http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140827/52839089
內地律師江家喜於前年年底一家五口由北京來港，打算乘香港航空轉機到印尼峇里，但地勤人員發現其女兒的護照有效期少於6個月，表示其女兒不能上機，律師於是在機場大吵大鬧，並襲擊其中三名女地勤人員。內地律師及後在裁判法院被裁定三項普通襲擊罪成，但被無條件釋放。
內地律師江家喜早前向高等法院提上訴，質疑原審裁判官對內地人有偏見，歧視內地人，例如要他以現金5萬元保釋、案件審理中途，突然審理其他案件，以及押後裁決等，江並呈上港人歧視內地人的剪報。
法官今頒下判詞，駁回其上訴，指當時被告有資深大律師代表，而裁判官已考慮過所有證供，又指雖然本港確有反內地人的態度，但不能將這態度說成與本案有關。
2014年8月27日 星期三
2014年8月26日 星期二
簡家驄律師行合夥人胡永傑律師罪名成立 - Solicitor Wu Wing Kit of Fred Kan & Co Solicitors Guilty As Charged
http://www.icac.org.hk/tc/pr/index_uid_1587.html
律師胡永傑，五十七歲，簡家驄律師行合夥人，被裁定一項罪名成立，即處理已知道或合理地相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產，違反《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)條。
同案另一被告為家庭主婦葉芳，四十三歲，上市公司天然乳品(新西蘭)控股有限公司(天然乳品)前執行董事陳克恩的妻子，則被裁定一項相類罪名成立。
法官葉佐文將案件押後至本星期五(八月二十九日)，以待被告求情。被告暫時還押懲教署看管。
http://www.icac.org.hk/en/pr/index_uid_1587.html
Wu Wing-kit, 57, solicitor and partner of Fred Kan & Co. (FKC), was found guilty of one count of dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to Section 25(1) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.
Co-defendant Ye Fang, 43, housewife and wife of Chen Keen, a former executive director of listed Natural Dairy (NZ) Holdings Limited (NDNZ), was convicted of a similar offence.
Judge Eddie Yip Chor-man adjourned the case to this Friday (August 29) for mitigation, and remanded the defendants in the custody of the Correctional Services Department.
律師胡永傑，五十七歲，簡家驄律師行合夥人，被裁定一項罪名成立，即處理已知道或合理地相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產，違反《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)條。
同案另一被告為家庭主婦葉芳，四十三歲，上市公司天然乳品(新西蘭)控股有限公司(天然乳品)前執行董事陳克恩的妻子，則被裁定一項相類罪名成立。
法官葉佐文將案件押後至本星期五(八月二十九日)，以待被告求情。被告暫時還押懲教署看管。
http://www.icac.org.hk/en/pr/index_uid_1587.html
Wu Wing-kit, 57, solicitor and partner of Fred Kan & Co. (FKC), was found guilty of one count of dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to Section 25(1) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.
Co-defendant Ye Fang, 43, housewife and wife of Chen Keen, a former executive director of listed Natural Dairy (NZ) Holdings Limited (NDNZ), was convicted of a similar offence.
Judge Eddie Yip Chor-man adjourned the case to this Friday (August 29) for mitigation, and remanded the defendants in the custody of the Correctional Services Department.
