前特首董建華的美籍女婿施立德（Eric McLean Slighton）涉嫌在美國三藩市機場醉酒，並假扮安檢職員為女遊客搜身當場被捕，現正保釋候查。其父親向當地傳媒自爆，在董建華擔任特首時，施立德曾經酗酒。施在港任職的金融公司正就被捕事件展開內部調查。
閉路電視拍得他在該處流連約40分鐘，並戴上安檢員專用的藍手套。他涉嫌向一名亞裔女遊客自稱美國運輸安全局（TSA）職員，並帶她到私人搜身區搜身。他企圖為另一女遊客搜身前，遭其他安檢員發現並報警。
施立德是董建華長女董立筠的丈夫，報稱53歲，居於三藩市及香港，任職財務主管。施上周二美國時間中午12時半於三藩市機場被捕，其時身上有瀚曦金融公司（Aktis Financial）董事的名片，翌日晚上以一萬元美金保釋外出，案件下月18日在當地法庭提堂。由於事件牽涉機場保安漏洞，英美傳媒廣泛報道，香港《文匯報》也有轉載，但沒提及施立德就是董建華的女婿。本報翻查土地及公司註冊資料，確認施立德目前是瀚曦的董事，與妻子董立筠聯名持有紅山半島物業。
(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140721/52716405)
2014年7月21日 星期一
2014年7月18日 星期五
東區裁判法院裁判官黃汝榮無理反對被告保釋被高院法官司徒冕斥責濫權 - Magistrate Symon Wong Slammed by the High Court for His Unreasonable Denial of Bail
Magistrate Symon Wong Slammed by the High Court for His Unreasonable Denial of Bail - 東區裁判法院裁判官黃汝榮無理反對被告保釋被高院法官司徒冕斥責濫權
東區裁判法院裁判官黃汝榮，涉無理反對被告保釋，被高院法官司徒冕斥責濫權。與立法會議員梁家傑同名的34歲被告，涉於今年4月30日在中環碼頭，藏有0.55克冰毒及吸毒工具，被控一項藏毒及一項管有吸毒器具罪，一直獲准保釋，本周一(14日)在裁判官黃汝榮席前提訊時，提出聘請律師、押後案件及繼續保釋，但黃汝榮沒有提出理由下，不准被告保釋。
被告之後向高院申請保釋，律政司認為裁判官做法有問題，按緊急情況處理，高院法官司徒冕今日即時批准被告以500元現金保釋，案件於下周二在東區裁判法院續審。高院法官司徒冕斥黃汝榮明目張膽濫權，將沒有律師代表的被告還押，違背法律制度，令司法機構蒙羞，而以往從未發生同類事件。司徒冕又指，律政司其實可更快處理，若當日即時提出高院可即日解決，他又代司法機構向被告道歉。
The South China Morning Post (Saturday July 19, 2014): -
Magistrate rapped for refusing bail request without giving reason
Eastern Court's Symon Wong, who gave no reason for refusing man's request for time to get a lawyer, 'brought disgrace to judiciary'
A High Court judge has rapped a magistrate for "bringing disgrace to the judiciary" over his decision to refuse bail to a defendant in a drug case who had requested time to get a lawyer.
Deputy judge Mr Justice Michael Stuart-Moore said he was "utterly shocked" that Magistrate Symon Wong Yu-wing, of Eastern Court, did not give any reason on Monday for remanding Leung Ka-kit in custody.
Leung, 34, had earlier been granted bail twice, by the police and the courts. But Wong's decision landed the defendant in jail for four nights, until he had the opportunity to present his application for bail afresh at the High Court yesterday, in a hearing brought forward by Stuart-Moore to remedy the situation.
"There is not one single valid reason either by the magistrate or by the fact, for the withdrawal of the bail," the judge said.
He called it an abuse of power "to lock up an unrepresented defendant who was highly powerless to do anything".
The judicial system was built on the principle of equal treatment and all parties who were brought before the court should be treated fairly, Stuart-Moore said.
