黃汝榮判辭屢遭上級批評 - Magistrate Symon Wong's Verdicts Get Criticised Repeatedly

http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E9%BB%83%E6%B1%9D%E6%A6%AE%E5%88%A4%E8%BE%AD%E5%B1%A2%E9%81%AD%E4%B8%8A%E7%B4%9A%E6%89%B9%E8%A9%95/web_tc/article/20150720/s00001/1437328630713

【明報專訊】裁判官黃汝榮現年60歲，他於1990年在英國威爾斯大學取得法學士學位，兩年後於香港大學取得法學專業證書，其後一直私人執業，2001年獲委任為裁判官，現時在東區裁判法院任職。黃汝榮曾審理著名練馬師簡炳墀於上水鄉事委員會選舉的賄選案、有「小辣椒」之稱的社運人士嚴敏華襲警案，以及音樂人周啟生獨留兒子在家案等。

指偷竊犯自辯怪誕愚昧 被批偏激

黃汝榮在庭上言行不時惹起爭議，甚至被上級法官批評。例如2007年他審理偷竊羅漢松案時，形容被告的自辯屬「靈魂之說，怪誕愚昧」、「露骨無比，幼稚難耐」，批評有關證供「就像替文章起了題目，內容卻空無一物」，當時的上訴庭法官張澤祐直言，「從沒有在近代法官所撰寫的判決書中，看見過如此偏激、嘲諷及含侮辱成分的用詞」。

非禮案判辭 高院批花巧欠莊重

黃汝榮於2006年裁定一名被告非禮罪成，他在判決書中形容事主女童不可能說謊，因為她「縱有仙人點路，指點迷津，還得配合自然演繹，及經得起盤問，才可瞞天過海」，相反他批評被告「敲鑼擊鼓，高調地反覆強調」其清白，但被控方盤問後， 「整條狐狸尾巴， 已展露無遺」。當時負責處理上訴的高院法官湯寶臣雖然維持原判，但批評黃官的判決書應該「重理性分析而不重花巧」，認為黃官「這種誇張的形容，在一份嚴肅的法律文章裏出現，難免會令人覺得有欠莊重」。

此外，黃官於2002年曾以控方證人身分，為一宗律師行文員涉意圖妨礙司法公正案作供，他曾被辯方指他曾與該文員到澳門新花城夜總會消遣，並叫了4名「小姐」，但黃只承認曾到夜總會。

Crazy Magistrate Symon Wong Called the Police and Accused the Chief Justice of Conspiracy to Defraud

被斥濫權裁判官黃汝榮指串謀阻調查報案質疑馬道立妨司法

http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E8%A2%AB%E6%96%A5%E6%BF%AB%E6%AC%8A%E8%A3%81%E5%88%A4%E5%AE%98%E6%8C%87%E4%B8%B2%E8%AC%80%E9%98%BB%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5%20%E5%AE%98%E5%A0%B1%E6%A1%88%20%E8%B3%AA%E7%96%91%E9%A6%AC%E9%81%93%E7%AB%8B%E5%A6%A8%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95/web_tc/article/20150720/s00001/1437328626844

裁判官黃汝榮去年7月遭高等法院暫委法官司徒冕嚴辭批評，指他在處理一宗案件的保釋申請時濫權及令司法機構蒙羞，黃不甘受辱向上級法官投訴，司法機構考慮是否跟進期間，黃稱在好友、主任裁判官吳蕙芳游說下，簽署了一封承認上級法官有權批評裁判官的信件望獲「平反」，終審法院首席法官馬道立最終決定不作調查。黃認為事件中馬道立、吳蕙芳及總裁判官李慶年串謀誤導他，涉妨礙司法公正及公職中行為失當，於是報警。警方已為黃錄取口供，正等候律政司指示。不過，法律界人士認為有關指控難以成立（見另稿）。