2014年8月20日 星期三
毒男柯震東灑淚認錯
http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20140820/00405_001.html?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=home_CoverImg
柯震東上周四（十四日） 涉嫌在北京吸毒被捕。被捕視頻片段昨日終於曝光，穿上囚衣的柯震東聲淚俱下認錯，承認做了「最壞的示範」，承諾不會重複犯錯。此外，有消息指柯震東他日返回台灣，亦有機會被依法處理。
台灣藝人柯震東（Kai）上周四（十四日）在內地涉嫌吸食毒品被拘捕，現正在內地被行政拘留中。昨日北京方面發布了有關柯震東被捕後的片段，並安排在中央電視台播出。
其中一條曝光的視頻片段中，柯震東穿上了黃、藍色的囚衣、臉部被打上格，他在鏡頭面前聲淚俱下，承認對社會年輕人做了最壞的示範，並表示明白刻下家人和朋友一定很擔心，自己則感心痛，故向大家道歉。他表示希望大家能伸出雙手給他擁抱，接受改過後的自己，又承諾不會再重複犯錯。而另一段視頻片段中，柯震東當時穿上白色T-Shirt和黑色外套，相信是驗尿後被公安問道：「尿液呈陽性反應，有疑問嗎？」柯震東低聲答道：「沒有！」兩段片段中均看到柯震東相當憔悴，與過往陽光大男孩的形象大相徑庭。
房祖名八年前 荷蘭首接觸大麻
中央電視台昨日亦播放了公安帶房祖名回家搜查的片段，當中房祖名承認自己收藏了百餘克大麻。而央視昨晚播出《焦點訪談》，詳盡剖析柯震東及房祖名涉毒事件。當中柯震東談及自己吸毒的經過時謂：「第一次在他（房祖名）家拿出來的時間，是有一點意外，但因為他的關係，所以我覺得好像沒有關係，很愚蠢地認為只要吸一口我就離開。」此外，片段中有旁述指房祖名作供時曾表示，自己二○○六年（八年前）在荷蘭第一次接觸大麻：「在那裏是合法的。」北京市公安局禁毒總隊副隊長接受訪問時，指柯震東被捕時如同小學生做錯事般，被老師逮着了，而談到房祖名他則說：「我覺得見他第一面時，說實在的，能看出他有一定文化素養，從眼神感覺出來，他比較後悔。」
另外，昨日有消息傳出柯震東假若刑滿後返回台灣，亦有機會被台灣方面依法處理。台灣法務部長羅瑩雪昨日在台灣出席反賄選活動時表示，希望內地可以盡量提供詳盡的資料給台灣，至於檢方會否裁定觀察勒戒，則要視乎實質的證據和資料而定。對於柯震東在內地涉嫌吸毒一事，羅瑩雪坦言感到遺憾，並表示已將柯震東代言的反吸毒宣傳片下架，日後再選擇代言人時會更加謹慎。而台灣陸委會昨日炮轟內地，指根據《兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議》，有台灣人被公安限制自由需要二十四小時內通報，但柯震東自上周四（十四日）被捕後，直到十八日才在央視證實，連經理人公司和家人都全不知情，是違反了《兩岸協議》。
而柯震東經理人柴智屏前日發出的聲明中指出，柯震東被北京有關方面行政拘留十四日，最快到二十八日才獲釋放。但昨日在北京東城看守所門外，已有大批來自中、港、台傳媒守候，等待進一步消息。同時昨日亦有消指柯震東已被調往另外一個看守所。此外，房祖名的父親成龍已抵達北京，有指他擔心祖名母親林鳳嬌未能接受這個事實。
柯震東上周四（十四日） 涉嫌在北京吸毒被捕。被捕視頻片段昨日終於曝光，穿上囚衣的柯震東聲淚俱下認錯，承認做了「最壞的示範」，承諾不會重複犯錯。此外，有消息指柯震東他日返回台灣，亦有機會被依法處理。
台灣藝人柯震東（Kai）上周四（十四日）在內地涉嫌吸食毒品被拘捕，現正在內地被行政拘留中。昨日北京方面發布了有關柯震東被捕後的片段，並安排在中央電視台播出。
其中一條曝光的視頻片段中，柯震東穿上了黃、藍色的囚衣、臉部被打上格，他在鏡頭面前聲淚俱下，承認對社會年輕人做了最壞的示範，並表示明白刻下家人和朋友一定很擔心，自己則感心痛，故向大家道歉。他表示希望大家能伸出雙手給他擁抱，接受改過後的自己，又承諾不會再重複犯錯。而另一段視頻片段中，柯震東當時穿上白色T-Shirt和黑色外套，相信是驗尿後被公安問道：「尿液呈陽性反應，有疑問嗎？」柯震東低聲答道：「沒有！」兩段片段中均看到柯震東相當憔悴，與過往陽光大男孩的形象大相徑庭。
房祖名八年前 荷蘭首接觸大麻
中央電視台昨日亦播放了公安帶房祖名回家搜查的片段，當中房祖名承認自己收藏了百餘克大麻。而央視昨晚播出《焦點訪談》，詳盡剖析柯震東及房祖名涉毒事件。當中柯震東談及自己吸毒的經過時謂：「第一次在他（房祖名）家拿出來的時間，是有一點意外，但因為他的關係，所以我覺得好像沒有關係，很愚蠢地認為只要吸一口我就離開。」此外，片段中有旁述指房祖名作供時曾表示，自己二○○六年（八年前）在荷蘭第一次接觸大麻：「在那裏是合法的。」北京市公安局禁毒總隊副隊長接受訪問時，指柯震東被捕時如同小學生做錯事般，被老師逮着了，而談到房祖名他則說：「我覺得見他第一面時，說實在的，能看出他有一定文化素養，從眼神感覺出來，他比較後悔。」