Not only was Leung not legally represented, but the prosecution had not challenged his request for bail, he said.
Stuart-Moore apologised to Leung on behalf of the judiciary and said he hoped it would not happen again. He also allowed the defendant to be released on bail of HK$500.
The judge further noted that the bail document Wong signed listed 15 reasons from which the magistrate could select to explain why the defendant was required to be taken into custody.
But Wong did not choose any of those reasons, writing only "remand in custody" and signing the form, he said.
The magistrate, by abusing his judicial power to control someone who was entitled to his liberty, "has brought disgrace to the judiciary", Stuart-Moore said.
The court heard that the suspect was arrested in Central on April 30 and later released on police bail.
On June 10, Leung attended Eastern Court and denied the twin charges of possessing 0.5 grams of the dangerous drug Ice and of possessing apparatus for inhaling drugs. Magistrate Bina Chainrai set July 14 as the trial date and granted the defendant bail of HK$500.
Leung, who had no legal representative, returned to Eastern Court for his trial on Monday. He asked Wong for an adjournment so he could have more time to seek a lawyer.
The prosecution indicated that it had no objection to extending Leung's bail, but Wong revoked it.
Leung applied for bail again at the High Court two days later. Prosecutor Annie Li read the document and found the situation unusual, so she alerted the court.
Leung's bail application was to be heard next Monday, but Stuart-Moore found it an urgent matter and fixed a hearing for yesterday afternoon.
The judge expressed appreciation for the Department of Justice's assistance. He said such a case should be marked "urgent" so that the courts could deal with it as soon as possible.
2014年7月16日 星期三
Senior Counsel C Y Li SC's Submission "Wholly Unsustainable" and Had "No Substance" - Said Poon J (法官說李秋源資深大律師的陳詞是無法維持及不真實的)
HCAL 72/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 72 OF 2011
_______________
BETWEEN
| ||
| 吳文演 | 1st Applicant | |
| 吳純純 | 2nd Applicant | |
and
| ||
| 人事登記審裁處 | Respondent | |
| COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION | Interested Party | |
_______________
Before : Hon Poon J in Court
Date of Hearing : 16-17 October 2013 and 10 December 2013
Date of Judgment : 29 January 2014
Date of Hearing : 16-17 October 2013 and 10 December 2013
Date of Judgment : 29 January 2014
________________
JUDGMENT
