual, are not always an easy balance to achieve. However, our system gives to the judge who has heard the evidence the unique discretion to act in a principled way to effect that balance, even though the way he exercises that discretion will always provoke those who have not had the advantage of hearing the evidence to  say that he has leant too far one way or too far the other.

I have been taken to guidelines in the United Kingdom issued by the Sentencing Council in relation to Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering. They are helpful to some extent in identifying the various factors of culpability and harm, which may be engaged in corruption offences but the law of England is different, their maximum sentences for such offences are different, their experience of these offences is different and Hong Kong has long developed its own approach and sentencing jurisprudence  to this area of sentencing law.

The first defendant, Mr Rafael Hui, falls to be dealt with for 5 offences: Count 5 of Conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to common law; Count 7, Conspiracy to offer an advantage to a public servant, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap 201; and three counts of misconduct in public office, contrary to common law, namely Counts 1, 6 and 8.

The second defendant, Mr Thomas Kwok Ping­ kwong, has been found guilty of Count 5 alone.

The fourth defendant, Mr Thomas Chan Kui-yuen and the fifth defendant, Mr Francis Kwan Hung  Sang, fall to be dealt with for the two conspiracies of which they were found guilty, namely Counts 5 and 7.

All of the defendants are currently in their sixties, Mr Hui 66, Mr Kwok 63, Mr Chan 68 and Mr Kwan 64. All are of unblemished character and I accept that going to prison for the first time at this stage of their lives will be a particular hardship for all of them, no doubt exacerbated by the health issues, which each of them has. I wish to make clear that I have borne in mind their ages when considering the appropriate sentences they must serve; in particular, in the significance to be attached to their good characters.

I propose to deal with the second defendant first, because in a sense his case is the most straight-forward, given that he must be sentenced for one offence only, the maximum sentence prescribed by law being 7 years' imprisonment.

The first question, which I must address, is what the starting point should be for a single offence of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office committed in the circumstances of this case. There is a compelling argument that the payment of HK$18.5 million bribe by the instigator of the offence to the No 2 in Government, made in a deliberately complex and intricate way through various co-conspirators, which then took months if not years to uncover, is an extremely serious example of the offence. It should also be recognized that it is not the function of judges to use their imaginations to conjure up even worse examples of the offence with which they are dealing, but to consider the worst type of offence which comes before the court and ask themselves whether the particular case they are dealing with it comes within the broad band of that type. Accordingly, there is a compelling argument that this offence merits a starting point at the maximum of 7 years imprisonment.

I have considered this argument, but I am minded to agree with Ms Montgomery (and with Mr Choy and Mr Winter) that this is not a case for the adoption of the maximum sentence as a starting point. Serious though it is (given the high degree of trust placed in D1 by the government and the people of Hong Kong when he was sworn in as Chief Secretary to the HKSAR Government), the case against the second defendant has never been that D1, as Chief Secretary, in fact did anything specific, or in fact did anything which he would not otherwise have done, for the money which he received. The allegation has always been that the defendants conspired together for Dl to misconduct himself by being or remaining favourably disposed to Sun Hung Kai Properties or the other entities set out in the count. I am not so naive as to suppose that just because no specific quid pro quo can be identified, there was not, in view of the sheer size of the payment, thereby created a relationship in which it would have been very easy for useful information on about government thinking or policy to be communicated to someone outside the government. Nevertheless, I am prepared to proceed on the basis that the notion of a public official doing something favourable in return for a payment is at its most attenuated, to paraphrase McMullin J (as he then was) in Attorney-General  v Chung Fat-Nfing [1978] HKLR 480 at 488, in the context of the allegation of favourable disposition by being kept sweet.

In my view, the appropriate starting point in this case for the instigator of fill offence such as Count 5, as averred by the prosecution, is one of 6 years' imprisonment. I am satisfied in adopting that lower starting point by the fact that I also intend to pass upon the second defendant a substantial fine, which I deem necessary to deter others tempted to embark on a course of conduct which subverts the conduct of public officials.

The next question is to what extent that starting point is mitigated by the personal  circumstances of the defendant. Anyone reading the bundle of testamentary documents produced by Ms Montgomery  on behalf of Mr Thomas Kwok, or listening to Dr Choi or Ms Pullinger, could not fail to be moved by the genuineness of Mr Kwok's Christian faith and his compassion for those less fortunate tham himself. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you, Mr Kwok, are at heart a good man and a sincere one, whose work and altruism have touched the lives of a great many people. Your good

works over very many years have earned you a well-deserved reputation as a genuinely motivated philanthropist and not just someone who can afford to be generous. But what may not have been appreciated by the general public is the full extent of your altruism which has extended, as some of the letters, for example that of Mr Lau Yuan Chum, reveal, beyond the churches and the charities you support, beyond the staff of Sun Hung Kai whom you might be expected to exhibit a special concern for when they are confronted by personal difficulties, to ordinary people caught up in personal tragedies with which they cannot cope. And all of these people say the same thing, that at no time have you looked for any recognition for the good you have and and that you are at all times genuinely motivated by your faith.

In my judgment, if the mitigation of positive good character means anything, I must place these matters fully in the sentencing balance and give effect to them in a real way. I propose, therefore, to give you a one year reduction for mitigation from the starting point of 6 years. Were I to give you more than a one year reduction, I would be giving undue regard to your personal mitigation and run the risk of approaching your sentence as though you had pleaded guilty, which would not be a principled exercise of my sentencing discretion.

The sentence that I must pass on you is, therefore, one of 5 years' imprisonment.   I will also order that you pay a fine of $500,000, in default of which you will serve a further one year of imprisonment.

I have no doubt you will have learned from this experience and you, above all people, will know that while there may be pain in the night, joy comes in the morning.  I accept Ms Montgomery' s submissions in relation to disqualification. I shall order that you be disqualified under section 168D of the Companies Ordinance, Cap 32 from being a director of any company for a period of 5 years from today...

法官關注麥高義資深大律師處理案件手法 - Judge Expressed Concerns About the Way Gerald McCoy SC Dealt With the Case

http://news.tvb.com/local/54994e166db28c3864000003/

在案中被裁定罪名不成立的郭炳聯，法官關注代表他的大律師處理案件的手法，希望大律師公會跟進。  郭炳聯前年三月被廉署拘捕後，透過資深大律師麥高義向律政司呈交一份陳述書，回應廉署的指控，控方後來用陳述書來指控郭炳聯。  法官麥機智對大律師的做法表示關注，更指有其他法官都對這做法感驚訝。若郭炳聯有出庭作供，不認同陳述書的內容，情況會很棘手。特別是麥高義，在本案一度代表郭炳聯出庭，希望大律師公會能在這方面發出指引。

法官下令郭炳灴及陳鉅源各支付訟費1250萬 - Justice Andrew Macrae Ordered Thomas Kwok and Thomas Chan To Pay Costs to the Prosecution

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=55569&icid=a&d_str=20141223

Justice Andrew Macrae has ordered former Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chairman Thomas Kwok Ping-kwong and executive director Thomas Chan Kui-yuen to pay the legal fees -- HK$12.5 million each -- of the case.

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20141223/-1967-3533198/1.html

法官下令郭炳灴及陳鉅源各支付訟費1250萬。

許仕仁案：四人判囚5至7年半 - Rafael Hui's Case - 4 Defendants Imprisoned for 5 to 7 and a Half Years -

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20141223/bkn-20141223115449925-1223_00822_001.html

前政務司司長許仕仁貪污案，法官今早宣布4名被告分別判刑5至7年半，「主角」許仕仁最終判監禁7年半，並需交還逾1118萬元賄款；另外郭炳江被判囚5年，取消董事資格5年，陳鉅源被判囚6年，取消董事資格6年，兩人同時各被罰款50萬元，並各自支付1250萬元訟費；至於關雄生則被判囚5年。

法官判刑時指，考慮許仕仁曾在政府出任30年公職，期間曾做過多個政府職位，備受尊重，且口才了得，直言如非本案，許應是「最好的政務司司長」，但他為維持奢華生活，而變得貪心，利用職權謀利，破壞委任者的信任，行為亦令人聯想到「官商勾結」，亦令致力打擊貪污的港人大受打擊，但判刑不會不考慮許在1998年擊退「金融大鱷」的貢獻，又謂由前特首曾蔭權爵士的求情信，便可知道其功業。

法官亦指，相信郭炳江是個善心及誠懇的人，惟他向許仕仁提供利益的行為或令新鴻基一方知道政府政策，但考慮其宗教信仰及善心，給予他1年減刑。至於陳鉅源雖然非案件主腦，且是新鴻基忠心員工，但在事件中扮演中心角色，故判刑較重。

法官又謂，關雄生並非與新鴻基有關，或是新鴻基職員，但新鴻基卻經關向許仕仁付款，關亦有收取報酬，顯示有重要角色，但根據關的個人背景，顯示他素來慷慨助人，有良好個品格，認為關為人真誠且樂於助人，在金融界有「好好聲譽」，故信立他是因對朋友的忠誠而涉及案件，犯案與其性格不同。

此案經過逾7個月審訊、陪審團退庭商議5日4夜後，最終裁定許仕仁8罪中有5罪成立，被控3罪的郭炳江則1罪成立，被指協助錢銀交收的陳鉅源和關雄生，則各被裁定2罪罪成。
____________

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=55568

Former Chief Secretary Rafael Hui Si-yan has been sentenced to 7.5 years in prison.

On Friday, he was found guilty by a High Court jury of accepting HK$8.5 million in bribes from former Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chairman, Thomas Kwok Ping-kwong, in return for the former official to be "favorably disposed" to the developer.

Kwok, who was found guilty of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, was sentenced to five years in prison and fined HK$500,000.