另外，昨日有消息傳出柯震東假若刑滿後返回台灣，亦有機會被台灣方面依法處理。台灣法務部長羅瑩雪昨日在台灣出席反賄選活動時表示，希望內地可以盡量提供詳盡的資料給台灣，至於檢方會否裁定觀察勒戒，則要視乎實質的證據和資料而定。對於柯震東在內地涉嫌吸毒一事，羅瑩雪坦言感到遺憾，並表示已將柯震東代言的反吸毒宣傳片下架，日後再選擇代言人時會更加謹慎。而台灣陸委會昨日炮轟內地，指根據《兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議》，有台灣人被公安限制自由需要二十四小時內通報，但柯震東自上周四（十四日）被捕後，直到十八日才在央視證實，連經理人公司和家人都全不知情，是違反了《兩岸協議》。
而柯震東經理人柴智屏前日發出的聲明中指出，柯震東被北京有關方面行政拘留十四日，最快到二十八日才獲釋放。但昨日在北京東城看守所門外，已有大批來自中、港、台傳媒守候，等待進一步消息。同時昨日亦有消指柯震東已被調往另外一個看守所。此外，房祖名的父親成龍已抵達北京，有指他擔心祖名母親林鳳嬌未能接受這個事實。
蕭思鎮大律師上訴敗訴 - Barrister Sui See Chun Lost His Appeal (CACV 176 of 1994)
http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/1997/522.html
SUI SEE CHUN v. THE BAR COUNCIL [1997] HKCA 522; CACV176/1994 (10 January 1997)
CACV000176/1994 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN
SUI SEE CHUN (Appellant)
and
THE BAR COUNCIL (Respondent)
______________
Coram: Hon Nazareth V-P, Liu and Mayo JJ.A. in Court
Date of hearing: 10 January 1997
Date of judgment: 10 January 1997
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Mayo JA:
1. The respondent is applying to strike out the appeal which the appellant is to pursue. It is not without its complication. There was an earlier hearing before a differently constituted Court of Appeal. It was not possible to complete the hearing of the application and it has not proved to be possible to convene the same court again.
2. In the interim Mr Tang who represents the respondent filed a supplementary notice under Order 59 r3 to introduce further grounds in support of the application. The main focus of the supplementary notice was the alleged failure of the appellant to obtain leave to file his notice of appeal out of time.
3. As this hearing was a hearing de novo it was necessary to consider the new material together with all the other matters. We accept however that there may be costs implications concerning the first hearing.
4. The Bar Disciplinary Tribunal found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and delivered its decision on 7 July 1994.
5. The appellant wished to appeal against this determination. On 25 July 1994 he sent a handwritten notice to the respondent in this form.