________________
69.... Mr Li submitted in effect that since the Commissioner’s case against the applicants is based on the allegation that the 1st applicant had obtained the OWP unlawfully, which is criminal in nature, this entails the Tribunal applying the criminal standard of proof. [Barrister Mr C Y Li SC's] submission is wholly unsustainable...
80.... I can see no substance in any of the points taken by [Senior Counsel Li Chau Yuen SC]...
黃學文老師涉誘女生口交案全部罪名表面證供成立 - Prima Facie Case Established for Teacher Wong Hok Man's Oral Sex with Underage Student Charge
Prima Facie Case Established for Teacher Wong Hok Man's Oral Sex with Underage Student Charge - 黃學文老師涉誘女生口交案全部罪名表面證供成立
小學體育教師黃學文老師涉嫌在前年與小五女生發展師生戀，繼而多次在自己寓所及校內要女生替他口交，且曾脫光女生衣服吻遍女生全身，被控4項非禮罪。案件今在區域法院續審，揭發事件的女生母親出庭作供，透露她偷看女兒手機上與被告的whatsapp對話，發現一句「我搵日上嚟幫你」再加上一個香蕉圖案，母親感到可疑及心痛，於是即晚追問女兒，女兒表現驚慌及不斷哭泣，丈夫於是報警。
被告小學體育教師黃學文老師，今早被裁定全部罪名表面證供成立
(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140716/52697923)
小學體育教師黃學文老師涉嫌在前年與小五女生發展師生戀，繼而多次在自己寓所及校內要女生替他口交，且曾脫光女生衣服吻遍女生全身，被控4項非禮罪。案件今在區域法院續審，揭發事件的女生母親出庭作供，透露她偷看女兒手機上與被告的whatsapp對話，發現一句「我搵日上嚟幫你」再加上一個香蕉圖案，母親感到可疑及心痛，於是即晚追問女兒，女兒表現驚慌及不斷哭泣，丈夫於是報警。
被告小學體育教師黃學文老師，今早被裁定全部罪名表面證供成立
(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140716/52697923)
2014年7月13日 星期日
鋼琴王子陳雋鶱醉駕判160小時服務令 - Prince of Piano Phoebus Chan Guilty of Drink Driving and Sentenced to 160 Hours of Community Service
Phoebus Chan (Prince of Piano) Guilty of Drink Driving and Sentenced to 160 Hours of Community Service - 鋼琴王子陳雋鶱醉駕判160小時服務令
http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140711/-101-3308094/1.html
有「鋼琴王子」之稱的陳雋鶱 (Phoebus Chan - Prince of Piano) 於2014年5月24日，在金鐘道醉酒駕駛一輛牌照過期的私家車，陳早前承認駕駛未獲發牌的車輛及醉酒駕駛兩罪，今於東區裁判法院被判罰款800元、社會服務令160小時及停牌兩年。陳未有律師代表，自我求情時指，他已深切後悔，案件不但影響他個人，還對家人造成龐大壓力，希望裁判官可接受感化官建議判處社會服務令。案情指，被告陳雋鶱 (Phoebus Chan - Prince of Piano) （34歲）當日在金鐘道88號外道遇上警方設置路障檢查，警方發現他所駕駛的私家車的牌照過期，進行呼氣測試後，其酒精濃度超標近兩倍半，呼氣的酒精比例在100毫升中達57微克。
http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140711/-101-3308094/1.html
有「鋼琴王子」之稱的陳雋鶱 (Phoebus Chan - Prince of Piano) 於2014年5月24日，在金鐘道醉酒駕駛一輛牌照過期的私家車，陳早前承認駕駛未獲發牌的車輛及醉酒駕駛兩罪，今於東區裁判法院被判罰款800元、社會服務令160小時及停牌兩年。陳未有律師代表，自我求情時指，他已深切後悔，案件不但影響他個人，還對家人造成龐大壓力，希望裁判官可接受感化官建議判處社會服務令。案情指，被告陳雋鶱 (Phoebus Chan - Prince of Piano) （34歲）當日在金鐘道88號外道遇上警方設置路障檢查，警方發現他所駕駛的私家車的牌照過期，進行呼氣測試後，其酒精濃度超標近兩倍半，呼氣的酒精比例在100毫升中達57微克。
2014年7月10日 星期四
Lawyer and Solicitor TONG YEE CHUN Guilty of Theft and Sentenced to 6 Months Imprisonment - 陳兆明袁耀彬律師事務所唐汝駿律師挪客戶款兼呃堂費囚半年
Lawyer and Solicitor TONG YEE CHUN Guilty of Theft and Sentenced to 6 Months Imprisonment - 陳兆明袁耀彬律師事務所唐汝駿律師挪客戶款兼呃堂費囚半年
67歲執業律師唐汝駿涉挪用客戶支付的法律費用，及欺騙對方需支付堂費，被控1項盜竊和1項以欺騙手段取得財產罪。被告今日在東區法院認罪，被判囚6個月.
被告今日求情時指，雖然執業已30多年，表面月入高達5萬元，惟實際上仍需與律師行拆佣及分擔費用，每月實收3萬元。另外，被告透露案發前被驗出前列腺有問題，醫生建議須做手術，在家庭及醫療費壓力下犯案.
被告今日求情時指，雖然執業已30多年，表面月入高達5萬元，惟實際上仍需與律師行拆佣及分擔費用，每月實收3萬元。另外，被告透露案發前被驗出前列腺有問題，醫生建議須做手術，在家庭及醫療費壓力下犯案.
