梁禮浩大律師陳詞「荒謬，無稽之談」- Submissions of Counsel Lawyer Barrister Lawton Leung "Absurd" - Said the Court of Appeal
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150919/19301806?_ga=1.228426584.45408766.1403351119
代表大律師梁禮浩陳詞指，上訴人沒意圖促使他人賣淫，案發時只想「試鐘」滿足私慾，又指如果兩名卧底有想做妓女的可能性，便不構成上訴人促使他人賣淫。上訴庭副庭長楊振權聽罷即提出質疑，惟梁仍堅稱「唔可以排除任何可能性」。楊官皺眉回應稱：「荒謬，可能性都係荒謬！」又着梁不用再闡述此上訴理據。楊官裁定梁指卧底女警或想當妓女的說法是「無稽之談」，認為上訴人犯案時唯一目的就是希望女警接客，所作所為已構成促使二字，遂駁回上訴申請。
案件編號：CACC17/15
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Saturday, August 1, 2015
千億新抱徐子淇的父親徐傳順，以及黃英豪律師等３人，涉嫌行賄被廉政公署起訴 - Chui Chuen-shun, Solicitor Wong Ying-ho, and Richard Yin Yingneng Charged by the ICAC
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150801/bkn-20150801172505660-0801_00822_001.html
廉署表示，今日落案起訴投資公司Perfect Ace Investments Limited(PAIL)1名現職董事，及2名前任董事，控告他們涉嫌就一間上巿公司的重組，向該上巿公司的1名前任執行董事提供一份出任顧問的服務合約；3人中的1人再被控就該上巿公司一項收購項目，以認股權行賄該上巿公司前任執行董事。
被控的PAIL現職董事為黃英豪(52歲)，另外2人包括徐子淇的父親徐傳順(61歲)和尹應能(62歲)，同為PAIL前任董事，眾人均被控一項向代理人提供利益罪名，而黃另被控一項相類罪名。
首項控罪指，黃、徐及尹涉嫌於或約於2007年11月1日，在海域化工重組期間，向有關執行董事提供利益，即作為PAIL顧問的服務合約，作為有關執行董事履行和行使PAIL或海域化工董事局可指派、賦予或指示的職責及權力的報酬。
另一項控罪指黃涉嫌於或約於2009年8月19日，向有關執行董事提供利益，即以180萬元認購1,500萬股香港資源優先股的一元認股權，作為有關執行董事參與香港資源收購金至尊五間附屬公司的報酬。
東網曾致電黃英豪欲了解情況，惟黃表示：「開會中，不好意思」，隨即掛線。
______________________
http://www.icac.org.hk/en/pr/index_uid_1719.html
廉署表示，今日落案起訴投資公司Perfect Ace Investments Limited(PAIL)1名現職董事，及2名前任董事，控告他們涉嫌就一間上巿公司的重組，向該上巿公司的1名前任執行董事提供一份出任顧問的服務合約；3人中的1人再被控就該上巿公司一項收購項目，以認股權行賄該上巿公司前任執行董事。
被控的PAIL現職董事為黃英豪(52歲)，另外2人包括徐子淇的父親徐傳順(61歲)和尹應能(62歲)，同為PAIL前任董事，眾人均被控一項向代理人提供利益罪名，而黃另被控一項相類罪名。
首項控罪指，黃、徐及尹涉嫌於或約於2007年11月1日，在海域化工重組期間，向有關執行董事提供利益，即作為PAIL顧問的服務合約，作為有關執行董事履行和行使PAIL或海域化工董事局可指派、賦予或指示的職責及權力的報酬。
另一項控罪指黃涉嫌於或約於2009年8月19日，向有關執行董事提供利益，即以180萬元認購1,500萬股香港資源優先股的一元認股權，作為有關執行董事參與香港資源收購金至尊五間附屬公司的報酬。
東網曾致電黃英豪欲了解情況，惟黃表示：「開會中，不好意思」，隨即掛線。
______________________
http://www.icac.org.hk/en/pr/index_uid_1719.html
One incumbent and two then directors of an investment company have been charged by the ICAC today (Saturday) with offering an advantage, namely a service agreement as a consultant, to a then executive director (ED) of a listed company over its restructuring, while one of them is also accused of bribing the ED with a share option in an acquisition by the listed company.