" N O T I C E
TAKE NOTICE that:
1. the undersigned has been out of Hong Kong since 11th July 1994;
2. the undersigned wishes to appeal against any adverse finding against him delivered by the Tribunal headed by Mr Andrew LIAO QC on 7 July 1994 in relation to the complaint by Henry Litton, JA.
Dated this 25th day of July 1994"
6. This "notice" did not comply with the requirements of Order 59 r3. Also it was not filed in the registry of the court.
7. Section 37B of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance Cap 159 provides that a notice of appeal must be lodged within 21 days. It was not. However the appellant did lodge a notice of appeal on 26 September 1994 without ever having obtained leave to extend time.
8. The appellant placed reliance upon Order 2 r2 to support his contention that the respondent had waived any irregularity there may have been. They had been dilatory in applying to strike out this appeal and they had had taken steps in the proceedings.
9. It is pertinent to observe that the respondent did not know at the relevant time that the appellant had not obtained leave.
10. This is not accepted by the appellant. However we accept the statement made by Mr Tang that the respondent did not know until shortly before the application that leave had not been obtained.
11. I do not consider that Order 2 r2 has any application to a situation of this nature. There is a requirement to obtain leave and this is a more serious matter than a simple non-compliance with the rules. One reason for this is that the court itself is concerned with the question as to whether the appeal should be proceeded with. Even if the other party to the proceedings does not object to the failure to obtain leave this does not mean that the court has to accept that the matter has to be proceeded with regardless of the merits or lack of them in the appeal.
12. Even at this point of time the appellant has made no application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. Indeed the appellant contends that it is not necessary for him to obtain leave.
13. In my view the failure to obtain leave to proceed out of time is fatal to this appeal. The consequence of this is that the notice of appeal which has been lodged out of time by the appellant must be struck out and the appeal be dismissed.
Liu JA:
14. Lodging of the Notice of Appeal in this case was accepted by the Registry out of time without an extension, and the appeal was set down. The respondent was unaware of the situation until shortly before the oversight was drawn to the attention of this court, differently constituted. There is no sufficient material for barring the respondent from taking the course it now pursues. The appellant was out of time and he has not taken advantage of the invitation, time and again extended to him by this court, for disclosing his reasons for not observing the prescribed time limit. I would also accede to the respondent's summons. For whatever reasons, there is no application before us for extension of time. I would also strike out the appeal as prayed for in the summons of the Bar Council.
Nazareth V-P:
15. I agree with my Lords. In fact the appellant managed to slip past the clerks in the Registry his notice of appeal after the prescribed period of 21 days had expired without any extension of time. He now argues at great length that he does not need such an extension principally because the respondent was, he says, dilatory in applying to strike out his notice of appeal. I do not accept that the respondent was dilatory for the reasons Mayo JA has given. More to the point I do not accept that an extension of time was not necessary. The applicant has chosen not to apply for the necessary extension and must abide by the consequences.
16. I, too, would strike out the appeal.
(G.P. Nazareth) (B. Liu) (Simon Mayo)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal
Representation:
Mr Ronald Tang (M/S T.S. Tong & Co. for Respondent)
Sui See Chun - Appellant in person/present
_______________________________________________
http://www.scmp.com/article/181130/barrister-vows-fight
(South China Morning Post, 11 January 1997)
Barrister Sui See-chun was found guilty of misconduct by the Bar Council in 1994, but challenged the ruling in the Court of Appeal.
Ronald Tang, for the Bar Council, argued Mr Sui was too late in filing his notice of appeal and had not followed the correct procedure.
Mr Sui's appeal was delayed when he stood before three judges on October 25 and announced his intention to run for chief executive.
The Court of Appeal judges allowed the delay, agreeing it would take time to launch his campaign.
Yesterday, the court dismissed his appeal and ruled that he must pay costs.