惟法官認為被告雖然背景良好，但不可因而輕判。法官指摘被告利用他人不認識法律程序犯案，行為影響法律界形象，決定判被告監禁。
案情指，被告案發時任職陳兆明袁耀彬律師事務所的律師及顧問，他涉在2012年6月處理1宗酒樓東主被控僱用非法勞工案中，未將客戶交付的2.4萬元存入律師行戶口，並向客戶訛稱入境處要求收取3千元堂費；廉署在接獲投訴後揭發事件。
(Source: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140710/bkn-20140710131942374-0710_00822_001.html)
Lawyer and Solicitor Y C Tong Jailed for Pocketing HK$24,000 Legal Fees and Deception
(Source: http://www.icac.org.hk/en/pr/index_uid_1569.html)
Lawyer and Solicitor Y C Tong Jailed for Pocketing HK$24,000 Legal Fees and Deception
Lawyer and Solicitor Y C Tong (Tong Yee Chun) was today (Thursday July 10, 2014) sentenced to six months' imprisonment at the Eastern Magistracy after admitting that he had pocketed a legal fee of HK$24,000 belonging to a solicitors firm and deceiving HK$3,000 from a client of the firm.
Tong Yee-chun, 67, a practising solicitor, today pleaded guilty to one count of theft and one count of obtaining property by deception.
In sentencing, Magistrate Mr David Chum Yau-fong reprimanded the defendant for taking advantage of his client's nescience of legal proceedings and undermining public confidence in legal practitioners.
The magistrate added that the offences committed by the defendant constituted a serious breach of trust, warranting an immediate custodial sentence to serve as a deterrent.
Upon the defendant's application, the magistrate granted him cash bail of $20,000, pending his appeal against sentence.
The case arose from a corruption complaint. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above offences.
The court heard that at the material time, the defendant was a practicing solicitor in Hong Kong and a consultant of Messrs Raymond Chan, Kenneth Yuen & Co., Solicitors (the solicitors firm).
On June 13, 2012, a restaurant owner met with the defendant at the solicitors firm after he was charged by the Immigration Department (ImmD) with employing an illegal worker.
At the meeting, the restaurant owner engaged the defendant as his legal representative in the legal proceedings at a legal fee of $30,000. Upon the defendant's request, the restaurant owner paid him $1,000 in cash as an initial deposit.
The defendant and the restaurant owner subsequently negotiated the legal fee over the phone, and the legal fee was revised to $24,000.
On July 3, 2012, the restaurant owner discussed his case with the defendant at the solicitors firm. As the defendant insisted on receiving cash, the restaurant owner gave him $23,000 in cash instead of a cheque to settle the outstanding legal fee.
The defendant was required to deposit all clients' legal fees into a bank account of the solicitors firm for profit sharing with other lawyers, but he had never reported to the solicitors firm that the restaurant owner had paid him the legal fee of $24,000
The court heard that a week later, the defendant told the restaurant owner over the phone that the ImmD requested a "court fee" of $2,000 for amending the charge laid against him.
The defendant later called the restaurant owner again, and told him that the "court fee" requested by the ImmD was $3,000 instead of $2,000.
On July 13, 2012 when the restaurant owner was due to enter plea to his charge at the Shatin Magistracy, upon the defendant's request, the restaurant owner gave $3,000 in cash to him before entering the court room.
The ImmD confirmed that no "court fee" would be charged for amending charges against any defendant, the court was told.
The prosecution was today represented by Acting Senior Public Prosecutor Jonathan Lin, assisted by ICAC officer Thomas Ho.
(Source: http://www.icac.org.hk/en/pr/index_uid_1569.html)
2014年7月4日 星期五
Barrister Lawrence Ma's Conduct "Disgraceful and Dishonourable", says the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal - 馬恩國大律師專業失當罪成停牌
| Mr. Ma Yan Kwok (also known as Lawrence Y.K. Ma) |
By a Decision on Sentence and an Order both dated 12 June 2014, a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found one (1) complaint of professional misconduct against Mr. Ma Yan Kwok (“Ma”) to have been proved and ordered, inter alia, that Ma be suspended from practising as a barrister in Hong Kong for a period of one (1) month.