Wong Ying-ho, 52, incumbent director of Perfect Ace Investments Limited (PAIL); Chui Chuen-shun, 61, and Richard Yin Yingneng, 62, both then directors of PAIL, face a joint charge of offering an advantage to an agent, contrary to Section 9(2)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Wong additionally faces another similar charge alone.
The defendants will appear at the Eastern Magistracy next Wednesday (August 5) for transfer of the case to the District Court for plea.
In October 2007, PAIL entered into a restructuring agreement with publicly listed Ocean Grand Chemicals Holdings Limited (OGCH), its provisional liquidators and an accounting firm. The restructuring was completed in September 2008. PAIL became the major shareholder of OGCH and Wong became its chairman. The ED concerned retained his post with OGCH.
On January 7, 2009, OGCH was renamed as Hong Kong Resources Holdings Company Limited (HKRH).
In July 2009, following HKRH’s negotiation with the provisional liquidators of the then publicly listed 3D-GOLD Jewellery Holdings Limited (3D-GOLD), HKRH acquired five subsidiaries from 3D-GOLD.
The first charge alleges that on or about November 1, 2007, during the restructuring of OGCH, Wong, Chui and Yin offered an advantage, namely a service agreement as a consultant of PAIL, to the ED for the ED performing duties and exercising powers that may be assigned, vested in, or directed by the board of directors of PAIL or OGCH.
The other charge alleges that on or about August 19, 2009, Wong offered an advantage, namely a share option at $1 for the subscription of 15 million preference shares of HKRH for $1.8 million, to the ED for the ED participating in HKRH’s acquisition of the five subsidiaries of 3D-GOLD.
The defendants have been released on ICAC bail, pending their court appearance next Wednesday.
| 廉署起訴三人就上巿公司重組及收購涉嫌行賄 | 2015年8月1日 | |
|---|---|---|
| ||
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Counsel Lawyer Barrister Mark Sutherland in HCMA 357 of 2012 (A Public Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Wright dated 8 March 2013)
http://barbrarab.blogspot.hk/
Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel in HCMA 357 of 2012 (A Public Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Wright dated 8 March 2013)
Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel in HCMA 357 of 2012 (A Public Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Wright dated 8 March 2013)
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=86263&QS=%2B&TP=JU
1. The applicant was convicted after trial by a Deputy Magistrate on 27 April 2012 on a single, charge of theft contrary to s 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 221. He appealed both conviction and sentence. The facts appear clearly from the judgment which I handed down in this matter on the 29 January 2013.
2. None of the 15 grounds of appeal advanced against conviction was possessed of any merit. That appeal was dismissed and the conviction confirmed.
3. There were 5 grounds of appeal advanced against sentence. As sentence was at large before me, I decided to take a course different to that adopted by the magistrate: of course that does not imply that the magistrate's approach was wrong, simply that I took a different view as to disposal of this matter.
4. Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel appeared for the applicant as his lawyer at trial and again on the appeal. He then made application for a certificate for leave to refer a total of 14 questions, 13 in regard to conviction and one in regard to sentence, to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, asserting that each of those questions constitutes "... a point of law of great and general importance... involved in the decision..." on appeal.
5. This application was listed for a 30 minute hearing on 21 February 2013 at 09.30. When it did commence, belatedly, counsel sought to hand in a bundle of authorities which had not previously been served on the respondent or filed in court. A jury trial had been set to resume at 10.00 that morning. It was perfectly plain, despite counsel’s expressed belief to the contrary that it would finish in time, that the matter would not permit of the timeous resumption of the jury trial. It was accordingly adjourned to today with an order that any submissions and authorities be filed and served on or before 1 March.
6. The first seven of the proposed questions related to a finding by the court, and the evidential route by which that was achieved, as to whether or not the property had been abandoned and the state of the accused’s mind in that regard. The appellant elected, as is his right, not to testify. It was self-evident that findings of that nature will be fact-sensitive within the context of a particular case. Any finding depended upon inferences to be drawn from the proven evidence. The approach to be followed by a court in such an exercise has long since been settled.
7. Proposed questions 8 to 12 demonstrated a complete misapprehension as the effect of the judgment. No adverse inference was drawn as a result of the applicant’s silence. It cannot be. The magistrate was aware of that. I was aware of that. It is well settled. It is, however, not only permissible but incumbent on the court to look at the entire circumstances surrounding a series of events in arriving at its decision. Again, these were purely factual matters.