許仕仁情婦曝光 - Identity of Rafael Hui's Mistress Revealed

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20141220/-2-3528820/1.html

前政務司司長許仕仁昨日被法庭判公職人員行為失當及受賄近二千萬元等五項罪名成立。原來許落得鋃鐺入獄下場的背後主因之一，是曾大花金錢博取年齡相差三十三年的「小三」歡心所累。許仕仁曾在庭上自辯時自爆○八年起「包養上海小三」， 本報查悉， 許仕仁口中的「小三」，原來是港龍航空的前空姐Eline，她樣貌甜美，在○五年一次飯局中透過朋友介紹而認識許仕仁，當年她年僅二十四歲，許仕仁見她年輕貌美，即將個人的手機號碼告知對方，三年後空姐結過婚又離過婚，為了「想找人依靠」，決定於○八年藉旅遊來港找許仕仁，許即時答應會照顧她。自此她每次來港均由許安排入住金鐘六星級港麗酒店，兩人每次見面都會發生性行為。

詳情請閱十二月二十日《星島日報》。

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20141220/bkn-20141220184828598-1220_00822_001.html

貪污罪成的前政務司司長許仕仁作供時自爆曾包養一名上海姑娘，給予對方金額800萬元以上。該名女子身份曝光，兩人邂逅時為05年，女方年僅24歲，當時任職空姐，三年後，女方匆匆結婚又離婚，來港投靠許仕仁，獲許仕仁照顧，入住港麗酒店密會，又送她上海物業和汽車。直到2011年，許仕仁受查，雙方關係無疾而終。

獲許仕仁照顧的上海姑娘沈莉娜，洋名Eline，05年在一個飯局認識許仕仁，但不知道許仕仁是高官，只知他有錢和己婚。據悉，許仕仁見她年輕貌美，立即傾心，主動留下手提電話給她。事隔多年，沈莉娜經歷婚變，於是來港投靠許仕仁，雙方發展親密關係。

許仕仁在庭上供稱，在08年和之後的一、兩年，有把錢給上海一個「女性朋友」；許形容這名朋友「應該算係後生」，他與對方「起碼在某些時段關係親密」。至於給對方的金額，「應該有成好幾百萬，唔係好記得實數，應該有700至800萬以上」。

許仕仁庭上續稱，首次與女方見面是在本港一個社交場合，但兩人見面次數不算頻密，雙方會在香港、上海和北京見面。他送贈現金供對方置業和投資，也有送手袋、手錶等禮品，他指這些禮物「價值當然唔平，但唔係好豪華」。

許仕仁5罪成 - Rafael Hui Convicted of 5 Charges

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20141219/bkn-20141219144745966-1219_00822_001.html

Rafael Hui Convicted of 5 Charges - 許仕仁5罪成

前政務司司長許仕仁在任前後收受新鴻基地產集團利益案，9名陪審員經過5日的退庭商議後，下午作出裁決。許仕仁8項控罪中5項成立，郭炳江1罪成，郭炳聯則全部控罪不成立，陳鉅源和關雄生2項控罪全部成立。

許仕仁首項控罪藉公職作出不當行為罪成，陪審團以8比1，大比數裁定許仕仁罪成。第二項控罪許與郭炳江均以9比0裁定罪名不成立。第三項及第四項控罪許及郭炳聯均以7比2裁定罪名不成立。第五項控罪許以7比2裁定罪名成立，此控罪涉及本案5名被告，只有郭炳聯脫罪，其餘4人皆罪成。第六項控罪許亦以7比2裁定罪名成立。第七項控罪涉及5名被告，其中許仕仁、陳鉅源及關雄生罪名成立，郭氏兄弟則不成立。第八項控罪許仕仁就以7比2裁定罪名成立。

本案5名被告包括前政務司司長許仕仁、新地董事局聯席主席兼董事總經理郭炳江及郭炳聯兄弟、新地執行董事陳鉅源及港交所前高級副總裁關雄生。他們被控串謀藉公職作出不當行為、串謀向公職人員提供利益等共8罪。控罪指他們在2000至2007年，即許先後擔任積金局行政總監、政務司司長及行會非官守議員等公職期間，串謀讓許收受現金饋贈、貸款及免租入住豪宅等利益，以換取許在公職上優待新地。

________________________________________

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=55529

Former Chief Secretary Rafael Hui Si-yan has been found guilty by a High Court jury of accepting HK$8.5 million in bribes from Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chairman, Thomas Kwok Ping-kwong, in return for the former official to be "favorably disposed" to the developer.

Hui was found guilty of three counts of misconduct in public office, one count of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office and one count of conspiracy to offer an advantage to public servant.

Thomas Kwok was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.
His brother Raymond Kwok Ping-luen was clear of all charges.

Former Hong Kong stock exchange official Francis Kwan Hung-sang and Sun Hung Kai Properties executive director Thomas Chan Kui-yuen were each found guilty to two counts of charges.

The jurors spent the last five day before coming up with the verdicts. They found nothing wrong with other multi-million dollar payments Hui received from the Kwok's brothers.

破產許仕仁拍賣鹹碟 - Bankrupt Raphael Hui's Collection of Pornographic Materials Auctioned

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20141218/-2-3525519/1.html

 Bankrupt Raphael Hui's Collection of Pornographic Materials Auctioned - 破產許仕仁拍賣鹹碟

前政務司司長許仕仁去年被頒布破產，前日約一萬一千張珍藏黑膠唱片及雷射影碟（LD）被公開拍賣，當中包括五隻「鹹碟」，其中兩隻碟名為「二○八招」及「野浪花」。許仕仁的破產受託人在報章刊登廣告指明，任何有興趣人士可在網上資料庫中出價，並歡迎大量或全部購買有關珍藏，但須提供聯絡資料。

另外，據許仕仁的破產受託人在報章刊登廣告所示，被拍賣的許仕仁珍藏中以音樂黑膠碟及雷射影碟為主，分別有古典音樂、爵士、流行搖滾及電子樂。許收藏不同年代各國著名歌手和樂隊的唱片，如The Beatles、BEEGEES、日本女歌手五輪真弓等，當中一套內有十六張日本一九八七年《頭版》The Beatles絕版雷射唱片，價值逾十萬元。許仕仁的古典音樂唱片份量亦不輕，當中大部分為日版珍藏，亦不乏卡拉揚、蘇提等殿堂級指揮家的名盤。許亦鍾情張國榮和梅艷芳，有多張二人絕版唱片出售。

據悉，許仕仁曾在一個月內光顧「香港唱片」九次，○五至一○年間，他在「香港唱片」的以信用卡消費二百萬元。許又曾在○七年十一月，一日內兩次光顧唱片店「Sam the Record Man」，合共碌卡達十九萬五千元掃碟。

令人厭惡的警長朱仲明醉酒亂舞槍罪成 - Disgusting Police Sergeant Chu Chung Ming Guilty of Holding Gun While Drunk

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20141211/-2-3513308/1.html

休班警長朱仲明去年11月與同袍到酒吧飲醉酒，乘的士返回紀律部隊宿舍後，於電梯大堂持搶亂舞，更睡於花槽旁，而警槍則插在褲頭。43歲被告昨日於觀塘法院被裁定醉酒時管有實彈火器及彈藥罪罪成，還押至12月24日判刑。

案情指，被告朱仲明乃已婚警長，於去年度11月29日休班時先後與同袍到兩間酒吧飲酒，飲醉後被告乘的士返點秀茂坪紀律部隊宿舍後，在電梯大堂內舞弄佩槍，最後更醉倒花槽，腰間仍插有佩槍。保安員見狀報警求助，警方其後更於的士內尋回一粒遺失的佩槍子彈。

裁判官在裁決時指，據閉路電視片段及證人的作供，朱仲明應該是因酒精影響，在失去判斷及思考能力的情況下而犯案。裁判官強調手槍是力量的象徵，被告應好好控制；但被告卻妄顧他人的安全，持佩槍在不同地方飲酒，更舞弄佩槍並失去子彈，予以譴責。雖然同意被告有家庭工作及壓力，但社會絕不不容許他作出此等行為，而法庭亦需建立社會對警隊的信心。

被告現時正被停職，裁判官將案押至12月24日判刑，期間等待其社會服務令、精神科醫生等報告。

Mongkok Police Station Rapist Pleaded Guilty - 旺角警署強姦案被捕探員梁禮仲在高等法院承認四項強姦及非禮罪

http://eastweek.my-magazine.me/index.php?aid=3121

轟動全港的旺角警署強姦案，被捕探員梁禮仲，上周在高等法院承認四項強姦及非禮罪，法官形容他是個知法犯法的「性獵人」，將案押後至下月十八日，閱讀其精神及心理報告後才判刑。

執法先鋒變成變態淫魔，梁求情時聲稱，因受不住喪父及離婚等家庭壓力才犯案，但本刊追查發現，此案內情絕不簡單，這名曾做臥底的性獵人，原來在調派到旺角前，已有追求報案女子的前科。

更令人震驚的是，卑鄙淫警原來還不只梁禮仲一個，一名曾與他駐守深水埗的已婚同袍，便同樣以追求年輕報案女為樂，兩兄弟經常交換獵艷心得，結果上得山多終遇虎，齊齊因強姦罪成為階下囚。

梁禮仲蔡濟謙常結伴獵艷

深水埗警署一名老差骨透露，梁禮仲本來駐守油尖警區特別職務隊，因經常做臥底放蛇協助破案，表現理想，於○六年獲推薦報讀刑事偵緝課程，同時被借調到深水埗偵緝部值日隊工作，就在那時結識了同樣剛調來的探員蔡濟謙。

老差骨稱，現年三十歲的梁禮仲，九八年入職警隊，在學堂不想理會別人時，便會扮聾，故被同學起了個花名「聾安」；至於三十四歲的蔡濟謙，九七年在警校畢業，花名「十郎」。雖然兩人均已婚，但同好夜蒲，很快便成為酒肉朋友，落更後不時結伴往遣興獵艷。

公開交流獵艷心得

梁禮仲及蔡濟謙二人經常與熟落同袍談論「女朋友」，當中包括一些刑事案件中的事主，甚或是嫌疑人。但這種情況在警隊並不罕見，過去也曾有警務人員因工作關係接觸，跟案件事主發展感情，只要不涉假公濟私，警隊亦無權阻撓。

不過，梁禮仲與蔡濟謙追求報案女子愈追愈上癮，有人甚至聽過他們交換心得。

老差骨更透露，曾發現梁不止一次帶女仔返深水埗警署外，但其時梁已下班，或未夠鐘上班，懷疑他當時是否已曾帶女仔返警署胡天胡帝。

帶返警察宿舍施暴

○八年二月二十七日，玩女玩喪了心的蔡濟謙，終於闖出禍來。他第一次約會在網上結識的十八歲少女時，藉詞幫她非法下載PSP遊戲和教對方玩新遊戲，竟趁妻子及六歲兒子不在家，直接安排對方到其警察宿舍的單位見面。

就在少女專注打機時，蔡借故靠近捉住她雙手，見其沒有迴避，便進一步攬腰，當少女受驚企圖縮開之際，蔡竟用雙腳將她夾實，使其動彈不得，然後一手抱她入房，霸王硬上弓。少女受辱後一度反鎖自己在浴室中，以手機致電友人求助，但電話接通後她卻無法啟齒，於是改發「畀人姦咗」的短訊給對方代為報警。

