http://www.scmp.com/article/78191/judges-robes-be-sold
South China Morning Post, 18 June 1994
FORMER Appeal Court judge Dennis Barker left so many debts, his widow is having to sell his robes to pay for a headstone for his grave.
Jeanne Barker told the South China Morning Post from her home in Cyprus that a friend would give the robes to the Chief Justice, Sir Ti Liang Yang, in the hope they may be sold to raise funds.
She said the grave in the Paphos cemetery had not been paid for and 2,000 Cyprus pounds (HK$30,940) was needed for the space in the ground and a headstone.
''I do hope someone will buy the robe. I can't lay him to rest until it is all over,'' she said.
Barker, 63, died in a car accident in Cyprus in November 1989. They had been married for less than four months when he died.
Barker had retired to Cyprus after resigning from Hong Kong's judiciary in disgrace following his ruling that six defendants in the territory's costliest trial, the Carrian case, had no case to answer. The decision was severely criticised on appeal.
''I'm desperately unhappy about his grave,'' Mrs Barker said.
''I have planted a tree on the mound which is growing well, but all the other graves have a stone.
''There is a cross to mark his grave, but his name was spelt wrongly. I do want him to have a stone. I have already chosen one. I don't want to make a lot of money from the robes, just enough to pay for the stone.'' She said the former Chief Justice, Sir Denys Roberts, who also has a home in Cyprus, was helping her sell Barker's other wigs and robes which could be worn in other jurisdictions. The robe coming back to Hong Kong was specially made for Court of Appeal judges in the territory.
''It's very sad, and hard to believe, that he should have been a judge for all those years and there is nothing in his estate,'' she said.
The house in Paphos has been put on the market, together with the furniture and a 1978 Rolls-Royce.
http://www.joc.com/hong-kong-acquits-defendants-costly-carrian-fraud-case_19870915.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=210959&story_id=50042399&con_type=1&d_str=20190823&sid=4
Incompetent Hong Kong Barrister Mark Sutherland Convicted of Misconduct and Suspended for 3 Years!
https://barristermarksutherland.blogspot.com/2019/08/incompetent-hong-kong-barrister-mark-sutherland-convicted-of-misconduct-and-suspended-for-3-years.html
http://www.hklii.org/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2019/939.html
THE BAR COUNCIL v. MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND [2019] HKCA 939; CACV 365/2019 (15 August 2019)
4. On 9 July 2018, the Bar Council laid complaints of misconduct against the respondent. The substantive hearing of the disciplinary proceedings was held on various days between September and November 2018. The respondent applied to the Tribunal repeatedly to adjourn the proceedings. All his applications were turned down. We will return to this topic.
5. On 2 April 2019, the Tribunal handed down its statement of findings, finding the respondent guilty of the five complaints laid by the Bar Council. In summary, these complaints were:
Complaint 1
This alleged that the respondent asked questions and made statements during the Trial, which were intended to insult and/or annoy the witness or any other person or otherwise were an abuse of counsel’s function, contrary to para 131 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar (“the Bar Code”).
Complaint 2
This alleged that the respondent failed to use his best endeavours during the Trial to avoid unnecessary expense and wasting the court’s time by his questioning of witnesses, contrary to para 133 of the Bar Code.
Complaint 3
This alleged that the respondent knowingly misled the court in relation to various procedural matters which arose during the Trial and engaged in conduct in the pursuit of his profession, which is dishonest or which may otherwise bring the profession of barrister into disrepute, contrary to paras 130 and 6(b) of the Bar Code.
Complaint 4
This alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct during the Trial which was discourteous to the court, and/or which may bring the profession of barrister into disrepute and/or failing to observe the ethics and etiquette of his profession, contrary to paras 133, 6(b) and (c) of the Bar Code.
Complaint 5
This alleged that the respondent had engaged in conduct in court during the Trial which may bring the profession of barrister into disrepute and which was prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to defend his client competently in accordance with his instructions, contrary to paras 6(b) and (d) of the Bar Code.
6. On 18 July 2019, the Tribunal gave its reasons for sentence and ordered the respondent be suspended from practising as a barrister for a total of 36 months and to pay the Bar Council costs of the proceedings and of any prior inquiry on a full indemnity basis. The Tribunal also made orders for the publication of the statement of findings and reasons for sentence.