8. Proposed question 13 was a further question of fact.
9. The single question relating to the sentence now imposed upon the applicant demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the terms and effect of the order. No order for payment of any sum has been made. The applicant simply has entered into a recognisance which he might be called upon to pay if he commits any further criminal offence involving dishonesty or if he fails to appear for sentence if called upon to do so, within a two-year period. Obviously, his liability and, consequently, ability to pay would become relevant if he breaches the terms of his recognisance.
10. None of the questions was a question of law; none was of great importance; none was of general importance; more particularly none was of great and general importance.
11. The application was consequently dismissed.
12.Presenting entirely unmeritorious appeals or applications in this fashion is unacceptable. It does nothing to further the interests of an accused person; the interests of justice; the interests of the courts; the interests of the community as a whole. That these proceedings have been funded by the general public via either the Duty Lawyer Scheme at trial or the Department of Legal Aid in respect of the appeal and of this application is a matter for real concern. I direct that a copy of this decision be referred to the Director of Legal Aid.
Ms WONG Kam Hing, SADPP of Department of Justice, for the Respondent
Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel and Lawyer, instructed by Department of Legal Aid, for the Appellant
HCMA 357/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA 357 OF 2012
(ON APPEAL FROM FLCC 149/2012)
____________
BETWEEN
| HKSAR | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| SUBASINGHE MUDIYANESELAGE NANDIKA PIYAL | Appellant | |
____________
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court
Dates of Hearing and Decision: 21 February and 6 March 2013
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 8 March 2013
_______________________
REASONS FOR DECISION
_______________________
1. The applicant was convicted after trial by a Deputy Magistrate on 27 April 2012 on a single, charge of theft contrary to s 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 221. He appealed both conviction and sentence. The facts appear clearly from the judgment which I handed down in this matter on the 29 January 2013.
2. None of the 15 grounds of appeal advanced against conviction was possessed of any merit. That appeal was dismissed and the conviction confirmed.
3. There were 5 grounds of appeal advanced against sentence. As sentence was at large before me, I decided to take a course different to that adopted by the magistrate: of course that does not imply that the magistrate's approach was wrong, simply that I took a different view as to disposal of this matter.
4. Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel appeared for the applicant as his lawyer at trial and again on the appeal. He then made application for a certificate for leave to refer a total of 14 questions, 13 in regard to conviction and one in regard to sentence, to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, asserting that each of those questions constitutes "... a point of law of great and general importance... involved in the decision..." on appeal.
5. This application was listed for a 30 minute hearing on 21 February 2013 at 09.30. When it did commence, belatedly, counsel sought to hand in a bundle of authorities which had not previously been served on the respondent or filed in court. A jury trial had been set to resume at 10.00 that morning. It was perfectly plain, despite counsel’s expressed belief to the contrary that it would finish in time, that the matter would not permit of the timeous resumption of the jury trial. It was accordingly adjourned to today with an order that any submissions and authorities be filed and served on or before 1 March.
6. The first seven of the proposed questions related to a finding by the court, and the evidential route by which that was achieved, as to whether or not the property had been abandoned and the state of the accused’s mind in that regard. The appellant elected, as is his right, not to testify. It was self-evident that findings of that nature will be fact-sensitive within the context of a particular case. Any finding depended upon inferences to be drawn from the proven evidence. The approach to be followed by a court in such an exercise has long since been settled.
7. Proposed questions 8 to 12 demonstrated a complete misapprehension as the effect of the judgment. No adverse inference was drawn as a result of the applicant’s silence. It cannot be. The magistrate was aware of that. I was aware of that. It is well settled. It is, however, not only permissible but incumbent on the court to look at the entire circumstances surrounding a series of events in arriving at its decision. Again, these were purely factual matters.
8. Proposed question 13 was a further question of fact.
9. The single question relating to the sentence now imposed upon the applicant demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the terms and effect of the order. No order for payment of any sum has been made. The applicant simply has entered into a recognisance which he might be called upon to pay if he commits any further criminal offence involving dishonesty or if he fails to appear for sentence if called upon to do so, within a two-year period. Obviously, his liability and, consequently, ability to pay would become relevant if he breaches the terms of his recognisance.