蔡事後被拘捕並送上法庭，但他堅拒承認強姦罪。只承認自己為人花弗，即使結婚及育有一子，仍有背妻外出偷歡習慣，多次在網上、酒吧，甚至隨便在街識女仔，並帶她們到時鐘酒店尋歡。他並強調，自己用「爆樽小霸王」的網名，跟受害少女玩MSN已三年，二人無所不談，更曾向她發放「隻豬豬都畀咗男朋友仔啦！」的文字訊息，而對方亦回覆「哈哈，係呀！」；另案發時雖然少女曾說「唔好」，但覺得這只是害羞表現，並非抗拒跟自己上牀。

不過，陪審員並不相信蔡濟謙的辯護理由，於今年一月十九日通過裁定他強姦罪名成立，而法官參考其背景報告後，認為蔡是處心積慮利用其警察身份，博取入世未深少女的信任後才犯案，故重判他監禁七年。

同袍好友觸犯強姦罪，梁禮仲不單沒有醒覺，反而一步一步地陷入更瘋狂狀態。

當梁禮仲修讀偵緝課程畢業後，獲正式轉為偵緝探員（CID），並於去年八月調派駐守旺角警署值日隊。他上任不久，便摸熟警署的環境和值日隊的日常運作，但積極的背後，原來是為犯案鋪路。

○八年十一月十四日，牽涉一宗案件被調查的十七歲的少女A，被梁通知到旺角警署助查。雖然A與母親同來，但梁只帶A一人前往位於警署一樓的認人室，且全程一直盯着她的胸部，並說：「你個胸都幾大。」然後捉着A的手及從後抱起她，再掀起其T恤撫摸非禮一分鐘後，梁向她表示已有生理反應，之後便當着她面前自慰，嚇得A立即掩眼。

三日後，梁食髓知味，今次找來在一宗盜竊案被捕的十六歲少女B，約她晚上十一時到警署，帶往認人室後，目光一直落在女事主胸部，未幾即借意把身體挨向她，然後強行伸手入其衣服內，一邊說猥褻話，一邊對她大肆非禮。

兩名受害少女疑因自己有案在身，怕得罪警察會無運行，故即使遭人非禮，亦不敢向人透露半句；可是她們的啞忍，卻進一步助長了梁的獸行。

一日侵犯兩少女

一星期後，即○八年十一月二十四日，十九歲少女X應邀到旺角警署，協助調查她較早前在天水圍報失銀包的案件。當天下午X和男友一同到達，梁禮仲將X帶往警署一間房內閒聊幾句後，便稱同事正忙，叫X晚上十一時再來。

原來當時梁禮仲成功約到另一獵物，就是同年十月底，曾到旺角警署報失手提電話的二十一歲女大學生C，梁以CID「黃Sir」的假身份約她到警署。當晚八時C抵達警署後，便被帶到認人室。

C見「黃Sir」尚未正式辦案，主動跟對方閒談，還問他若自己想考警察，身形是否太肥。沒料此話一出，正中「黃Sir」下懷，馬上對C摸手摸腳，並猛講情慾說話，把C嚇呆。

當「黃Sir」談到做愛姿勢時，更掰開C雙腿及伸手入其裙內撫弄一番，C掙脫魔掌後，以強硬態度要求「黃Sir」報上警員編號，表示要投訴他之後，才獲准離開。 可惜被嚇得三魂不見七魄的C，受辱後只顧慌忙逃走，未有即時就事件作出舉報。

獸行一而再，再而三得逞，梁禮仲已變得色膽包天，同一晚，當X於十一時半重返旺角警署時，他已不能自拔，把X當作其密室的禁臠。

這次他帶X到認人室內的疑犯等候房間，一開始便對她不斷講猥褻說話。說不到兩句，更掀起X的上衣，吻其腰部，X退後避開，但梁沒理會，更跪地撫摸她的大腿內側及吻其腿部。

隔音密室為所欲為

X大驚推開他並叫停，但梁深知該房間既隱蔽且隔音，外邊的人根本不會聽到她的呼救，故不單沒加理會X的叫喊，更強將她推埋牆，繼續對其上下其手及強吻全身一輪後，再將之強暴。

飽嘗獸慾後，梁禮仲被受害少女追問，究竟為何約她到署？他才裝模作樣打開電腦，向對方展示兩張疑犯相片供辨認，然後讓她離開。

X與男友會合後，馬上將受辱一事相告，由於已對旺角警署失去信心，二人立即乘的士返回天水圍警署報案。翌日，梁開始不停發短訊給X，至晚上七時的一個短訊中，更明言願意付十萬元給她，以求她不要指控被其強姦。

惟當X後來多次致電梁，要求約他面談時，當差多年的梁，判斷X已經報案，故一直沒有現身，之後往元朗一間棺材舖匿藏了一天，終因走投無路，向警署一名女文員求助，經對方相勸下自首投案，接受法律制裁。

長做臥底 是非難分

梁禮仲犯下震驚全港的警署強姦案，有犯罪學家認為，可能與他曾長時間擔任臥底工作有關。

城巿大學犯罪學課程主任黃成榮表示，若一名警員曾當臥底，其心理狀態會比普通人複雜，「警員的身份要守法，但臥底的身份卻要用犯法的行為去完成任務，若未能脫離角色的話，令個人身份模糊，漸漸會將犯法的事情合理化，甚至可能會認為自己臥底的功勞，足以抵銷其過錯。」

他續說，大部分重複犯罪的犯人，特別是性罪犯都會「成癮」，不能自控地犯案，甚至喜歡在自己最熟悉的地方作案。

當差先要測心理

有志投考警隊的市民，除要身家清白、體能良好外，明年四月開始還要做足「心理準備」，因為每位申請人都必須接受入職心理評估，以確保其心理素質、適應能力，以及個人價值觀是否適合警隊工作。

其實警隊早於九九年已開始以心理評估，作為內部挑選特別部隊成員的準則之一，成效不俗，故將心理評估計劃推至警員招募過程。

為此警隊已經成立「性格及認知能力評估計劃中心」，成員包括兩名臨牀心理學家，將會隨機抽樣百分之五現職警員，約一千五百人以不記名方式參與評估，用作設定警員心理狀況的基準，來判斷考生是否適合當差。

最少判監十二年

有法律界人士指出，普通的強姦案，一般會判五至六年左右，若犯人有使用武力的話，則會加重到八至九年，但今次警署強姦案相當特殊，被告利用警察的身份，誘騙事主到警署，繼而強姦對方，明顯有預謀地犯案，完全破壞市民對警察的信任，故他認為量刑起點至少十二年。

至於被告另涉三項非禮罪，案情亦十分嚴重，非一般隔衣「揩油」的動作，再加上一項妨礙司法公正罪名，每條罪都可判三年或以上。

更重要是，法官認為被告在開審前才認罪並非真心有悔意，沒有減刑的理由，但該名律師相信，法官最後仍需因應被告認罪，按例作出最多三分一的減刑，但同時又有可能將其他罪的刑期分開執行，故推算被告最終約要坐監十五年。

Lawyer Counsel and Barrister Miss Valerie Tin Tin Lim Had Been Struck Off the Roll of Barristers for Gross Misconduct

Lawyer Counsel and Barrister Miss Valerie Tin Tin Lim Had Been Struck Off the Roll of Barristers for Gross Misconduct

By a Statement of Findings dated 29 April 2014, a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found two (2) complaints of professional misconduct against Ms. Lim Tin Tin Valerie (“Lim”) to have been proved. Further, by Reasons for Sentence dated 7 November 2014, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered, inter alia. that Lim’s name be struck off the Roll of Barristers.

(Source 1: http://www.hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/Statement%20of%20Findings%2020140429.pdf)

(Source 2: http://www.hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/Reasons%20for%20Sentence%2020141107.pdf)

(Source 3: http://www.hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/index.html)

裁判官指上訴人陳柏年大律師的行為令人厭惡 - Magistrate Said the Behaviour of Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister Perry Chan was Disgusting

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=95942&currpage=T

HCMA 258 / 2014 - 香港特別行政區 訴 陳柏年大律師

判案日期: 2014年11月25日
主審法官: 高等法院原訟法庭法官馮驊

裁判官指上訴人 [陳柏年大律師] 的行為令人厭惡... 上訴人 [陳柏年大律師] 不讓座這不合理、不文明行為...

朱經緯警司無故揮警棍一嘢摳香港市民後頸 - Superintendent of Police Franklin Chu (Chu King Wai) Hit the Back of a Hong Kong Citizen's Neck with a Baton for No Reason

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=361095350737264

警察為阻止亞皆老街十字路口被重佔，可謂採取「焦土策略」，封鎖全部行人過路處，更以武力驅散行人路上的市民。

期間DBC拍得一名警司，以警棍直接攻擊一名市民，現場所見該名男子有按警員指示離開，亦未有作出挑釁或衝擊行為。

行過就可以打？請問點解釋？

May we ask whether the Hong Kong Police is entitled to assault the back of a citizen's neck just because he "walked pass" the Police peacefully?

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20141127/53171252

一名警司更亂揮警棍驅散完全無武器無反抗、已按指示向前行的的市民，市民驚慌失措，有男子更被打中後頸，該男子事後大鬧該警司，高呼無辜，強調只是路過。

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20141128/-2-3492817/1.html

旺角兩個月來多次爆發警民衝突，有傳媒斥責警方涉嫌使用過量武力，令警民關係進一步惡化。 報道指根據《警察通例》第29章「武力與槍械的使用」規定，警務人員在可行範圍內，應盡量讓對方有機會服從警方命令，然後才可使用武力。所使用的武力必須是為達到目的而須使用的最低程度武力，而達到目的後，須立即停止使用。

報道又提及連日來在旺角帶隊的沙田警區指揮官朱經緯警司，前晚在彌敦道維持秩序期間，突然用警棍從後毆打行人路上全無反抗能力的男女群眾，途人被嚇得急步離開。當時身穿白衫警服的朱經緯，用警棍從後連續打了一名身穿西裝的男子肩部兩下，男子面露痛苦表情，卻不敢反抗繼續急步離去。隨後一名黑衣男子被便衣警員從後推倒在地，黑衣男未有反抗，站起身離開，朱經緯又在他肚上打了一棍。

而被打頸的男子事後在facebook上投訴，中了兩棍一腳，直言「不如旺角宵禁啦，出街都唔畀」。警方昨晚發聲明回應指，非常關注一名警務人員在旺角執行職務時涉嫌不恰當使用武力，警方已主動跟進，有關警員將停止參與相關行動。

http://www.e123.hk/ElderlyPro/details/365519/71/

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1650232/police-slammed-over-violence-mong-kok

(South China Morning Post, 28 November 2014)

Police slammed over Mong Kok violence after video of officer hitting peaceful protesters emerges.

