審訊期間多次申請押後的大律師劉世祿 (Lawyer Counsel Barrister Lau Sai Luk) 今日在高等法院上訴要求推翻定罪時又出此招，表示需要時間物色律師及身體不適，被法官張慧玲怒斥他在裁判法院已經用盡方法申請押後，甚至表示不想審訊撞正生日，實在荒謬。劉上訴指原審裁判官不給他時間聘請律師代表及傳召證人，但法官認為他的上訴全無理據，下令駁回。
(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140527/-32-3272896/1.html)
Also of interest...
http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2001/409.html
NICHOLAS F F PIRIE v. THE BAR COUNCIL [2001] HKCA 409; [2001] 4 HKC 190; CACV744/2000 (21 September 2001)
CACV000744/2000
CACV 744/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2000
(ON APPEAL FROM THE BARRISTER'S DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
THE BAR COUNCIL v NICHOLAS F.F. PIRIE)
THE BAR COUNCIL v NICHOLAS F.F. PIRIE)
(IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal pursuant to Section 37B of
the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Chapter 159 Laws of Hong Kong)
the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Chapter 159 Laws of Hong Kong)
______________
| BETWEEN | ||
| NICHOLAS F.F. PIRIE | Appellant | |
| AND | ||
| THE BAR COUNCIL | Respondent |
______________
Coram: Hon Mayo VP, Le Pichon JA & Hartmann J in Court
Date of Judgment: 21 September 2001
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Mayo VP:
1. The appellant is appealing against the decision of a Barrister's Disciplinary Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal heard three separate complaints. They were all contrary to para. 6(b) of the Code of Conduct of the Bar. It was alleged that the appellant had been guilty of conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute.
3. The three complaints related to alleged assaults perpetrated by the appellant upon his pupil Mr Lau. The first two assaults had not occasioned Mr Lau any actual bodily harm and Mr Lau was unable to remember the exact dates upon which they had occurred. The third assault which was alleged to have taken place on 23 May 1998 had occasioned Mr Lau actual bodily harm. It had occurred on a Saturday morning. In the afternoon Mr Lau had attended at the Queen Mary Hospital where he received treatment. According to the medical evidence there was some bruising and tenderness on Mr Lau's head.
4. Mr Lau's pupillage with the appellant was of short duration. It commenced at the beginning of May 1998 and effectively ended on 23 May.
5. It appears to have been common ground that the pupillage had not been harmonious from the outset. The appellant was critical of the standard of Mr Lau's written and spoken English and of his ability to understand the assignments which were given to him. In particular the appellant complained about the adequacy of the notes Mr Lau took of court proceedings.
6. The appellant alleged that Mr Lau had an unkempt appearance and had not been properly dressed. On one occasion he had observed toothpaste all the way down his suit. One of the matters which the appellant had referred to was his opinion that Mr Lau might be suffering from some form of mental illness such as depression. He claimed that Mr Lau had told him that he had been taking medication for depression and that this might provide an explanation for his performance.
7. On his part Mr Lau was highly critical of the appellant. He described his experience working for the appellant as being a "nightmare - a terrible experience". He accepted that there had been problems with the preparation of authorities. The reason for this had been his lack of knowledge concerning the whereabouts of the relevant reports.
8. He denied however that he had been inappropriately dressed or that he had ever told the appellant that he was taking medication for any ailment.
9. He accepted that he had been embarrassed and humiliated by the criticisms which had been made of him by the appellant. He denied however that he had fabricated the allegations he was making against the appellant.
10. The first two assaults he complained of had occurred in the appellant's room in his chambers. He could not remember the exact date of these assaults. They do not appear to have been as serious as the assault which is alleged to have taken place on the morning of 23 May.
11. The Tribunal analysed the events leading up to 23 May.
12. Earlier in the week, the appellant had appeared before Findlay J. The Judge had subjected the appellant to some criticism partly on account of the unsatisfactory state of the preparation of the documentation for the hearing. The atmosphere had been particularly unpleasant and the appellant had caused his secretary to write to the Judge apologising for the disorganised way the documents had been presented to the court.
13. According to the appellant it was at this time that he realised that Mr Lau's pupillage was not working out and that it would be necessary for him to terminate the arrangement.
14. He decided to inform Mr Lau of this on 21 May. Before doing so he took the precaution of requesting Mr Nunn another member of his chambers to attend with him to act as a witness. Mr Nunn made a written statement which it was agreed should stand as evidence. There were some discrepancies between his version of what transpired and the appellant's and also Mr Lau's. According to the appellant Mr Lau did not take the news of the termination of his pupillage well. He appeared to be distressed and close to tears. The appellant had said that Mr Lau need not come in on the following day and could collect his belongings on Saturday morning.
15. Mr Lau did come in on Saturday morning. It is clear that he did spend some time in the appellant's room. A summer student Ms Elaine Wong was also present that morning. She made a written statement the contents of which was available to the Tribunal. According to her at some stage during the morning when she was in the pantry brewing coffee Mr Lau entered the pantry and said that the appellant had assaulted him. She had asked him if the appellant had been joking and he had said this had not been the case. Later she had seen Mr Lau looking up the telephone number of the Bar Association. She had not thought that he had proposed making a complaint concerning the assault...