Outside the court, Mr Sui vowed to take his case to the Privy Council
SUI SEE CHUN v. THE BAR COUNCIL [1997] HKCA 522; CACV176/1994 (10 January 1997)
CACV000176/1994 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN
SUI SEE CHUN (Appellant)
and
THE BAR COUNCIL (Respondent)
______________
Coram: Hon Nazareth V-P, Liu and Mayo JJ.A. in Court
Date of hearing: 10 January 1997
Date of judgment: 10 January 1997
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Mayo JA:
1. The respondent is applying to strike out the appeal which the appellant is to pursue. It is not without its complication. There was an earlier hearing before a differently constituted Court of Appeal. It was not possible to complete the hearing of the application and it has not proved to be possible to convene the same court again.
2. In the interim Mr Tang who represents the respondent filed a supplementary notice under Order 59 r3 to introduce further grounds in support of the application. The main focus of the supplementary notice was the alleged failure of the appellant to obtain leave to file his notice of appeal out of time.
3. As this hearing was a hearing de novo it was necessary to consider the new material together with all the other matters. We accept however that there may be costs implications concerning the first hearing.
4. The Bar Disciplinary Tribunal found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and delivered its decision on 7 July 1994.
5. The appellant wished to appeal against this determination. On 25 July 1994 he sent a handwritten notice to the respondent in this form.
" N O T I C E
TAKE NOTICE that:
1. the undersigned has been out of Hong Kong since 11th July 1994;
2. the undersigned wishes to appeal against any adverse finding against him delivered by the Tribunal headed by Mr Andrew LIAO QC on 7 July 1994 in relation to the complaint by Henry Litton, JA.
Dated this 25th day of July 1994"
6. This "notice" did not comply with the requirements of Order 59 r3. Also it was not filed in the registry of the court.
7. Section 37B of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance Cap 159 provides that a notice of appeal must be lodged within 21 days. It was not. However the appellant did lodge a notice of appeal on 26 September 1994 without ever having obtained leave to extend time.
8. The appellant placed reliance upon Order 2 r2 to support his contention that the respondent had waived any irregularity there may have been. They had been dilatory in applying to strike out this appeal and they had had taken steps in the proceedings.
9. It is pertinent to observe that the respondent did not know at the relevant time that the appellant had not obtained leave.
10. This is not accepted by the appellant. However we accept the statement made by Mr Tang that the respondent did not know until shortly before the application that leave had not been obtained.
11. I do not consider that Order 2 r2 has any application to a situation of this nature. There is a requirement to obtain leave and this is a more serious matter than a simple non-compliance with the rules. One reason for this is that the court itself is concerned with the question as to whether the appeal should be proceeded with. Even if the other party to the proceedings does not object to the failure to obtain leave this does not mean that the court has to accept that the matter has to be proceeded with regardless of the merits or lack of them in the appeal.
12. Even at this point of time the appellant has made no application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. Indeed the appellant contends that it is not necessary for him to obtain leave.
13. In my view the failure to obtain leave to proceed out of time is fatal to this appeal. The consequence of this is that the notice of appeal which has been lodged out of time by the appellant must be struck out and the appeal be dismissed.
Liu JA:
14. Lodging of the Notice of Appeal in this case was accepted by the Registry out of time without an extension, and the appeal was set down. The respondent was unaware of the situation until shortly before the oversight was drawn to the attention of this court, differently constituted. There is no sufficient material for barring the respondent from taking the course it now pursues. The appellant was out of time and he has not taken advantage of the invitation, time and again extended to him by this court, for disclosing his reasons for not observing the prescribed time limit. I would also accede to the respondent's summons. For whatever reasons, there is no application before us for extension of time. I would also strike out the appeal as prayed for in the summons of the Bar Council.
Nazareth V-P:
15. I agree with my Lords. In fact the appellant managed to slip past the clerks in the Registry his notice of appeal after the prescribed period of 21 days had expired without any extension of time. He now argues at great length that he does not need such an extension principally because the respondent was, he says, dilatory in applying to strike out his notice of appeal. I do not accept that the respondent was dilatory for the reasons Mayo JA has given. More to the point I do not accept that an extension of time was not necessary. The applicant has chosen not to apply for the necessary extension and must abide by the consequences.