10. None of the questions was a question of law; none was of great importance; none was of general importance; more particularly none was of great and general importance.
11. The application was consequently dismissed.
12.Presenting entirely unmeritorious appeals or applications in this fashion is unacceptable. It does nothing to further the interests of an accused person; the interests of justice; the interests of the courts; the interests of the community as a whole. That these proceedings have been funded by the general public via either the Duty Lawyer Scheme at trial or the Department of Legal Aid in respect of the appeal and of this application is a matter for real concern. I direct that a copy of this decision be referred to the Director of Legal Aid.
| (A R Wright) Deputy High Court Judge |
Ms WONG Kam Hing, SADPP of Department of Justice, for the Respondent
Barrister Mark Sutherland of Counsel and Lawyer, instructed by Department of Legal Aid, for the Appellant
Letter of Complaint from Judge Zervos to the Hong Kong Bar Association Concerning Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=99602&currpage=T
1. This is a directions hearing in relation to two magistracy appeals in order to consider an application to consolidate the two appeals and transfer them to the Court of Appeal for determination.
2. HCMA 685/2013 is an appeal by the defendant against his conviction of indecent assault where he alleges that he was incompetently and improperly represented by counsel and HCMA 425/2014 is an appeal by the counsel of a wasted costs order of $180,000 imposed upon him by the magistrate who conducted the trial of the defendant. There are also two additional applications by counsel. One is for an anonymity order of the name of counsel involved in both of the appeals and the other is for my recusal from the directions hearing and any subsequent hearings of both appeals.
3. It is necessary that I provide a brief description of the two appeals so as to put the matters under consideration in their proper context.
4. The appellant in HCMA 685/2013 was convicted of indecent assault after trial on 30 September 2013 and was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment. It was alleged against the appellant that while watching a film in a picture theatre he indecently assaulted a woman who was sitting in the adjoining seat to him by touching her thigh with his hand. The trial lasted 17 days with 4 earlier appearances which included 2 pre-trial reviews. The major complaint in the appeal concerns the conduct of counsel who had the carriage of the case on behalf of the defendant. It is submitted that this was a straightforward and simple case that should have taken no more than a day to be heard. It is alleged that the length of the proceedings was created by counsel’s conduct, including his cross examination (by its prolixity and repetitiveness) and by the introduction of numerous irrelevancies.
5. This brief description of the case gives the basis of the grounds of appeal against conviction where it is claimed that the appellant was denied a fair trial by the serious improper conduct of his counsel; by counsel acting, or appearing to act, in his own self-interest rather than in the best interests of the appellant; by counsel’s attitude towards and/or the counsel’s statements and/or responses to the magistrate; and by counsel’s prolix, irresponsible, absurd and/or frivolous cross-examination of the complainant. I will refer to the appellant in this appeal as to the appellant/defendant.
6. The appellant in HCMA 425/2014 is the counsel who represented the appellant/defendant who appeals a wasted costs order imposed upon him by the magistrate on 30 June 2014 under section 18 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Cap 492, following a hearing on 22 and 23 April 2014. The appeal is brought under section 19 of the Ordinance and the sole ground of appeal is that the magistrate erred in making the wasted costs order because there was no basis in either law and/or fact for such an order. I will refer to the appellant in this appeal as the appellant/counsel.
7. On 14 May 2015, Mr Gerard McCoy, SC, (who appears with Mr Richard Donald and Ms Chrystal Choy) for the appellant/defendant, in a memorandum to the court sought directions for the two appeals to be consolidated and for them to be listed in the Court of First Instance for a transfer application under section 118(1)(d) of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227. On the following day, Lunn VP directed that the two appeals be heard together before me for directions on 27 July 2015.
8. On 8 June 2015, I granted an order for the provision of transcript as requested by the appellant/defendant and at the same time I gave directions to the parties in both appeals in relation to the filing and serving of any written submissions and authorities for the directions hearing.
9. On 10 July 2015, the solicitors for the appellant/counsel by way of two letters made an ex parte application for an anonymity order in respect of the appellant/counsel in relation to the directions hearing and all and any subsequent hearings, and for my recusal from the directions hearing and any subsequent hearings for both appeals.