明報記者

本報得到的消息指出，警方今年2月24日接報後，曾到黃汝榮於東區法院的辦公室蒐證，並於4月14日為他落口供。黃原本負責審理刑事案件，現時則只處理兒童法庭案件，極少審理刑事案。

撤保被高院批濫權 向馬投訴

根據黃汝榮的證人供辭，他於去年7月14日主理涉及藏毒等被告梁家傑的審訊（見圖），黃應梁要求請律師而押後聆訊，但最終撤去保釋。黃交由法庭書記代為填上撤保原因，但表格最終空空如也。

黃的供辭指出，梁於4天後到高院申請保釋，暫委法官司徒冕提早通知傳媒採訪，沒有聽取理據便批准梁的保釋。根據司徒的判辭，司徒指摘黃撤保卻不提供理由，收押無律師代表的被告，公然濫權，最後更代表司法機構向梁道歉。最終梁於7月22日案件開審當天潛逃，直至今年2月落網，終被判入戒毒所。

審訊日聆訊不成，黃汝榮當天下午便向馬道立發電郵，附件給司徒冕、總裁判官李慶年、主任裁判官吳蕙芳及東區主任裁判官錢禮。他在信中解釋7月14日聆訊時，6次押後讓梁找律師，最後認為梁的要求欠理據才撤保。黃承認疏忽漏填撤保理據，但認為已口頭交代；他又在信中稱，對司徒批評他濫權感不公，「向傳媒發出未求證的說法，魯莽撕裂我的專業聲譽、可信及誠信」。他有意去信傳媒澄清，但明白法官不能接觸傳媒，因此希望馬提供指示。馬道立回應「正調查」事件，並知悉黃已提供撤保理由，又提醒黃「不應去信傳媒」。

同事贈「還清白」高人信 後認上司指示

黃的供辭續稱，7月26日黃偕妻子與吳蕙芳及其丈夫用膳，吳指黃的信件措辭過分強硬，無助事件，但有「高人」欲助黃，着黃發出一封由「高人」代撰的信件，之後便會有人還他清白。吳於7月28日派人把「高人信」交給黃，黃檢視內容後不認同要向司徒道歉，遂刪除該些內容，僅承認司徒有權批評裁判官。黃稱因信任吳，希望事件早日了結，修改信件後發予馬道立和李慶年。黃發信後繼續就事件與馬聯絡，黃認為司徒的做法攻擊個人聲譽和誠信，同時打擊司法機構成員的士氣。據了解，黃、馬於去年10月28日開會討論事件，而該次會議不准黃錄音，亦不讓黃解釋。

馬引「高人信」內容 不再查投訴

黃於供辭稱，去年11月4日偕妻再次與吳官及其丈夫晚膳，席間表明打算在內部調查傳召吳作供，解釋「高人信」。但吳坦承並無「高人」，僅受李慶年的指示而準備該信。馬道立於一天後發信給黃，引述黃於7月28日的信件已承認未向被告明示撤保原因，黃亦在信中同意司徒有權就此提出意見。馬亦認為司徒的評語僅針對案件，並非針對黃個人，認為毋須追查事件，並稱「事件帶來一些教訓，我有信心你察覺得到」。

黃懷疑馬道立撰「高人信」

據黃的供辭，他認為已展開內部調查，屬司法程序，但吳、李、馬設局令他發出信件認錯，藉此令調查告終，遂投訴3人涉嫌妨礙司法公正。黃更懷疑「高人信」乃由馬道立撰寫，藉此不作內部調查，則影響司法機構公信力，有公職中行為失當之嫌。黃汝榮認為有關信件文筆風格似來自外籍人士，不似來自吳或李手筆，而馬只能以英語書寫流利文章，故黃認為信件是由馬撰寫。

本報曾兩度向警方查詢案件詳情，對有否任何人被捕及現時進度，警方均「不作評論」。本報亦向律政司查詢進度，及透過司法機構要求4名涉案法官回應，均只獲「不作評論」的回應。