16. I, too, would strike out the appeal.
(G.P. Nazareth) (B. Liu) (Simon Mayo)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal
Representation:
Mr Ronald Tang (M/S T.S. Tong & Co. for Respondent)
Sui See Chun - Appellant in person/present
_______________________________________________
http://www.scmp.com/article/181130/barrister-vows-fight
(South China Morning Post, 11 January 1997)
A barrister who sought to run for chief executive vowed yesterday to take his battle against the Bar Council to London after he lost in the Court of Appeal.
Barrister Sui See-chun was found guilty of misconduct by the Bar Council in 1994, but challenged the ruling in the Court of Appeal.
Ronald Tang, for the Bar Council, argued Mr Sui was too late in filing his notice of appeal and had not followed the correct procedure.
Mr Sui's appeal was delayed when he stood before three judges on October 25 and announced his intention to run for chief executive.
The Court of Appeal judges allowed the delay, agreeing it would take time to launch his campaign.
Yesterday, the court dismissed his appeal and ruled that he must pay costs.
Outside the court, Mr Sui vowed to take his case to the Privy Council
2014年8月18日 星期一
Law Society President Solicitor Ambrose Lam Resigns - 律師會會長林新強請辭
律師會會長林新強請辭
律師會會長林新強宣佈，為維持律師會團結，稍後會向理事會提出請辭，即時生效。據悉，理事會今日會選出新任會長的人選。
林新強中午在理事會開會前見傳媒，稱可能是最後一次以律師會會長身份與傳媒見面。他指自己會繼續保持低調，律師會團結，但會保留對事情發表意見的權利。他又稱，日後即使不再是會長，若有機會再對公眾議題發表意見，會以中肯、持平的態度表達意見。
被指是「親共愛國」的林新強出任律師會會長期間，多次發表具爭議性言論，包括以會長身份公開撐國務院「一國兩制」白皮書，指法官是「治國者」要求「愛國愛港」並無問題、讚揚「共產黨好偉大」，又曾拒絕以英文回應傳媒提問，淪為笑柄。律師會本月15日召開特別會員大會，最終以大比數差距通過對林新強的不信任動議。
(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140819/52809902)
Law Society President Ambrose Lam Resigns Following Historic No-Confidence Vote
律師會會長林新強宣佈，為維持律師會團結，稍後會向理事會提出請辭，即時生效。據悉，理事會今日會選出新任會長的人選。
林新強中午在理事會開會前見傳媒，稱可能是最後一次以律師會會長身份與傳媒見面。他指自己會繼續保持低調，律師會團結，但會保留對事情發表意見的權利。他又稱，日後即使不再是會長，若有機會再對公眾議題發表意見，會以中肯、持平的態度表達意見。
被指是「親共愛國」的林新強出任律師會會長期間，多次發表具爭議性言論，包括以會長身份公開撐國務院「一國兩制」白皮書，指法官是「治國者」要求「愛國愛港」並無問題、讚揚「共產黨好偉大」，又曾拒絕以英文回應傳媒提問，淪為笑柄。律師會本月15日召開特別會員大會，最終以大比數差距通過對林新強的不信任動議。
(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140819/52809902)
Law Society President Ambrose Lam Resigns Following Historic No-Confidence Vote
Law Society President Ambrose Lam San-keung announced Today (Tuesday 19 August 2014) that he will resign following controversy over his positive response to Beijing’s white paper on Hong Kong.
The announcement came after solicitors passed a motion of no confidence in Lam at an historic meeting of the 9,000-strong society.
It was the first time the society had debated a motion of no confidence against a president.
Before the society’s council met at 1pm, Lam confirmed that he will tender his resignation with immediate effect.
“This may be the last time I see you as president of the Law Society,” he said. “In order to maintain the unity of the Law Society, I’d like to keep a low profile. In order to maintain the solidarity of the Law Society, I will tender my resignation to the council with immediate effect.
“Even though I will not be seeing you as president in future, if there’s any chance for me to express views on any matters of public concern, I will pertinently express my view,” Lam added.