10. There were two grounds in support of the recusal application. The first ground was that at the date at which the prosecution indicated that it would apply for a wasted costs order against the appellant/counsel on 9 July 2013, I was the Director of Public Prosecutions and would have therefore approved, either directly or indirectly, the making of the application. The second ground was that I had submitted a letter of complaint to the Hong Kong Bar Association dated 4 February 2015, concerning the professional conduct of the appellant/counsel in the context of another case.
____________________________________________
What was the letter of complaint from Judge Zervos to the Hong Kong Bar Association concerning Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland about? What did Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland allegedly do?
HCMA 685/2013 and HCMA 425/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 685 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC NO 4933 OF 2012)
________________________
BETWEEN
| ||
| HKSAR | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| HARJANI, KISHORE MOHANLAL | Appellant | |
_______________________
AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 425 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC NO 4933 OF 2012)
________________________
BETWEEN
| ||
| HKSAR | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND | Appellant | |
________________________
Before: Hon Zervos J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 27 July 2015
Date of Decision: 27 July 2015
________________________
D E C I S I O N
________________________
2. HCMA 685/2013 is an appeal by the defendant against his conviction of indecent assault where he alleges that he was incompetently and improperly represented by counsel and HCMA 425/2014 is an appeal by the counsel of a wasted costs order of $180,000 imposed upon him by the magistrate who conducted the trial of the defendant. There are also two additional applications by counsel. One is for an anonymity order of the name of counsel involved in both of the appeals and the other is for my recusal from the directions hearing and any subsequent hearings of both appeals.
3. It is necessary that I provide a brief description of the two appeals so as to put the matters under consideration in their proper context.
4. The appellant in HCMA 685/2013 was convicted of indecent assault after trial on 30 September 2013 and was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment. It was alleged against the appellant that while watching a film in a picture theatre he indecently assaulted a woman who was sitting in the adjoining seat to him by touching her thigh with his hand. The trial lasted 17 days with 4 earlier appearances which included 2 pre-trial reviews. The major complaint in the appeal concerns the conduct of counsel who had the carriage of the case on behalf of the defendant. It is submitted that this was a straightforward and simple case that should have taken no more than a day to be heard. It is alleged that the length of the proceedings was created by counsel’s conduct, including his cross examination (by its prolixity and repetitiveness) and by the introduction of numerous irrelevancies.
5. This brief description of the case gives the basis of the grounds of appeal against conviction where it is claimed that the appellant was denied a fair trial by the serious improper conduct of his counsel; by counsel acting, or appearing to act, in his own self-interest rather than in the best interests of the appellant; by counsel’s attitude towards and/or the counsel’s statements and/or responses to the magistrate; and by counsel’s prolix, irresponsible, absurd and/or frivolous cross-examination of the complainant. I will refer to the appellant in this appeal as to the appellant/defendant.
6. The appellant in HCMA 425/2014 is the counsel who represented the appellant/defendant who appeals a wasted costs order imposed upon him by the magistrate on 30 June 2014 under section 18 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Cap 492, following a hearing on 22 and 23 April 2014. The appeal is brought under section 19 of the Ordinance and the sole ground of appeal is that the magistrate erred in making the wasted costs order because there was no basis in either law and/or fact for such an order. I will refer to the appellant in this appeal as the appellant/counsel.
7. On 14 May 2015, Mr Gerard McCoy, SC, (who appears with Mr Richard Donald and Ms Chrystal Choy) for the appellant/defendant, in a memorandum to the court sought directions for the two appeals to be consolidated and for them to be listed in the Court of First Instance for a transfer application under section 118(1)(d) of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227. On the following day, Lunn VP directed that the two appeals be heard together before me for directions on 27 July 2015.
8. On 8 June 2015, I granted an order for the provision of transcript as requested by the appellant/defendant and at the same time I gave directions to the parties in both appeals in relation to the filing and serving of any written submissions and authorities for the directions hearing.
9. On 10 July 2015, the solicitors for the appellant/counsel by way of two letters made an ex parte application for an anonymity order in respect of the appellant/counsel in relation to the directions hearing and all and any subsequent hearings, and for my recusal from the directions hearing and any subsequent hearings for both appeals.