貪心無恥嘅唐汝駿律師再認偷自己個客嘅錢 求情指沒有再續律師牌 - Greedy and Shameless Lawyer and Solicitor Y C Tong Admitted Stealing Client's Money Again Said in Mitigation He Did Not Renew His Law Licence

The Convicted Criminal, the Greedy and Shameless Solicitor and Lawyer Y C Tong, Admitted Stealing His Own Client's Money Again, Said in Mitigation He Did Not Renew His Practising Certificate - 貪心無恥嘅唐汝駿律師再認偷自己個客嘅錢 求情指沒有再續律師牌

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150604/53813754

前暫委裁判官、曾任職律師行顧問的唐汝駿，去年承認偷竊律師樓及客戶共2.7萬元，經上訴後獲改判緩刑。唐再被爆於2010年至2014年任律師行顧問期間，以多個藉口向獲批法援的客人收取額外費用，涉款4.4萬元，他今在裁判法院承認三項偷竊罪。

大律師黃錦娟就失職停牌上訴得直 - Lawyer Counsel Barrister Catherine K K Wong Had Her Conviction of Professional Misconduct Quashed on Appeal

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150603/bkn-20150603163852461-0603_00822_001.html

Barrister Lawyer Counsel Catherine Wong Had Her Conviction of Professional Misconduct Quashed on Appeal - 黃錦娟大律師就失職停牌上訴得直

中原地產前女經紀劉秀瑜，早年被控串謀中原地產職員向公司詐騙介紹費予中間人，劉於08年因串謀詐騙罪成判囚10個月，但於11年上訴得直及撤銷定罪；大律師紀律審裁委員會去年3月裁定，當時代表劉的大律師黃錦娟未有傳召案中另一被告羅家寶作供，行為嚴重不稱職，判罰停牌1個月。黃錦娟不服裁決，今向上訴庭提上訴，要求推翻被指失職的判決。

上訴庭下午截定黃錦娟上訴得直，撤銷其失職判決，相關理由押後公布。

代表黃錦娟的律師早前陳詞時指，大律師公會的裁決忽略了若當時傳召羅家寶，或會令劉秀瑜更不利，應該代表律師有酌情權決定是否傳召證人，認為不屬疏忽或不稱職。
______________________________________

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150603/53811343

女大律師黃錦娟於2010年被上訴庭指，在2008年代表其中一名中原地產高層涉收回佣案時，未有傳召看似對被告有利的證人出庭作供，令該被告未獲公平審訊。黃於去年3月被大律師公會紀律委員會裁定專業失當，停牌一個月。黃不服定罪及判罰，今由英御用大狀David Perry義務出庭提上訴，結果上訴得直，上訴庭將押後頒下判詞解釋。

據今日庭上透露，有關停牌令因黃的上訴而暫緩，一直未有執行。

2013 - Lawyer Counsel Barrister Raymond Wong Found Guilty of Fraud (黃桂生大律師行使假遺囑罪成監禁四年半)

http://news.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=24426917&extra=page%3D1

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1367954/barrister-convicted-using-fake-will-and-forging-dead-mans-signature

(SCMP, 28 November, 2013)

Lawyer Counsel Barrister Raymond Wong convicted of using fake will and forging dead man's signature.

Lawyer Counsel Barrister Raymond Wong has been convicted of using a bogus will drawn up in the name of a late calligraphy master that purportedly left a Western District flat to his sister, who was one of the master's apprentices.

It was impossible for the will to be real as three signatures on the document were found to be fake, a judge said yesterday.
 
Lawyer Counsel Barrister Raymond Wong (Wong Kwai-sang), 50, also forged the signature of Au Shu-cham on bank slips to withdraw a total of HK$15,400 from Au's bank account after he died in 2009 aged 75.
 