The council is expected to elect a new president this afternoon.
Lam drew criticism after he voiced support in June for Beijing’s contentious white paper on Hong Kong while the society’s council was still deciding on its response to the document.
The paper categorised judges as among those “who administrate Hong Kong” and stated that they should be “patriotic”. Many lawyers said it threatened the city’s judicial independence.
Lam, a partner in the law firm Lam, Lee & Lai, also described the Communist Party as “great” in a radio interview – without informing the society’s council beforehand.
“His remarks really took us by surprise,” a council member said last week.
Eyebrows were further raised over what some termed Lam’s “chameleon-like” change of attitude towards the Occupy Central democracy movement.
As the newly elected president, he told journalists at a media gathering in June last year that he would contact organisers of the group “to see what legal assistance they would need”.
The group plans to mobilise 10,000 protesters to block streets in Central if the government’s plan for the 2017 chief executive election does not guarantee voters a genuine choice between candidates.
It was a lawyer’s duty, Lam declared, to protect the legal rights of others.
But at another media gathering he called four months later, Lam said there were no legal grounds for civil disobedience and said the notion of “peaceful violence” was just “beautiful rhetoric”.
Senior Inspector of Police Mr Paul Andrew Turner Had An Affair
星島日報 (2014年8月19日) 報道
駐守交通總部的已婚外籍高級督察，疑於前年一月起跟十二年前上網認識、同樣已婚的前女友發展成性伴侶。前女友指控督察本年初威脅她要保持穩定性伴侶關係，服從他任何性要求，否則向她丈夫公開兩人性愛片段。事主昨在庭上供稱，督察要求她配合「改變」，包括一周一次性行為。辯方指督察所講的改變，只是希望她安守本分，做個賢妻良母。
駐守交通總部的已婚外籍高級督察，疑於前年一月起跟十二年前上網認識、同樣已婚的前女友發展成性伴侶。前女友指控督察本年初威脅她要保持穩定性伴侶關係，服從他任何性要求，否則向她丈夫公開兩人性愛片段。事主昨在庭上供稱，督察要求她配合「改變」，包括一周一次性行為。辯方指督察所講的改變，只是希望她安守本分，做個賢妻良母。
已停職被告 Paul Andrew Turner，中文名唐納偉（四十六歲），昨在東區裁判法院否認刑事恐嚇罪，案發大約於本年二月十三日。
事主供稱與被告○二年在網上認識，隨即發展成情侶並同居。二人○四年分手後分別結婚，甚少聯絡。前年底，事主主動聯絡被告並介紹他去看電影，希望被告憶起兩人以往的經歷。二人之後透過WhatsApp閒聊，內容主要涉及性愛。去年初二人兩度相約到酒店幽會，但她其後想中斷關係，稱已懷孕，被告獲知後亦如她所料失蹤。
被告同年九月再聯絡她，她告知被告已流產，同月二人再開房幽會。她說被告幽會時經常將「do as you are told」掛在嘴邊，意思是叫她服從其指示，包括要她隨傳隨到及性交時做角色扮演，例如他扮店主，事主扮偷錢的店員等。
本年二月十三日，被告向她說「you have to change」，要求她「改變」，事主認為是叫她配合要一周一次性行為，她拒絕，並再以懷孕為由打算斷絕關係。惟被告其後威脅將兩人性愛片段傳送給她丈夫，事主感被威嚇故報警。
辯方盤問下，事主承認收到信息時，不確定被告有否威嚇意圖，諮詢朋友意見後才報警。辯方指被告所講的「改變」是希望她安守本分，別再建立複雜男女關係，認為她錯誤理解成威嚇意圖，事主不同意。
辯方亦指事主去年八月主動約被告去澳門度假，她一直希望兩人各自離婚後再組織家庭，並願接納與被告兒子一同生活，事主均同意。案件押後至本月二十六日續審。案件編號：東區刑事二○七一--二○一四。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)