Protesters complain of officers punching, kicking and smacking them on the head with batons during operation to clear Mong Kok.

楊潤康律師包攬訴訟案上訴庭加重刑罰楊潤康律師被勒令即時入獄服刑 - SOLICITOR YEONG YUN HONG GARY JAILED FOR CHAMPERTY

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20141125/bkn-20141125135948119-1125_00822_001.html

楊潤康律師包攬訴訟案上訴庭裁定加重刑罰，楊潤康律師被勒令楊即時入獄服刑。

葉漢明與楊潤康在今年4月分別被區院裁定26項和25項包攬訴訟罪罪成，當中葉被判監12個月，但獲維緩刑18月；楊被判囚15個月，但獲緩刑24個月。上訴庭指原審法官犯錯及判刑過輕，於是改判葉入獄26個月，楊判監38個月。

案情指，葉漢明聯同楊潤康於2001至2007年期間向意外受傷索償客戶聲稱「不成功不收費」，事後攤分20多名客戶所得賠償，因而被控包攬訴訟罪。

骨科專科醫生楊樂賢和兒科專科醫生被投訴不適當診斷 - Improper Diagnosis Complaints Lodged Against Orthopaedist Dr Michael Yeung Lok Yin and Paediatrician Dr Lillian Ko Yang Yang

Improper Diagnosis Complaints Lodged Against Doctors (Orthopaedist Dr Michael Yeung Lok Yin and Paediatrician Dr Lillian Ko Yang Yang) - 骨科專科醫生楊樂賢和兒科專科醫生高楊揚被投訴不適當診斷

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1647863/doctors-accused-improperly-diagnosing-teen-metal-toxicity

(25 November 2014) (South China Morning Post)

The Medical Council is considering allegations that two doctors improperly diagnosed a teen with allergies and heavy-metal toxicity, and prescribed unnecessary treatment.

The allegations were against orthopaedist Dr Michael Yeung Lok-yin and paediatrician Dr Lillian Ko Yang Yang, who treated teenager Patient X in 2005.

Patient X's mother, Madame A, said her son had been threatened with expulsion by his school over a suspected behavioural disorder.

After inconclusive meetings with school psychologists, Madame A found information online on linkages between behavioural problems and metal toxicity. She approached Yeung, hoping for proof Patient X had special needs due to his illness and should not be expelled.

Madame A said Yeung diagnosed her son with "multiple allergies syndrome" without any tests, and with heavy metal toxicity via hair analysis only. Yeung referred him to Ko. Ko also diagnosed metal toxicity, and suggested a one-year detoxification plan for the teen, along with visual therapy from Ko's husband, also a medical practitioner.

The disciplinary inquiry continues on Thursday.

____________________________________

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20141125/18947077

2003年曾發表報告，指海產是導致港人慢性水銀中毒的骨科專科醫生楊樂賢和兒科專科醫生高楊揚，再被投訴不適當診斷一名有學習問題的少年X重金屬中毒，處方磁場治療和排毒法等另類療法，其中高只為X進行過一次簡單檢查，卻收費7,000元。醫委會昨聆訊，X的母親在庭上說，求醫只為找出兒子行為問題的原因，避免孩子被踢出校。重金屬中毒問題困擾不少父母，坊間亦出現不同的體內水銀檢驗方法，以及不同排毒治療方案，但醫學界對這類檢測和治療一直存疑。X的個案是醫委會首次就與重金屬中毒相關的另類治療進行紀律聆訊。

建議驗頭髮測水銀

X的母親A女士昨日作供時指，2005年兒子在校內有行為問題，兩名教育心理學家先後替他檢查後，沒有結論，學校想將X踢出校，A為求證明兒子的行為出於疾病，上網搜尋資料，發現楊是香港有毒金屬醫學會會員，遂向楊求醫。

2005年7至9月期間X向楊求診四次，當時楊在未有任何依據下，指X有多種敏感症狀，包括流鼻水、抽筋和濕疹等，但又建議替X進行頭髮測試檢驗水銀水平，並施以磁場治療（magnetic field therapy）。A說，當時楊在她沒有要求下，將X轉介予高楊揚，而楊僅將頭髮測試報告的首頁交予A，其餘數頁報告不翼而飛。

A說，由於楊一直拒絕為X撰寫醫生信，她惟有帶兒子向高楊揚求診。高替X診斷時，只簡單進行身體和機能發展檢查，就指X與重金屬中毒有關，須進行排毒治療（detoxification），並建議將X轉介至高楊揚丈夫高世昌醫生進行視覺訓練。單於該此診症，高向A收取7,000元，「當時我要立刻去銀行提款，又要聯絡喺外國嘅丈夫」。

A對楊和高的診治存疑，其後停止向他們求診，並向消委會投訴但不果，遂於2006年轉向醫委會投訴。楊樂賢和高楊揚分別有四項和兩項控罪。控方在庭上讀出楊、高二人的書面辯解，包括楊辯稱當年只是替X治療感冒，A在庭上表明不同意有關言論。

投訴至今八年間遇上不少波折，單在醫委會初步偵訊委員會已花三年處理，2006年中大內科教授陳恩強獲邀作專家證人，先後撰寫四份報告，其後卻因身份有偏頗要退出聆訊。控方再請來中毒諮詢中心總監劉飛龍和中大兒科系主任梁廷勳任專家證人。辯方昨又要求休庭，直至辯方專家重新撰寫不受陳恩強意見影響的報告。醫委會終批准辯方明年3月10日提交新的專家報告，但事實證人的A可繼續作供。聆訊本周四再續。

王則左大律師被舊客戶入稟高等法院民事索償 - Barrister Samuel CC Wong Sued by Former Client in the High Court

Lawyer Samuel CC Wong Sued by Former Client in the High Court - 王則左大律師被舊客戶入稟高等法院民事索償

HCA 1508/2004

____________

BETWEEN

　 BRILLIANT (MAN SAU) ENGINEERING LIMITED (Plaintiff)

　 and 　

　 WONG CHAT CHOR, SAMUEL (1st Defendant)

　 CHINA TOP CONSULTANTS LIMITED (2nd Defendant)

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 12 April 2006
Date of Judgment (Handed Down): 3 May 2006

"... 21.   ... what it really boils down to is the complaint that the 1st Defendant [Barrister Lawyer & Counsel Samuel CC Wong - 王則左大律師], by accepting instructions from the Plaintiff knowingly placed himself in a situation where his own personal interest (through the 2nd Defendant) conflicted with that of his client.  They were both at the time “competing” with each other to be compensated by OLS.  Whoever got to the winning post first, in terms of executing its judgment, achieved an enormous advantage, as in fact happened for the 2nd Defendant."


(Source 1: http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2006/445.html)

(Source 2: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=52346&QS=%28wong%2Bchat%2Bchor%29&TP=JU)

Solicitors T K Cheng and C H Kwong Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 律師鄭子駒及鄺志豪專業失當罪成被罰

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=2478&c=121

Cheng Tze Kui (“1st Respondent”) and Kwong Chi Ho (“2nd Respondent”), formerly, the partners of Messrs. T.K. Cheng & Co. (a closed firm) (the “Firm”)

Hearing Date: 11 March and 2 July 2014

Findings and Order: 6 August 2014

Having considered the Affidavit filed by the Law Society and the exhibits thereto and given the admission of the 1st Respondent to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints, the admission of the 2nd Respondent to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints and the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Agreed Facts, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the 1st Respondent guilty of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints while the 2nd Respondent guilty of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints.

The Complaints laid against the 1st and 2nd Respondents are as follows:

First Complaint
(against 1st Respondent)

Breach of Rule 2(e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (“SPR”) in that the 1st Respondent had repeatedly failed to deliver the Accountant’s Reports of the Firm within the stipulated time to the Law Society in years 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009 which compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair a proper standard of work.

Second Complaint
(against 2nd Respondent)

Breach of Rule 2(e) of the SPR in that the 2nd Respondent had repeatedly failed to deliver the Accountant’s Reports of the Firm within the stipulated time to the Law Society in years 2007 and 2009 which compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair a proper standard of work.

Third Complaint
(against 1st and 2nd Respondents)

Breach of Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance in that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had failed to deliver the Firm’s 2009–2010 Accountant’s Report to the Law Society within the stipulated time in 2010.

Fourth Complaint
(against 1st and 2nd Respondents)

Breach of Rule 10(1) and 10(2) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules (“SAR”) in that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had failed to keep properly written up books and accounts of the Firm’s client accounts from September 2010 to May2011.

Fifth Complaint
(against 1st and 2nd Respondents)

Breach of Rule 10A of the SAR in that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had failed to prepare reconciliations of client accounts of all the bank accounts of the Firm from September 2010 to May 2011 save for one of the Firm’s banks for the months of August and September 2010 and for the Firm’s other bank for the month of August 2010.

Sixth Complaint
(against 1st and 2nd Respondents)

Breach of Rule 11 of the SAR in that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had from December 2010 to May 2011 failed to produce to the Monitoring Accountants appointed by the Council of the Law Society (the “Council”) the Firm’s books and accounts for their inspection when they visited the Firm at the direction of the Council on 11 January, 18 April and 3May 2011.

And upon hearing the mitigation submissions made on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the Tribunal ordered, inter alia, that:

In respect of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints, the 1st Respondent be censured; and fined with a sum of HK$30,000, together with a condition imposed on him whereby he may not practise as a sole practitioner or in any partnership for a period of 2 years from the date of the Order (6 August 2014);

In respect of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Complaints, the 2nd Respondent be fined with a sum of HK$30,000; and

Costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the Law Society, the Prosecutor and the Clerk to the Tribunal, to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and to be taxed on a party-and-party basis, if not agreed.