10. There were two grounds in support of the recusal application. The first ground was that at the date at which the prosecution indicated that it would apply for a wasted costs order against the appellant/counsel on 9 July 2013, I was the Director of Public Prosecutions and would have therefore approved, either directly or indirectly, the making of the application. The second ground was that I had submitted a letter of complaint to the Hong Kong Bar Association dated 4 February 2015, concerning the professional conduct of the appellant/counsel in the context of another case.
____________________________________________
What was the letter of complaint from Judge Zervos to the Hong Kong Bar Association concerning Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland about? What did Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mark Sutherland allegedly do?
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
13歲女援交拘5男 獲口交服務2男認罪
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150203/bkn-20150203161813008-0203_00822_001.html
5名男子分別與同一名13歲少女發生性行為，共被控6項非禮及非法性交罪名，案件今在九龍城法院提堂；其中被控非禮的第二及第三被告承認控罪，法官將案件押後至本月24日判刑，期間索取感化及社會服務令報告；而另外3被告由於不認罪，案件押至4月21審訊，5人均獲准保釋。 案情指，13歲少女去年7月透過成人網站帖文聲稱提供性服務，之後再在8月帖文稱900元提供口交服務，22歲就讀大學三年級的第二被告蔡偉麟，及34歲任職文員的第三被告劉新杰分別相約女事主，進行口交服務，惟事主父親其後查看女兒記事簿揭發報警，警方之後拘捕5被告。
5名被告分別是首被告盧冠麟 (17歲、學生)，被控非法性交罪；第二被告蔡偉麟 (22歲、大三學生)，被控非禮；第三被告劉新杰 (34歲、文員)，被控非禮；第四被告盧成禮 (51歲、保險從業員)，被控2項非法性交罪；第五被告符嘉豪 (19歲、學生)，被控非法性交罪。
5名男子分別與同一名13歲少女發生性行為，共被控6項非禮及非法性交罪名，案件今在九龍城法院提堂；其中被控非禮的第二及第三被告承認控罪，法官將案件押後至本月24日判刑，期間索取感化及社會服務令報告；而另外3被告由於不認罪，案件押至4月21審訊，5人均獲准保釋。 案情指，13歲少女去年7月透過成人網站帖文聲稱提供性服務，之後再在8月帖文稱900元提供口交服務，22歲就讀大學三年級的第二被告蔡偉麟，及34歲任職文員的第三被告劉新杰分別相約女事主，進行口交服務，惟事主父親其後查看女兒記事簿揭發報警，警方之後拘捕5被告。
5名被告分別是首被告盧冠麟 (17歲、學生)，被控非法性交罪；第二被告蔡偉麟 (22歲、大三學生)，被控非禮；第三被告劉新杰 (34歲、文員)，被控非禮；第四被告盧成禮 (51歲、保險從業員)，被控2項非法性交罪；第五被告符嘉豪 (19歲、學生)，被控非法性交罪。
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Lawyer Counsel Barrister Kevin C W Wong Accused of Being Late for Court and Giving False Information to Court and was Told Off by the Magistrate Ivy Chui - 大狀黃振榮被指遲到兼俾錯料遭裁判官徐綺薇訓斥
http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20150107/00412_002.html
曾任運輸工的男子失業後染上酗酒惡習，更聲稱醉後分不清眼前人是妻子還是女兒，竟在三年間三度在家對未成年的親女撫胸及私處非禮。案件昨判刑，惟控方的外聘大律師黃振榮 (Lawyer Counsel Barrister Kevin CW Wong) 除「擺烏龍」記錯判刑日子而遲到一小時外，更將明明有15個案底的被告搞錯成沒案底，遭裁判官訓斥。
裁判官徐綺薇表示，大律師黃振榮（Lawyer Counsel Barrister Kevin Wong）在案件上次審理時，錯誤指出43歲被告並無案底，但實情是被告過往有15個案底，其中在2001年更被判監四年半。黃大狀一度聲稱曾向法庭呈交被告案底的相關文件，但並無正面回應是否錯誤向法庭報告被告沒有案底。
