http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/1766620/hong-kong-barrister-takes-bar-association-task-over-second
Barrister Albert Leung is accusing the Bar Association of acting unlawfully by blocking him from starting a second career as a "body figuring practitioner" helping people to correct limb and spinal misalignments, a court has heard.
The case has put the spotlight on barristers looking to earn extra cash by doubling up as practitioners in other fields, for which they may need to obtain approval from their legal professional body.
Lawyer Albert Leung Sze-ho was turned down by the association in March last year in his application to juggle both the body figuring job and his legal work concurrently, based on concerns the job might adversely affect the reputation of barristers.
In a judicial review at the Court of First Instance yesterday, Leung, 45, challenged that decision. His lawyer said: "Many barristers who have less experience and do not come from good families rely on supplementary jobs to keep stable incomes."
Senior Counsel for the association mentioned a neuro-beautology course Leung had taken that involved massage.
He cited a website featuring the course as claiming such treatment could help women in breast augmentation. The site also showed the back of a half-naked woman, an image he suggested degraded women.
"Neuro-beautology is not something that the Bar Association is willing to approve as a supplementary occupation," he said.
The court heard that Leung was called to the Bar in 2005.
Separately, in his application for a judicial review, Leung said he was certified by the Canadian examining board of health care practitioners and was a member of the International Naturopathic Medicine Association. He completed the course last year and wanted to practise as a freelancer while working as a barrister in order to have a more stable income.
Outside court, he said neuro-beautology used equipment or massage to correct parts of the spine that were out of alignment or adjust legs of different lengths.
Yesterday, Barrister Albert Leung's lawyer told the court the picture mentioned merely showed a class being taught. He said Leung did not take that course and the work did not involve physical contact.
He alleged the association's decision breached Article 33 of the Basic Law, which allowed Hong Kong residents freedom of choice of occupation. He conceded the Bar Council, the association's governing body, had not blocked Leung from doing either job - but said he was not allowed to do both concurrently.
The Hong Kong Bar Association argued the council considered working in a body-figuring job might be in breach of the association's code of conduct, which it was duty-bound to enforce.
Mr Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-ho will give his ruling later. Leung ceased serving as a barrister and worked as a body figuring practitioner after his application failed, but resumed legal work this year.
http://www.orientaldaily.com.hk/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150414/bkn-20150414140207578-0414_00822_001.html?refer=hn2
擁有「體雕師」資格的大律師梁思豪，因不滿大律師公會否決他以「體雕師」作副業幫補家計，於是入稟高院，就大律師的副業限制申請司法覆核，以推翻公會決定，並頒令公會修改有關規則。
案件今早在高院開審，代表大律師公會的資深大律師開庭即指，申請人在文件冊中附上的「國際自然療法學院」的體雕師課程簡介中，課程網頁中有女性裸露上半身的圖片，認為有不尊重女性甚至侮辱之嫌。麥續指，相關課程簡介又指可協助女士「豐胸」，顯示「體雕師」職業明顯違反公會守則第23條、即副業不可影響公會形象一節，故才會被公會否決。
但梁思豪的代表律師指，被指摘的圖片中的女性只露出背部供「體雕師」進行治療，與侮辱女性全無關係，且療程是正常推拿，不涉色情成份，不會影響公眾形象。另外，梁的律師亦引述《基本法》第33條為主要理據，即所有香港居民均有權選擇自己的職業，認為公會的副業規定已明顯違反《基本法》規定。案件將在下午續審。
http://www.singpao.com/xw/gat/201504/t20150415_554901.html
入行約10年的大律師梁思豪去年向大律師公會申請從事矯正歪斜體格的「體雕師」副業，但遭公會拒絕，他入稟高院申請司法覆核，案件昨日開審。公會一方指出，「體雕師」屬另類療法，其簡介資料包括裸體女性照片，又謂療法可幫助豐胸，是假科學及冒犯女性，副業可能影響公會形象，故反對梁的兼職。
梁思豪於2005年投身大律師行業，入稟稱「體雕學」是自然療法的一種，以簡易技巧矯正歪斜體格，消除身體不適。但公會以體雕師與執業大律師工作有牴觸，拒絕其申請。大律師公會的專業守則第23段，禁止大律師從事其他損害公會聲譽的職業，守則列出可從事的職業及副業，如議員、講師等，並要求大律師要事先申請。
代表公會的資深大律師指出，梁思豪呈交的「國際自然療法學院」體雕師課程簡介中資料，包括裸體女性照片，又謂療法可幫助豐胸，是假科學及冒犯女性，副業可能影響公會形象。梁思豪一方反駁，進行療法不用脫衣，豐胸一說亦只是公會的錯誤理解，該照片只是反映課程授課情況，不是進行「體雕學」治療的實況。大律師公會的決策與大眾利益掛，基本法第33條及普通法亦保障香港市民享有自由選擇職業。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150415/19113170
入行十年的大律師梁思豪（圖）學習矯正歪斜體格作治療的「體雕學」後，向大律師公會申請以「體雕師」做，但公會認為與其工作有牴觸而拒絕。梁申請司法覆核，案件昨在高院開審。公會一方解釋，梁提供的學院網頁資料，顯示「體雕學」可豐胸，又展示一幅女性半裸接受治療的相片，但看不到療法有科學根據，若公會批准申請，會被視為認同冒犯女性的按摩服務。
指公會侵犯人權
代表公會的資深大律師又指「體雕學」也是對人體的脊骨、頸項等部位進行治療，卻毋須領牌，梁未能解釋「體雕學」與受監管的脊醫有何分別。
代表梁的大律師則指，公會的守則侵犯選擇職業的基本人權，是否批准做副業賺外快也無準則，令初入行的大狀尤其難以維持生計，而香港是唯一一處仍保留此等限制。法官指，守則對副業設限或是刻意，目的是汰弱留強。梁的大律師不同意，認為守則令有錢人才能生存。
法官聽罷雙方陳詞後，押後判決。梁在庭外表示，已於今年初取回執業牌照，暫時不做體雕師。
案件編號：HCAL 63 / 2014
沒有留言:
張貼留言