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

http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=2478&c=121

鄭子駒律師(下稱「第一答辯人」)及鄺志豪律師(下稱「第二答辯人」) 前為鄭子駒律師行(已結業) (下稱「該律師行」)合夥人

聆訊日期： 2014年3月11日及7月2日

裁斷及命令： 2014年8月6日

考慮過律師會提交的誓章連證物，並鑑於第一答辯人就第一、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴認罪，第二答辯人就第二、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴認罪，以及經第一及第二答辯人議定的事實，律師紀律審裁組(下稱「審裁組」)裁定針對第一答辯人的第一、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴成立，及針對第二答辯人的第二、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴成立。

針對第一及第二答辯人的申訴如下：

第一項申訴(針對第一答辯人)

第一答辯人在2004、2005、2007和2009年多次未能在指定時間內向律師會提交該律師行的會計師報告，危及或損害了或相當可能危及或損害了適當的工作標準，因此違反《律師執業規則》第2(e)條規則。

第二項申訴(針對第二答辯人)

第二答辯人在2007和2009年多次未能在指定時間內向律師會提交該律師行的會計師報告，危及或損害了或相當可能危及或損害了適當的工作標準，因此違反《律師執業規則》第2(e)條規則。

第三項申訴(針對第一及第二答辯人)

第一及第二答辯人在2010年未能在指定時間內向律師會提交該律師行2009年至2010年度的會計師報告，因此違反《法律執業者條例》第8(1)條。

第四項申訴(針對第一及第二答辯人)

第一及第二答辯人在2010年9月至2011年5月期間未有為該律師行的當事人帳戶備存妥為詳細記敘的簿冊及帳目，因此違反《律師帳目規則》第10(1)及10(2)條規則。

第五項申訴(針對第一及第二答辯人)

第一及第二答辯人在2010年9月至2011年5月期間，未有為該律師行所有銀行帳戶的當事人帳戶擬備對帳表(2010年8月及9月份該律師行使用的其中一間銀行，及2010年8月份該律師行使用的另一間銀行除外)，因此違反《律師帳目規則》第10A條規則。

第六項申訴(針對第一及第二答辯人)

第一及第二答辯人在2010年12月至2011年5月期間，在律師會理事會委任的監察會計師依照理事會指示在2011年1月11日、4月18日和5月3日探訪該律師行時，未能出示該律師行的簿冊及帳目以供監察會計師查閱，因此違反《律師帳目規則》第11條規則。

經聽取代表第一及第二答辯人作出的請求輕判陳詞後，審裁組作出命令，其中包括︰

就第一、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴，對第一答辯人施以譴責；及處以罰款30,000港元，並對他施加以下條件：由本命令作出之日起(2014年8月6日)不可以獨營執業者或合夥形式執業，為期2年；

就第二、第三、第四、第五和第六項申訴，對第二答辯人處以罰款30,000港元；及

第一及第二答辯人須承擔此等法律程序的費用，包括律師會、檢控人員及審裁組書記的費用，而費用按訴訟各方對評基準評定。

一代影壇猛人向華勝病逝北京 - Heung Wa Sing Died in Beijing Aged 64

http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20141121/-2-3479413/1.html?cf=news-sbHottest

(星島日報2014年11月21日報道)

曾投資拍過《賭神》、《逃學威龍》、《唐伯虎點秋香》等多部賣座電影的永盛電影公司老闆向華勝，早前患上食道癌末期，曾多次傳出病情不穩，但後經其太太端木櫻子證實他一直在北京醫院休養，情況穩定。但昨晚又突然傳出向華勝在北京病逝的消息，後經向華勝兄長向華強的太太陳嵐證實，向華勝於昨晚七時病逝，終年六十四歲。

曾於八十年代叱咤香港影壇的永盛電影公司老闆向華勝，因為食道癌引致器官衰竭，於昨晚七時在北京協和醫院逝世，享年六十四歲，太太端木櫻子一直陪伴在側。

據知自向華勝得知患了這個病後，其小他二十二歲的妻子端木櫻子一直四處求助名醫，他的兄姊亦先後到過北京探望，及後其病情一度穩定下來，更離開加護病房轉為一般病房繼續治療。但近日情況又再惡化，向華勝和太太亦已有心理準備。向華勝臨走前，曾表示此生無憾，只是記掛太太，但其妻叫他放心，定會好好照顧自己。目前其太太已在北京為向華勝做法事，數天後就會辦理有關手續。

中國星公司的發言人李小姐向記者表示，其老闆向華強今日會飛到北京協助辦理弟弟的後事，而向氏兩兄弟一直感情深厚，故向華強深感悲痛，至於會否舉行追思會等，要留待與家人商討後再作決定。

曾經與向華勝合作的電影監製田啟文，指向生是電影投資者的典範，之前他試過看自己有份投資電影的午夜場，為力求完美，第二日即時要求補戲，他絕對是帶動電影圈進步的人。
向華勝八十年代在香港電影界叱咤一時，投資眼光準繩，拍過不少賣座電影屢破票房紀錄，更捧紅過如周星馳、張敏等紅，亦與周潤發、劉德華合作無間。

感情路上，也有過四段情，早年與無綫藝員張美玲結婚，婚後數年離異。及後有傳與女星張敏過從甚密，成了其公司的御用女主角，惜後來無疾而終。而在一九九八年與張玉珊拍拖，共譜一段相差二十年的忘年戀，但最終還是沒有結果。

直至五十七歲那年與來自北京的端木櫻子戀情曝光，拍拖兩年後結成夫妻。今年突傳出他患上癌症，一直與癌魔搏鬥，更有說他太太曾求助活佛，可惜最後仍敵不過癌魔而病逝。

Rafael Hui Trial Revealed Rotten Heart of Hong Kong Government, Says Prosecutor David Perry QC

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1632609/rafael-hui-trial-revealed-rotten-heart-hong-kong-government-says

The heart of Hong Kong government was “rotten” when former chief secretary Rafael Hui Si-yan pocketed multimillion-dollar bribes from billionaire property developers, prosecutors said as they began wrapping up one of the city’s biggest ever graft trials today.

Starting a four-day closing submission summing up more than 100 days of evidence, lead prosecutor David Perry QC said it was a “simple case of misconduct in public office” by Hui.

The actions of the co-defendants, Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chairmen and brothers Thomas Kwok Ping-kwong and Raymond Kwok Ping-luen, bore “all the hallmarks of bribery”.

“There was something rotten at the heart of the government of Hong Kong,” said Perry. “[Hui] put his own private interest before his public duty. It is about collusion between business and government.

“The prosecution has to say with regret that the defendants have told lies,” he added.

Perry said Hui’s earlier role as managing director of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) was also “hopelessly compromised” because of his “divided loyalty”.

The prosecutor asked the nine jurors not to judge Hui morally in the face of evidence about his luxurious lifestyle and spending sprees.

“He needed money to fund his immoderate and luxurious lifestyle – that’s not a criticism, that’s not a moral judgment,” Perry said.

Hui “is not on trial for his love of gourmet food, fine wine or companionship of women,” the prosecutor added.

Hui and Thomas Kwok had testified that the alleged bribes were part of a secret oral agreement made with Hui stipulating that HK$30 million be paid for two years’ consultancy between 2003 and 2005.

But Perry said: “The oral agreement is a fictitious invention of the defendants, a convenient attempt to explain away what was a bribe.”

Hui “abused” his public office, Perry said. “He was not candid, he was not truthful, he was not open about his relationship with the Kwoks ... because he received these bribes.”

He challenged the co-defendants’ testimony that the almost identical sums of money that left the Kwoks and arrived to Hui were coincidental. “An assertion of coincidence is not an explanation; it’s simply taking refuge in the denial of the connection,” he said.

“Each of the defendants, when they found themselves in difficulty, sought sanctuary in the claim of ignorance or absence of knowledge.”

When Hui was head of MPFA, he voted in favour of the public body’s renewal of its office lease in the IFC tower co-managed by SHKP. “Rather than acting with integrity, he deliberately suppressed the truth about his relationship with the Kwoks,” Perry said.

As chief secretary and later a non-official member of the Executive Council, Hui handled the West Kowloon Cultural District project, in which SHKP had an interest.

Hui, 66, faces eight charges related to bribery and misconduct in public office.

Thomas Kwok, 63, faces one charge of conspiracy to offer an advantage to Hui and two counts of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

Raymond Kwok, 61, faces four charges, including one with Hui of furnishing false information. SHKP executive director Thomas Chan Kui-yuen, 68, and former Hong Kong stock exchange official Francis Kwan Hung-sang, 63, each face two charges.

All have pleaded not guilty. The trial continues before Mr Justice Andrew Macrae.

女大狀指鄭紀航裁判官性騷擾 - CHEANG Kei Hong, a magistrate, has been accused of sexual harassment for asking a barrister if she'd had her feet licked

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=151098&sid=43300601&con_type=1

Wednesday, November 05, 2014

CHEANG Kei Hong, a magistrate, has been accused of sexual harassment for asking a barrister if she'd had her feet licked.

Offended, the barrister has filed reports to Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, chief magistrate Clement Lee Hing-nin and the Equal Opportunities Commission.

The remark came on August 8 at Sha Tin Magistrates court, where an indecent assault case was being heard.

Wan Ho-yeung, a Chinese University of Hong Kong masters student in public health, was accused of licking a female schoolmate's feet at the university library in January.

The case was heard before magistrate Cheang Kei-hong, who questioned 27-year-old Wan about him licking a 20-year-old schoolmate's feet for about a minute after claiming to be a psychology student curious about women's reactions to strange behavior.

When Wan's barrister suggested that the act may not amount to indecent assault, Cheang asked: "Then have you ever tried letting others lick your feet?"

The barrister said she had not.
___________________________________

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20141105/bkn-20141105211452612-1105_00822_001.html

女大狀指鄭紀航裁判官性騷擾

沙田裁判法院裁判官鄭紀航，月前審理一宗中大碩士男生涉嫌舔女同學腳底的非禮案時，被指出言反問代表被告的女大狀「咁妳有無試過被人舔腳」，女大狀事後認為有人的言論涉及性騷擾，據稱已向終審法院首席法官馬道立及總裁判官李慶年書面投訴；司法機構發言人指，為保護包括投訴人、被投訴人及其他可能有關人士的個人私隱，司法機構一般不評論個別個案。

Solicitor Stanley Chan (Chan Wing Leung) Had Once Been Prosecuted and Tried in the High Court - 陳永良律師曾當差在80年代與12名同袍被落案控以毆打、傷人、非法禁錮及串謀妨礙司法公正等六項罪名

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20141105/18924201

【雨傘革命　第39天】

【本報訊】前日有份發起律師默站抗議佔中的新民黨常委陳永良律師，最近以「拯救七俠五義於水深火熱中」之名組織律師團，協助涉於「暗角」毆打示威者的七警。這名撐警律師原來曾當差，更在80年代涉與12名同袍以大鐵鎚揼背脊、灼燒下體等酷刑向疑犯逼供。案件轟動一時，警隊內部稱他們做「十三太保」。陳昨回覆本報查詢稱：「嗰件案已經係過去咗，經過審訊之後，全部罪名不成立。」

記者：張婷婷　林偉聰

陳永良昨出席香港電台節目《千禧年代》時，主持人讀出一段Twitter訊息：「各位放心，我將組成律師團，拯救七俠五義於水深火熱中，已經約好見面，為其提供法律意見。『儆惡懲奸，忠肝義膽』，這八個字從我1974年宣誓入警察學校的第一天，便牢記心中。陳永良律師上。」

陳永良在節目表示，「七俠五義」是有關警員簡稱而已，強調「法律一日未定罪，大家都唔可以話佢哋有罪」。陳永良在前日發起律師默站反佔中後，本報昨收到多個報料，指他於80年代曾與多名警務人員涉嫌向一名毒販濫用私刑，在高院接受審訊，其後獲陪審團裁定無罪，有指涉案的13名警務人員被飭令自動辭職，指陳或因自己當年的經歷，故對七警特別同情.