徐官即指沒有收到有關文件，直言可即場讓黃翻聽法庭錄音記錄，又指上次若她沒為被告索閱背景報告，被告便因被視為沒有案底而接受判刑，作為主控官的大狀黃振榮 (Barrister Lawyer Counsel Kevin Wong) 實有責任查證被告的犯罪紀錄，其犯錯「Totally unacceptable（完全不可接受）」。黃振榮大律師 (Counsel Barrister Lawyer Kevin Wong) 最終就事件道歉，又指「I have egg on my face（我感到非常尷尬）」。
狎親女被告囚15月
在2011至2014年間犯案的被告，其背景報告透露他現已沒有與妻女聯絡。辯方解釋，被告已知錯。徐官指，被告妻女在案發後留下字條離家，表示已心碎，但仍寫下鼓勵字句，期望他能做個更好的人。徐官指被告原有大好家庭，他卻不懂珍惜，更將之一手摧毀，令妻女受傷害，終判其監禁15個月。
案件編號：FLCC5247/14
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150107/18994273
曾任運輸工的男子失業後染上酗酒惡習，更聲稱醉後分不清眼前人是妻子還是女兒，竟在三年間三度在家對未成年的親女撫胸及私處非禮。案件昨判刑，惟控方的外聘大律師黃振榮 (Lawyer Counsel Barrister Kevin CW Wong) 除「擺烏龍」記錯判刑日子而遲到一小時外，更將明明有15個案底的被告搞錯成沒案底，遭裁判官訓斥。
裁判官徐綺薇表示，大律師黃振榮（Lawyer Counsel Barrister Kevin Wong）在案件上次審理時，錯誤指出43歲被告並無案底，但實情是被告過往有15個案底，其中在2001年更被判監四年半。黃大狀一度聲稱曾向法庭呈交被告案底的相關文件，但並無正面回應是否錯誤向法庭報告被告沒有案底。
徐官即指沒有收到有關文件，直言可即場讓黃翻聽法庭錄音記錄，又指上次若她沒為被告索閱背景報告，被告便因被視為沒有案底而接受判刑，作為主控官的大狀黃振榮 (Barrister Lawyer Counsel Kevin Wong) 實有責任查證被告的犯罪紀錄，其犯錯「Totally unacceptable（完全不可接受）」。黃振榮大律師 (Counsel Barrister Lawyer Kevin Wong) 最終就事件道歉，又指「I have egg on my face（我感到非常尷尬）」。
狎親女被告囚15月
在2011至2014年間犯案的被告，其背景報告透露他現已沒有與妻女聯絡。辯方解釋，被告已知錯。徐官指，被告妻女在案發後留下字條離家，表示已心碎，但仍寫下鼓勵字句，期望他能做個更好的人。徐官指被告原有大好家庭，他卻不懂珍惜，更將之一手摧毀，令妻女受傷害，終判其監禁15個月。
案件編號：FLCC5247/14
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150107/18994273
Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho Sued for Serious Misconduct and Negligence - 郭棟明資深大律師及何慧嫻大律師被控嚴重失職及疏忽
Senior Counsel Eric Kwok SC and Lawyer Counsel Barrister Vivian Ho Sued for Serious Misconduct and Negligence - 資深大律師郭棟明及大律師何慧嫻被控嚴重失職及疏忽
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20131117/00176_041.html
中原地產多名高層之前被廉政公署刑事檢控，指他們涉嫌支付非法回佣予交易客戶，眾被告○八年在區院被裁定串謀詐騙等罪成立及判囚；其中一名總經理潘志明被判囚廿二個月，他在服刑十四個月後於高院上訴得直，撤銷定罪後重返中原工作。他昨日入稟高院民事指控在原審時代表他的資深大律師郭棟明及律師行失職、疏忽及違反聘約，要求對方賠償他損失，但未有透露金額。
原告潘志明（四十九歲），事發時是中原（工商舖）商舖部總經理，現時擔任中原（工商舖）營運總監；三名被告依次是翁宗榮律師行、資深大律師郭棟明及大律師何慧嫻。
上訴庭：令原告得不到公平審訊
原告於○八年受審時，控方指他涉嫌在兩宗物業交易中詐騙中原，指其私人公司是交易介紹人，向中原申領約六十萬元介紹費後，將錢交予買家羅家寶的職員作回佣。惟上訴庭判他脫罪時指，羅家寶曾向廉署錄口供指其職員毋須批准便收取回佣；另外，中原集團主席施永青亦曾供稱，指若知收回佣者是獲僱主同意，就算同事填報的介紹人是虛假也會照批介紹費，不認為這是詐騙。
雖然原審法官在判決時批評中原此種做法，是鼓勵貪污風氣及對旗下員工的監察未夠嚴謹；惟上訴庭指，原審時若原告律師有向施永青提出羅家寶的供詞，便會成為原告沒有詐騙的有力證據；但原告律師並沒這樣做，這屬嚴重失職令原告得不到公平審訊，因此撤銷原告的定罪。
原告在入稟狀指，原審時控方在案件開審前大半年，已表明有羅家寶的供詞但不會呈堂；但被告一方卻告訴原告，羅家寶的供詞「無足輕重」而無向控方索取。另外在施永青作供後，被告一方亦無向原告解釋施的供詞對其抗辯有關鍵幫助，亦無傳召羅做辯方證人等，原告認為被告此舉屬失職。
案件編號： HCA 2221/2013
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1358092/centaline-property-agent-sues-law-firm-barristers-who-represented-him
A property agency manager has sued a law firm and two of its barristers (Senior Counsel Eric Kwok SC and Barrister Vivian Ho), claiming they failed in their duty to defend him against allegations that he paid kickbacks to secure a deal.