Wong was found guilty of nine charges - three of using a forged will, one of making a false statement on oath, and six counts of theft for taking the money.
 
"The will was certainly not made by Au," Judge Pang Chung-ping said in the District Court. "It is definitely a false document."
 
The court heard earlier that Au sold the flat on Sai Yuen Lane to his godson for HK$1 million in 1997 and continued to live in it.
 
In October 2009, Wong submitted a will to the High Court claiming Au had appointed him as executor and made his elder sister, who lived at the flat with Au and a few other pupils for more than 20 years, as a beneficiary.
 
In yesterday's ruling, the judge said that if Au had wanted to draw up a will when he became very ill in June 2009, he would have told at least one or two people who were really close to him.
 
However, no one saw Au sign the will. Two witnesses who purportedly signed it did not exist, and an expert found Au's signature was fake. Au's other pupils also said he had never mentioned leaving his estate to Wong's sister, Pang noted.
 
He adjourned sentencing to December 12 pending a psychiatric report, after Wong claimed he suffered from insomnia and mental illness.
_______________________________________________________

Barrister Lawyer Counsel Raymond Wong was found guilty of fraud in 2013: -

http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/12/barrister-raymond-k-s-wong.html
黃桂生大律師 (Barrister Raymond K S Wong) 行使假遺囑罪成監禁四年半
Barrister Lawyer and Counsel Raymond Wong also known as Barrister Lawyer and Counsel Raymond K S Wong Convicted of Presenting a Forged Will Case - 黃桂生大律師行使假遺囑罪成案 - 實際判刑: -
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131214/18550553
大律師黃桂生以假遺囑承辦已故甘草演員兼書法家區樹湛的遺產，並以假文件從區樹湛的銀行戶口提走1.54萬元，經審訊後被裁定使用假文書和盜竊等九項罪名成立。法官昨天斥黃桂生的行為卑劣，身為大律師卻利用專業知識犯案，極大機會因而失去大律師資格，屬黃桂生貪婪所致，與人無尤，判他監禁四年半。
 
抗辯手法不切實際
 
被告黃桂生（51歲）前天在區域法院被定罪時，獲兩名大律師到庭旁聽支持，昨天卻不見兩人蹤影。法官彭中屏指出，兩人對被告的行為應感蒙羞。
 
區樹湛在2009年7月去世，案發在2009年至2012年期間。法官指出，被告在區樹湛過世後一個月，即申請逆權侵佔其西環西源里單位，足見被告早已垂涎區樹湛的物業，而非一時貪婪，是經過思量後依計行事。
 
法官又批評辯方的抗辯手法不切實際，如以尋找筆迹專家為由，一再押後案件，浪費法庭時間。從被告提交的求情信，可見他仍在抵賴罪責，毫無悔意。雖然被告自爆有精神問題，但法官相信病情跟犯案無關。
 
案件編號：DCCC158/13

Lawyer Counsel Barrister Michael Yin of Sir Oswald Cheung's Chambers Still Guilty - 張奧偉爵士大律師事務所的殷志明大律師仍然有罪

http://news.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=24730259&extra=page%3D1

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=98578&currpage=T

HCMA 28/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 28 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM ESS NO 37957 OF 2014)

_______________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	and
	YIN CHI MING MICHAEL	Appellant

_______________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Tallentire in Court

Date of Hearing: 7 May 2015

Date of Judgment: 7 May 2015

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment: 22 May 2015

________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
________________________

1.  On 23 December 2014 the appellant was convicted after trial by Mr Robin Yue, a Special Magistrate, of careless driving, contrary to section 38(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374. He was fined some $2,500 and now appeals against that conviction.