■七警上月在金鐘清場時涉將佔領人士曾健超帶到暗角毆打，現被停職。

時任副處長要求自動辭職

本報翻查當年的報章報道發現，有關案件發生於1986年9月初，時任高級督察陳永良擔任主管的一隊特別行動組，進行緝毒截查工作時，探員把疑人載往九龍城樂富公園。陳永良曾離開現場，受害人則被人隔着檔案夾，以大鐵鎚打背部、將打火機燒過的金屬物件，灼燒受害人肚腩和下體。兩小時後，警才載受害人返回黃大仙警署扣留。

該名有多次吸毒、行劫案底的受害人作供時曾指陳向他表示，「最憎人運毒」，隨後打他心口兩下。受害人在警署投訴被毆送院，留醫四日，當時的警察投訴科接手後，發現13警口供一致，陳又曾聯絡協助警方誘捕受害人的毒販，恐嚇叫他向投訴科取回證供。13警分別被落案控以毆打、傷人、非法禁錮及串謀妨礙司法公正等六項罪名。該案經過70日聆訊，至1988年1月21日，陪審團一致裁定13名被告全部罪名不成立。

有退休警務人員憶述，當年陳永良駐守九龍總區刑事調查隊，事件曝光後，「警隊內部叫佢哋做十三太保，陳永良冇份參與施以酷刑，但就被指知情不報，並想遮掩事件」。案件因技術問題，被告被判無罪釋放，「當年證人供詞不一致，加上陪審團同情被告警員，認為佢哋都係為咗做嘢，結果判佢哋無罪。」其後由當年的副警務處長下令要他們自動辭職但沒進行紀律聆訊。

本報昨向陳永良查詢，他強調是自己辭職，沒收過警隊高層要求自動辭職。「我哋個個都係被證明係清白，經過審訊之後，全部罪名不成立，全部返番工」。他不評論是否因為以往的經歷，而對有關警員特別同情。

Pilot Killed as Virgin Galactic Spaceship Crashes in Desert During Test Flight

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1629716/pilot-killed-virgin-galactic-spaceship-crashes-desert-during-test-flight

Virgin chief Richard Branson vowed to push on towards the dream of space flight for the paying public after the fatal crash of one of his company's spacecrafts during a test flight in California.

A pilot died and another was seriously wounded when the pioneering craft for carrying tourists broke up over the Mojave desert on Friday, raising questions about the programme's future.

While Branson voiced shock at the accident involving Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, he said he still planned to give large numbers of paying civilians a suborbital ride that would let them experience weightlessness.

"We've always known the road to space is extremely difficult - and that every new transportation system has to deal with bad days early in their history," Branson said.

"Space is hard - but worth it. We will persevere and move forward together," he added.

After travelling to the desert, Branson saluted the pilots' bravery and said he was determined to find out the cause of the crash.

He did not discuss any details of it and deferred to the investigation by experts from the US National Transportation Safety Board just getting under way.

Television images showed the wreckage of SpaceShipTwo, a test vehicle that flies to the edge of space, scattered over the desert.

The flight - the 35th by SpaceShipTwo, according to Virgin Galactic's Twitter feed - involved the same configuration as previously, although the type of fuel was new, officials said.

More than 500 people have already reserved seats - and paid a deposit on the US$250,000 ticket price - for a minutes-long suborbital flight on SpaceShipTwo, which can carry six passengers.

Two Hongkongers - a woman and a man in their late 30s - have signed up to another space tourism firm, Amsterdam-based SpaceExpedition Corp (SXC).

SpaceShipTwo's first commercial flight - in which Branson and his family have vowed to travel - has often been delayed. But it was tentatively forecast for the first half of 2015.

29歲英國籍金融才俊 Rurik Jutting 疑淪為變態妓女殺手 - Former Bank of America Merrill Lynch Employee Rurik Jutting Suspected of Murdering Two Prostitutes At Home

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20141102/18920856

29歲英國籍金融才俊疑淪為變態妓女殺手，五日內先後誘騙兩名南亞裔妓女往灣仔住所，性交後用逾呎長尖刀割喉將兩人殺害，更瘋狂拍下2,000張血腥「艷屍照」，其中一名妓女頭顱幾乎被割甩、五花大綁藏屍行李篋中，萬聖節午夜狂歡，至昨凌晨疑兇第二度犯案後自行報警，並着警員「自己看」。警方先在客廳發現一具女屍，8小時後再搜獲腐爛生蟲的「篋屍」，疑兇涉嫌謀殺被捕，警方正追查是否有更多受害人。

被捕疑兇 Rurik Jutting，未婚，英國籍，持有香港身份證，在中環一間美資投資銀行任職高層約兩年，以每月近3萬元租金，租住莊士敦道60號服務式住宅嘉薈軒31樓一個500餘平方呎的一房一廳單位。

案中首先被發現的受害人30歲為菲律賓籍，她全身赤裸伏屍客廳，面部被割至血肉模糊，喉嚨遭人一刀割破放血，後頸及臀部亦被亂刀狂插；第二名被發現的受害人25歲，印尼籍，身體屈曲側放於一米長、半米闊及半米高的橙啡色軟身行李篋內，頭頸被割至幾近甩脫，僅剩皮肉相連，全身赤裸被人以露營用的尼龍繩綑綁，再被床單包裹上身，露出腳踝，屍體已發脹腐爛，出現屍蟲。

消息稱，兩名受害人均為妓女，疑兇則染有吸毒惡習，性需求甚大，交歡時亦愛玩情趣玩具。約五日前，他先在酒吧結識了25歲受害人，性交後將她殺害，把屍體藏於行李篋中置放露台，並用床褥將篋遮蓋；至前晚，疑兇又在酒吧認識了另一名30歲妓女，帶回家交易後再下毒手。據悉，兩女遇害時均全身赤裸，在睡夢中遇襲被殺，死前只能作無力掙扎，事後疑兇更為兩具女屍拍下逾2,000張照片及影片，部份更為私處及傷口大特寫，十分駭人。

昨凌晨3時許，疑兇第二次行兇後，自行致電999報案，操英語要求警方協助及聲稱有事發生，警員趕抵入屋一刻嗅到陣陣惡臭，赫見一名女子赤裸伏屍客廳，廳中一片凌亂，四周血迹斑斑，疑兇亦滿身抓痕，語無倫次，只用英語說：「你們自己看吧。」警員立即將其拘捕帶署。

大批重案組探員、鑑證科及政府化驗所人員事後作地氈式搜索，至中午時分，搜至面向皇后大道東的露台時，發現露台門被鎖，開啟入內移開床褥後發現一個行李篋，裏面竟藏着一具女屍。

警方稍後初步證實兩女子身份，行李篋內的25歲印尼籍死者，死去約四、五日，伏屍客廳的女子30歲菲律賓籍死者則約於昨凌晨遇害。

警方翻看嘉薈軒閉路電視片後，發現前晚11時許，衣着性感的菲籍死者隨疑兇回家，警員在其伏屍附近撿獲一柄逾呎長的染血尖刀，同時在梳化上撿獲震蛋等性用品，亦撿獲少量可卡因及酒精飲品，不排除案發前兩人曾吸食毒品，而於大廈頂層，前晚亦有萬聖節派對，警方會一併了解會否有關。

除了兇案單位，調查人員同時在毗鄰單位掃取指模蒐證，據悉該單位亦由英國籍人士租住，兩單位均由已故知名教育家陳樹渠的子女所持有的公司，在2008年以合共約815萬元購入。
灣仔警區助理指揮官溫兆雄稱，現正追查疑兇的犯案動機及與兩名女死者的確實關係，疑兇身上的抓痕，不排除案發前雙方曾經發生糾纏，而涉案行李篋遭人刻意用物件遮蓋，警方循程序搜查後，至昨中午才發現第二名受害人的屍體。案件列作謀殺處理，灣仔重案組接手跟進。

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-01/hong-kong-police-probe-suspected-murder-in-wan-chai-apartment.html

Hong Kong police arrested a 29-year-old man in connection with the deaths of two women. The man is a British national who worked for a “top-tier global bank,” the South China Morning Post reported, citing an unidentified police source.

One of the women, who was found dead inside a suitcase at an apartment in the Wan Chai district, had injuries to her neck, Hong Kong police said in a statement yesterday. The other died from cut wounds shortly after police arrived at the scene, where the foreign man was arrested and a knife found on the premises was seized, police said.

The arrested man’s name is Rurik Jutting, Apple Daily reported on its website today. Bank of America Merrill Lynch previously had an employee of that name, said Paul Scanlon, a bank spokesman. Police couldn’t immediately respond to questions about the man’s identity.

Police arriving at the scene found an unconscious foreign woman between the ages of 25 and 30 with cut wounds. Hours later they discovered the body of the second woman inside the suitcase, the South China Morning Post reported. The two women were believed to be sex workers of Southeast Asian or Asian ethnicity and were killed several days apart, the report said.

A spokesperson for the U.K. Foreign Office confirmed that a British national had been arrested in Hong Kong, but provided no other details, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported.