The suspension ordered by the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal takes effect from 4 July 2014 to 3 August 2014 (both dates inclusive).
|
_______________________________________
The seriousness of the misconduct
22. First, the misconduct was sufficiently serious (and very serious, if necessary) to warrant suspension, albeit for a short period, having regard to the circumstances:-
(1) Mr. Ma used highly offensive language, repeatedly, on a formal occasion, in a public place. Such language included "You are not a bloody Chinese" and "You are not even a fucking Chinese". Such offensive language was not strictly "one off ", but took place over several minutes. He must have known that being in the Legislative Council, his words and conduct would be recorded and easily publicized and accessible by the public.
(2) Although his misconduct was not in the course of his practice as he appeared in his capacity as the Vice Chairman of the Association of Hong Kong Professionals, it was apparent and he made clear, that he was a Hong Kong Barrister. The consequence of his highly unusual conduct was dearly to bring the profession of barrister (and himself) into disrepute, and to damage the public's trust in barristers. On the evidence, the Bar was "swamped with complaints", with at least 279 complaints lodged by members of the public.
The Bar's reputation depends on the dignity and high standing of its members. Mr. Ma's conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable. It was also aggravated by his highly patronizing language and demeanour which made clear that he considered himself superior because he was a barrister and had "credentials", unlike Mr. Leung...
39. For all the reasons above, in our discretion, this Tribunal orders as follows :-
39. For all the reasons above, in our discretion, this Tribunal orders as follows :-
(1) Mr. Ma be suspended from practising as a barrister in Hong Kong for 1 month from the date immediately upon the expiry of the period of appeal against this Tribunal's decision and in the event of an appeal, from the date of disposal of the appeal...
2014年7月1日 星期二
七一遊行：民陣稱51萬市民上街 破03年紀錄
【on.cc東網專訊】(2014年7月1日) 民陣下午發起七一遊行，召集人楊政賢晚上約11時在遊行終點遮打道集會上公布，保守估計今日遊行有高達51萬名市民參與，打破03年50萬人遊行的紀錄。
香港市民還拖 - The People of Hong Kong Fight Back
今日 (2014年7月1日) 遊行人數接近 2003年，市民行到近十點左右，但當年香港經濟長期衰退，失業率在百分之七以上，樓價長期下跌導致大量負資產，及政客失誤導致沙士社區爆發奪去二百多人性命，當然還有葉劉淑儀政治上失當，廿三條立法激化矛盾，火上加油。
2014年香港全民就業，沒有負資產、沒有奪命沙士，也沒有乞人憎的葉劉及廿三條法案像刀一樣懸在港人頭上，今年訴求也相對集中，要保衛自治，要自救，而不是各式各樣民生大雜燴。但市民憤怒程度比十一年前有過之而無不及，何解？
今次憤怒有更深層次原因，香港人感到是被出賣，一國兩制高度自治承諾已推翻，港人港治，實現普選眼看㥐來愈遠。本來梁振英當選後大家已感唔妥當，北京竟然起用一個深紅背景特首治港，大家已失去互信。
大家對北京冇信任，知道普選好大機會「走數」，心中有氣但未發作，點知中央在徵詢梁振英後，竟然再踩多一腳上心口，在政治目標不明情況下發表「一國兩制白皮書」，為佔中全民投票「造勢」之餘，也不斷挑釁香港人底線。
更可笑在七一前梁為顯示強勢領導，所以不惜代價，將新界東北計劃硬上弓，建制派數夠票就硬去，吳亮星醜態畢露尤如昔日葉劉發揮激嬲市民功效。香港人看在眼裡，知道整個香港政局在沉淪，建制派日後勢將在北京指示下橫行議會，近月形勢令大家憂慮自治不保已迫在眉睫，於是拍枱而起，上街「還拖」，今年七一，是港人自救運動開始。
原文作者: 劉細良 (Source: http://thehousenews.com/politics/%E9%82%84%E6%8B%96/)
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)