2.  The facts were not much disputed as the incident was captured on CCTV.  It occurred in the car park of the New World Tower, Central.  The only live witness was PW1 who provided evidence both by testimony and by means of the camcorder installed in his car.  PW1 was driving from the ground floor of the car park to the second floor where the exit is located.  He was travelling at about 8 to 10 km/h.  He drove to the ramp between the first and second floor.  He heard the sound of a car so he stopped in the wrong lane that is the lane for oncoming traffic.  The appellant’s car turned right onto the ramp and collided with the left front of PW1’s car.  The Magistrate accepted, if it is of any relevance, that PW1’s car had been forced to go onto the lane for oncoming traffic by a car parked on his left side.  From the position of the appellant’s vehicle a view of potential oncoming traffic up the ramp is to be had using the convex mirror shown in photo 6 page 26 of the Appeal Bundle.  Photo 8 shows the resultant positions of the vehicles.

3.  The appellant exercised his right not to give evidence, putting the prosecution to strict proof.  He did however make a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case and a submission on his own behalf in closing.  He also put questions to PW1.  To state the obvious there was thus no evidence before the Magistrate as to the appellant’s actions and view of the position of PW1’s car prior to the impact.

4.  Irrespective of any fault on PW1’s part the learned Magistrate demonstrated clearly that he was alive to the necessity to analyse the evidence to see if the appellant’s standard of driving had been proved by the Prosecution to fell below that of the reasonably prudent motorist and further if so, had the Prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt?  The Magistrate also gave due and proper allowance for the appellant’s clear driving record as shown in paragraph 8 of the Statement of Findings.

5.  Clearly and this is perfectly articulated in Paragraph 28 of the Statement of Findings the major and very proper basis of the appellant’s conviction leaving aside whether he did or should have checked the convex mirror is that when he turned the corner onto the ramp the other vehicle was sufficiently distant, estimated at one vehicle’s length from the appellant’s vehicle, to avoid contact by steering or stopping had he been driving in the manner of a reasonably prudent motorist.  The Magistrate found this proved beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore properly convicted the appellant.

2000年 - 朱奉慈大律師專業失當罪成被停牌 (Year 2000 - Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister George Chu Guilty of Professional Misconduct and Suspended)

http://news.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=24413069&extra=page%3D1

http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/12/lawyer-counsel-and-barrister-george-chu.html

Lawyer, Counsel and Barrister George Chu Deceived HKU Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/307891/barrister-barred-deceiving-university

(South China Morning Post, February 12, 2000, Cliff Buddle)

Barrister Barred for Deceiving University

Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.

George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.

The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.

Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.

'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.

'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.

'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.

Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.

He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.

The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.

He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.

Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.

He could not be contacted for comment.
_______________________________________________________________________

Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20060521/5944835

(蘋果日報 2006 年5月21日之報導)

前大狀以堂費扣稅敗訴

曾參選區議會落敗的前執業大律師朱奉慈，早年申請研究生獎學金時，虛報有一級榮譽學士學位，兼違反暫時放棄執業的承諾，被大律師公會裁定違反專業操守，被停牌半年，兼要承擔紀律聆訊的堂費，他指已付堂費可扣稅，獲稅務上訴委員會接納，稅務局長昨在高等法院上訴得直，推翻委員會的決定。

參選區議會兩落敗

涉案堂費共75萬元，00至03年支付予大律師公會，稅務局長評估利得稅後，朱奉慈要求委員會覆核，委員會去年6月接納堂費是可扣除開支，推翻原本的評稅。

法官鍾安德昨頒布判詞，接納稅務局長上訴指，單純與納稅人業務有關的開支，並不足以視為可扣除開支，必須是「用作產生利潤」的開支才可扣稅，委員會犯了法律錯誤，遂恢復原本的評稅。

現年47歲的朱奉慈於94年成為執業大律師，97年向港大申請研究生獎學金時，虛報82年在加拿大一所大學所獲的學士學位屬一級榮譽，又違反向校方的承諾，一邊繼續執業做大律師，一邊領取兩個月約35,000元獎學金，00年經紀律聆訊，被裁定六項指控成立，朱曾於99年及03年參選區議會，均告落敗。