“We are in touch with the local police and stand ready to provide consular assistance,” the spokesperson said, according to the BBC.

https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E5%8A%8D%E6%A9%8B%E7%A2%A9%E5%A3%AB%E8%AB%87%E5%8F%AC%E5%A6%93-%E9%8C%A2%E8%B2%B7%E5%88%B0%E5%BF%AB%E6%A8%82-215516846.html

(星島日報報道) 涉及連環兇案的疑兇，為英國頂尖大學劍橋碩士，近期將參加過的佔中活動照片，上載到「臉書」，更貼出一幀與疑似菲律賓美女的合照，似乎對南亞裔女子特別喜愛，他被捕時表現迷糊，但回復清醒則顯得冷靜，拒絕警方提問，不斷用英文重複一句話︰「你自己去查」。

涉案英漢 Rurik Jutting ，為英國劍橋大學文學碩士，之前一直在倫敦生活，兩年前來港，受聘一家國際投資銀行當高層，一年前透過地產公司，以近三萬元獨自租嘉薈軒三十一樓一個五百方呎單位，並領有本港身分證。據悉，涉案單位之業主為公司名義登記。

　　似鍾情南亞裔女子

　　疑兇於「臉書」上載疑似菲律賓美女合照，似特別鍾情南亞裔女子，又喜歡到處遊玩，包括上月一日到過金鐘佔領區，並將黃絲帶相片貼上社交網站，在萬聖節當日，即第一名女死者遇害數天後，疑兇還冷靜上網及召妓感受，認為「錢可以買到快樂。」

　　警方於昨日案發後抵達現場，發現疑兇精神有異，迷迷糊糊，但到了警署後回復清醒，顯得非常冷靜，拒絕回答警員所有問題，只是不斷用英文重複一句話︰「你自己去查」，故警方對案情仍掌握不多。

　　嘉薈軒為服務式住宅大廈，樓高四十層，於七年前入伙，二○一二年一月十二日大廈曾發生命案，醫管局明日之星、年僅三十四歲的東區醫院外科部駐院專科醫生黃浩卿，被發現在一名富貴落選港姐名下三十九樓物業墮樓分屍。醫院管理局其後證實黃帶愛滋病毒，被批評隱瞞真相。

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1629862/foreign-national-arrested-police-investigate-double-wan-chai-murder

Hong Kong police are examining a British murder suspect’s mobile phone in a quest to indentify possible further victims after two dead women were found at his Wan Chai flat on Saturday.

Detectives are also contacting pubs and vice establishments in the area to gather evidence and learn more about the background of the two dead women found in the British banker’s flat on Saturday.

The suspect - who two sources identified as 29-year-old Rurik George Caton Jutting - was arrested early on Saturday after he called police. Officers arrived at his 31st-floor apartment at around 3.45am on Saturday to discover the body of one young woman in his living room. Her throat had been slashed.

Hours later the body of the second woman was found stuffed in a suitcase on the apartment’s balcony.

It is believed that the women were sex workers of Southeast Asian or Asian ethnicity and that they may have been killed days apart.

Jutting is a Cambridge University graduate, his online profiles suggest. He previously worked for Barclays, then joined Bank of America Merrill Lynch in London.

He moved to Hong Kong last year to continue working for the same bank in structured equity finance and trading, according to his LinkedIn profile and records from the UK Financial Servies Register.

A police source said the flat at J Residence, a high-end block at 60 Johnston Road favoured by junior expatriate bankers, was "covered in blood’’.

The first victim, aged between 25 and 30, was found naked in the living room with knife wounds to her neck and buttocks. "Two cut wounds were found in her neck and her throat was slashed," the source said.

CCTV footage showed the woman and the suspect, who has not been charged, had returned to the flat at around midnight.


About eight hours after the first body was found, the naked corpse of the second woman, thought to be Indonesian and aged 25, was discovered wrapped in a carpet inside a black suitcase on the flat’s balcony. "She was nearly decapitated and her hands and legs were bound with ropes," the source said. Her passport was found at the scene.

An initial investigation found that the body in the suitcase had been there for three to four days and had started to decompose.

"We believe the woman had been dead for quite some time," said Wan Siu-hung, Wan Chai assistant district commander for crime.

He said the time gap between the bodies’ discovery was because police had to follow strict procedures to collect the evidence in the living room before searching the balcony

A small quantity of cocaine was found in the living room. "We are investigating whether [the suspect] was under the influence of illegal drugs at the time of the incident," the source said.


A spokeswoman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London said: "We can confirm that a British national has been arrested in Hong Kong. We are in touch with the local police and stand ready to provide consular assistance."

Security was tight at the 40-storey block in the night to Sunday.

One person who has lived at J Residence for about a year said he had noticed an odd smell recently. "There was a stink in the building like a dead animal," he said. "It was a shock because you would never expect something like this to happen in Hong Kong."

He said the building’s occupants were mainly expatriates.

The murders are the latest in a series of shocking crimes the city has seen in recent months.


A police source said the scene of the murder in Wan Chai was among the grisliest seen since the so-called "milkshake murder" in 2003, when a high-flying American banker’s wife served him a strawberry milkshake full of sedatives before bludgeoning him to death.

反黑組總督察黃祖成高級督察劉卓毅涉濫用私刑停職 - 警循刑事方向調查

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20141016/18901733

涉濫用私刑　七警身份曝光

七名警務人員公然涉嫌毆打示威者，令全城譁然，警方稱會成立專責嚴重投訴個案委員會跟進。據悉，涉事的七名人員主要來自觀塘警區反黑組，及俗稱「O記」的有組織罪案及三合會調查科。消息指，警方已下令這七名涉案人員轉做後勤工作，以便協助調查。有法律界人士認為，警方有足夠證據展開今次涉嫌毆打案，應立即拘捕涉案的七名警務人員。
記者：謝明明　李家傑　謝志輝　鄭啟源

警察公共關係科總警司許鎮德昨表示，被投訴涉嫌毆打示威者的七名警務人員，包括兩名督察級及五名初級警員，警方會成立專責嚴重投訴個案委員會跟進，並向拍攝到相關涉嫌毆打片段的傳媒了解以協助調查，同時向投訴人錄取口供。他表示，該七名警員會被調離工作崗位，但許不肯交代他們被調職到甚麼崗位。據了解，警方已下令涉事的七名警務人員退下前線，轉為內勤工作，以便協助調查。

包括兩督察五初級警員

消息指，警方為應付佔中行動，除出動全體機動部隊及全港一半衝鋒隊人員外，各警區刑偵部門包括反黑組、O記、商業罪案調查科及毒品調查科等亦需抽調合共1,000人參與應對佔中行動，其中O記負責統領反黑探員。

今次涉事的兩名督察級人員分別為O記A1組總督察黃祖成，以及觀塘警區反黑組主管高級督察劉卓毅，其餘五名初級警員隸屬觀塘警區反黑組。其中劉卓毅被網民起底，畢業於英國華威大學法律系；黃祖成去年代表警隊出席打擊販運人口國際論壇。

曾與黃祖成共事的警員形容黃情緒智商（EQ）高，「並非易衝動嘅人」，有警隊中人承認，今次事件打擊警隊聲譽，但認為導致今次事件原因是前線人員的情緒已瀕爆發邊緣，「前線人員已經谷到爆，忍無可忍，先至做出呢啲愚蠢行為，係一件不幸事件」。據知警隊內部普遍情緒低落，部份人更出現厭戰情緒，「既然公眾對警隊咁不滿，警隊索性唔制止示威者，任由佢哋堵塞道路」。

投訴警察科截至昨日中午為止，共接獲471宗涉及佔中的投訴個案，涉521項指控，涉龍和道則有56宗。監警會委員黃碧雲及梁繼昌要求監警會主席郭琳廣召開特別會議，討論有警員涉嫌毆打示威者事件，並邀請投訴警察課派員出席，向委員解釋會如何跟進調查。

另一監警會委員、港大法律學院首席講師張達明表示，從傳媒拍攝片段所見，表面上已有證據相關警員涉嫌違法，涉刑事成份，等於一般市民違法，也要先啟動刑事調查。監警會主席郭琳廣昨晚發聲明表示，考慮到公眾對事件非常關注，決定將有關投訴個案交由嚴重投訴個案委員會跟進，由於目前掌握的資料有限，現階段不適宜評論事件。監警會會密切與警方跟進調查進度，務求事件得到徹底調查。

議員轟警方應立即拉人

立會議員涂謹申指，當時曾已被制服，事件是徹頭徹尾的刑事毆打，要求立即拘捕涉案警察，「條片清楚拍攝到毆打經過，警方有足夠證展開刑事調查，應該立即拘捕涉案嘅七名警員，否則就係包庇！」

據了解，按照一般程序，若投訴警方個案涉及刑事調查，投訴警察課會暫停調查，待刑事調查及相關司法程序完結後，才重開檔案調查。警察員佐級協會主席陳祖光昨發聲明，指警隊正面臨前所未有挑戰，明白同袍長時間在艱困環境下工作，身心不易支持，呼籲同袍堅守崗位，迎難而上。

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20141016/53025035

7名涉打人警員停職 警循刑事方向調查

警察公共關係科高級警司江敏強表示，投訴警察科進一步調查後，已將涉及昨凌晨在龍和道清場行動中疑毆打示威者的7名警員停職，但指出事件中的示威者曾向警員淋潑「不明液體」，警員制服他時遭到反抗，事後警方以非法集結、襲警等罪名將他拘捕。江敏強稱會警方就事件作全面調查，負責的專責調查隊已循刑事方向調查，監警會亦有跟進。

江敏強拒絕證實所指的「不明液體」是否尿液，只強調警方絕不會偏私，會作出公平調查。他又表示，昨晚再有示威者欲堵塞龍和道，令車輛需緊急煞車，影響港島交通，期間有激進示威者不斷在場叫囂及指駡警員，曾勸告不獲理會故採取行動。他表示，警方留意到有人在網上呼籲以「打游撃」方式堵塞中環等道路，以反撃日前警方清路障行動，又有人以「快閃」方式，扮跌錢在馬路、扮執錢，目的其實是挑釁警方，令警員疲於奔命，製造交通擠塞，並影響他人安全，他形容這是缺乏公德的自私行為，非法及浪費警力，呼籲激進示威者不要再罔顧公眾安全，堵塞道路。

江敏強強調網上呼籲他人作出此等行為是違法的，行為不負責任，在現實及網絡上都要受法律制裁，警方不排除作出行動。另外，旺角多條道路仍被堵塞，他重申該處仍屬高危地區，並留意昨晚有人欲在佔領區搭棚架，認為此做法是置當區居民安全於不顧，希望集會人士盡快移除路障並撤離。

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1617448/live-night-anger-scuffles-and-pepper-spray-hong-kong-after-alleged

8.30 pm on Thursday October 16, 2014: A High Court judge has advised Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu to write to Police Commissioner about a request to disclose the identities of the officers who allegedly beat him.

Tsang filed a writ the High Court at 4pm and called for an urgent hearing. One of his requests is that an interim mandatory injunction be issued, imposing an interdiction from duty. Police have already announced the suspension of seven officers.

The court also heard that Tsang needed the names of the officers to lodge private legal action against each of them. Outside the court, Tsang's lawyer, Michael Vidler, said they would give the police until Monday morning to reply to their request for the disclosure of names.

Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue (本身係大律師嘅暫委特委裁判官喻競天) Criticized by the High Court

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=95200&currpage=T

HCMA 348/2014

香港特別行政區  

訴  

余炳新  

----------------------------

主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭法官李瀚良

聆訊日期：2014年8月26日

判案日期：2014年10月10日

判案書

1.  上訴人被裁定一項「沒有遵照交通燈指示」罪成立[1]，控罪指他在去年11月6日下午12時許，在紅棉道與夏慤道交匯處，無合理辯解，違反紅色交通燈號。暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 判罰款1,700 元，他提出定罪上訴...

10.  開始審訊時，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 詢問上訴人的辯護理據，當上訴人指控方證據不足，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 當庭恥笑，令他覺得本身係大律師嘅暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 有先入為主，偏信控方的意向。上訴人邀請本席詳細翻聽審訊錄音，答辯人沒有反對。

11.  當上訴人表示控方證據不足時，錄音紀錄清楚聽到裁判官竊笑的聲音，雖然裁判官立即解釋並非恥笑上訴人，他明白本案不是用器材偵測，而是爭議警員觀察是否可靠，所以理解上訴人的辯護理由。單單這段對話本席認為不足以令人覺得裁判官的態度有問題，但接著有以下事情發生：

(a) 裁判官叫上訴人坐在前面，上訴人答OK。裁判官立即厲聲說唔好講OK，又叫上訴人企起身。

(b) 當上訴人表示相信爭議是肉眼觀察是否準確，錄音無聲約兩秒後，裁判官立即質疑何為「相信」。

(c) 當上訴人表示有一名辯方證人，裁判官又大聲指出紀錄顯示上訴人以前沒提及這事，又說可聽錄音，更命令主控翻查紀錄，當上訴人答稱之前曾向法庭表示過，裁判官又嚴厲地反問「我問你咩」。

(d) 裁判官問有相片否，上訴人欲澄清，裁判官立即大聲指不知上訴人有甚麼相片，只問有沒有相片。上訴人指預備了相片，裁判官追問幾多份，上訴人說兩份，裁判官指不夠，上訴人答可有三份，裁判官又指上訴人答非所問。

12.  期間，裁判官的語氣時而挖苦，時而嚴厲，但又會突然轉回溫和。只憑錄音，本席已覺無所適從，何況一個普通市民如上訴人。

13.  不但如此，在整個審訊過程，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 對上訴人多次挖苦，又質疑上訴人的發問技巧，令人覺得是矯枉過正。對於一般人而言，何須執著一些困難的法律原則和審訊技巧，裁判官的態度有故意刁難上訴人之嫌。雖然裁判官在批評之後，又嘗試解釋原因，但語氣既不莊重，也欠誠意。

14.  雖然裁判官也曾質疑控方的技巧，但綜觀整個審訊，他的態度明顯針對上訴人。

15.  暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 開審前雖曾詳細解釋程序，審訊時卻對上訴人批評多於協助，也多次挖苦上訴人，本席認為沒有必要。

16.  裁判官的行為是否導致不公平審訊，本席應考慮一個了解情況的聽審者會否覺得審訊不公平。

17.  本案是單對單的案件，裁判官公平衡量雙方證供至為重要。本席再三聽過審訊錄音，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 對上訴人的態度，並不持平。綜上所述，本席認為審訊不公平，定罪不穩妥。現判上訴人得直，推翻定罪。

"My Responses To The 10 Things They Say About Occupy Students"

http://www.scmp.com/comment/blogs/article/1606761/my-responses-ten-things-they-say-about-occupy-students

South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October 2014, by Wong Sze Wai)

I am not blindly supporting the students. I am simply supporting anyone who fights for justice. I have heard of a number of sayings about the protesters and the students, and I would like to respond to them one by one.

1. "One person one vote is already an improvement. Why don’t we take it?"

Let’s say your parents are so liberal and merciful that they allow you to enjoy the freedom to choose your own bride. The pre-requisite is that they limit your options to just two women chosen by them. In the event you like neither of them, sorry, tough luck. Do you see this as "freedom to choose"? Would you take it?

2. "It’s OK even though there is no real democracy. It has nothing to do with my life."

Many people think that even though there is no real democracy, it doesn’t impact them personally. That is not true. Without the right to elect your own leaders, it means however notorious the people in power are, they can remain in power as long as they like. They do not need to care about the needs of ordinary people. They would continue to collude with the business tycoons, and do their best to defend their interests. They would come up with every possible policy to facilitate the migration of mainlanders to Hong Kong so that they could "dilute" the Hong Kong population, despite the fact that intense conflicts have grown between the two peoples.

They could continue to erode Hong Kong’s judicial independence by ordering the judges to be patriotic to China. They could continue say things like, the CCP is the largest democratic force in Hong Kong. They continue to stifle the freedom of speech, turning almost all the newspapers and TV channels into government mouthpieces.

Perhaps you would still think all these do not bother you. But they are important to people who pursue justice. Please, at least do not pour cold water on them.

3. "Students vs the CCP? Students are bound to lose. What can students do? All will be fruitless!"

It has never been easy to fight for what you want in front of those in power. Back then, how many people had said to Martin Luther King and Gandhi respectively, that "civil disobedience will not work out"? If they had given up, what kind of life would African-Americans and Indians be living today?

If everyone obeys the authorities because they think they would in no way achieve anything by fighting against the government, there will be no human rights, justice or democracy in the world. Ordinary people would be slaves for the rich and powerful for ever and ever.

4. "They are making Hong Kong chaotic, undermining our economy, damaging HK’s international image."

Whenever people fight for their political rights they displease those in power. Are you really calling them trouble-makers for that?

Those who said that Occupy Central would severely damage Hong Kong’s economy have always been the government, its allies and the rich and powerful. How exactly would protesters affect the economy? No one could really tell. Even if it may have an impact, is the economic growth or justice more important?

Freedom, judicial independence and a clean government have always been the qualities which uphold Hong Kong’s international image. It is the authorities who more and more blatantly undermine these qualities, while the people are defending them in their own ways. Who are the ones who are actually undermining Hong Kong’s international image?

There are a lot more demonstrations, protests and marches in London than in Hong Kong. These protests have not seemed to cause any damage to London’s economy or its international image.

5. "They broke the rules. It’s not right."

For decades these pro-democracy campaigners have abided by the rules, hoping they would reach a solution through dialogue. Only after it has long proven fruitless, they have finally resorted to civil disobedience.

Is it always right to abide by the laws and rules? The reasons behind having laws and rules are to uphold fairness and justice in the society. However, under an unjust system and totalitarian rule, it is sometimes necessary to reach a bigger goal by breaking some rules.

Needless to say, not all the rules in the world are worth being followed. Let’s use the same example. What would you think if your parents say to you, "I’ve chosen two women for you and you can opt for one as your wife. This is my house rule. If you don’t do as I say, if you want to meet another girl of your choice, I will punish you as you broke my rule!"

The meaning behind civil disobedience is to break some so-called rules in a non-violent way. The participants are clearly aware that they may be arrested, which may have tremendous impact on their future. And yet they are still willing to take the risks. This is the kind of sacrifice not anyone is ready to make.

6. "They are violent. It’s not right."

If you have not been to the scene, please do not trust the media reports. People who have been there could all see how violent the police force was, and how restrained the students were.

Yes, the students climbed through an open fence to reach Civic Square, and pushed down the barriers under the flags so that they could sit down in the square. If you see these actions as violence, let me ask you this: "A woman, while being molested by a man, screamed and pushed him away. Would you call her violent and disobedient?" When injustice is around us, it is our duty to resist.

7. "The students were either manipulated, having fun, or playing heroes. They don’t know what they are doing."

Have you been to the scene to meet the students and communicate with them before saying this?

For days, they have lived outdoors under the baking sun, lacking sleep. They have not eaten properly and it has even been inconvenient to find a loo. Many of them face a lot of pressure from their parents and schools. Some were trapped by the police for more than ten hours. They are taking the risks of being arrested and having a criminal record. What they’ve been doing is admirable. Not many people could do as much.

If you cannot do what they have been doing, please at least keep quiet and don’t show disrespect.

8. "They are just making noise. Why can’t they negotiate rationally or do something more constructive?"

Before saying that, please spend some time to research what the campaigners have done in trying to "negotiate rationally". Please research how many proposals on political reform they have submitted in the hope that the government will consider. Any negotiation is two-way. If one side has already shut the door, how could the other side continue to "negotiate rationally"? After doing the research, please ask yourself: "If I were them, is there anything I could do to continue the rational negotiation?"

Please also do some research on what they have done all the way through to be constructive. Only then, ask yourself: "On top of all these, is there anything I could do to be constructive?"

If you cannot come up with a proper answer, please don’t criticise these people as "unconstructive".

9. "The Occupy Central people are so irresponsible and hypocritical!" "After all this, the students will just go back to school as usual. What could they achieve?" "What’s the point of striving for democracy under the Chinese Communist Party’s rule. Why don’t they simply launch a coup d’état against the CCP?"

Some people are opposed to the government and the CCP rule and yet have disdained those fighting for justice. They’ve blamed the pan-democratic legislators for having betrayed Hong Kong people. They’ve blamed the Occupy Central leaders for not being forward enough. They called the students’ actions impulsive and useless.

There is not much use in discussing anything with these people. I just want to ask them:

After criticising almost everyone else, do you have a better solution?

After blaming everyone else, aren’t you going back to work and living your life as usual? Or are you planning to launch a coup d’état in Tiananmen Square instead?

Even if I could do more than the protesters, I would never criticise them for not doing enough, as everyone has his own limitations. And, in any case, the fact is that I would never be able to do more than what they have done. I will never criticise them for not doing enough, not being determined enough, or not having sacrificed enough. When others do what they can, I must at least appreciate and admire.

10. "I am not interested in politics. What are they actually fighting for?" "I know nothing about politics. I don’t have a stand."

Believe it or not. A good number of people still choose to live in their own bubbles, burying their heads in the sand. They do not bother to ask any questions or make any statements. They are survivors who just want to live their lives.

The problem is that Hong Kong is a building on fire. The alarm is on. And yet you who live on the 30th floor say to yourself, "I will be fine. The fire won’t spread to the 30th floor."

It is no longer a situation where you can simply say "just leave me alone". The CCP is boiling a frog. They are bit by bit breaking the promise of "one country, two systems" to Hong Kong people. If everyone chooses to bury their head in the sand, the CCP would gladly speed up totalitarian rule in Hong Kong. Very soon, Hong Kong would then be no different to the rest of China.

If, one day, your loved one was imprisoned, tortured and killed only because he had criticised the government, would you still be able to say, "I am not interested in politics. I have no stand."

Today, you may still think that politics is abstract. Tomorrow, when you finally realise that politics is affecting your everyday life, it may be too late.