Poon Chi-ming, formerly a general manager at Centaline Commercial, was convicted in June 2008 of two counts of conspiracy to defraud in the District Court and jailed for 22 months.
The ruling was overturned on appeal and he was released after spending 14 months in jail.
Poon, now chief operating officer of Centaline Commercial, filed the High Court writ on Friday against the law firm, Simon C.W. Yung & Co, and the barristers, Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho.
Poon and two other agents were found guilty of conspiring to deceive Centaline into paying HK$600,000 in kickbacks to a private company in two transactions between 2005 and 2006. They had claimed the money was paid as referral fees to an employee of a company buying a commercial property.
Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho represented Poon in the District Court trial.
Poon hired another legal team to represent him on appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled in his favour and quashed his conviction in March 2010. Poon was released after spending 14 months in jail.
The appeal court judges found that the Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had failed to make good use of a witness statement, meaning Poon missed out on a fair trial.
The statement was made by billionaire Law Kar-po, the boss of the company which was buying the property. Law told the Independent Commission Against Corruption that he had known about the deal and allowed his employee to accept the referral fees from the property agent.
The statement had been given to Poon's lawyers before the trial.
The appeal court found the defence counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had failed to use the statement when questioning Centaline chairman Shih Wing-ching. Shih was a witness in the trial and testified that if he knew the firm had agreed to the employee receiving referral fees, it would have paid the commission and not felt it had been deceived.
In the writ, Poon claims that Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho, and the law firm Simon C Y Yung & Co Solicitors, failed to appreciate that Law's statement contained crucial evidence.
He also says they failed to instruct Poon to call Law and other related parties as defence witnesses.
--------------------------------------------------
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131117/18511708
中原工商舖營運總監潘志明，因涉提供非法回佣，08年被判監22個月。潘其後就定罪提出上訴，上訴庭當時批評原審辯方律師嚴重失職，故判他上訴得直推翻定罪，但潘已白坐冤獄14個月。潘志明指控原審時代表他的資深大律師等律師團疏忽失職，日前入稟高等法院向他們索償。
涉疏忽失職累事主判囚
於案發時任職中原工商舖總經理的潘志明（50歲），昨表示案件已進入法律程序，不便作出回應。而三名被告則為翁宗榮律師行、資深大律師郭棟明，及大律師何慧嫻。郭昨表示不予回應。
入稟狀指，三名被告代表潘志明在該宗串謀詐騙案進行辯護，但他們疏忽失職，未有留意證人羅家寶的供詞，對潘的辯護起關鍵作用，在審訊中沒有引用羅的供詞，或傳召羅作辯方證人。
潘志明涉嫌在兩宗物業交易中，騙取中原向買家代表發放60多萬元佣金。
上訴庭曾指，辯方代表律師嚴重失職，未有提及買家代表的僱主羅家寶，曾表示准許員工收取回佣的證供，即收回佣行為是合法的。而中原主席施永青，在原審時亦表示只要是對公司有利，而買家的僱主是容許收回佣，亦不算詐騙中原。
案件編號：HCA2221/13
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20131117/00176_041.html
中原地產多名高層之前被廉政公署刑事檢控，指他們涉嫌支付非法回佣予交易客戶，眾被告○八年在區院被裁定串謀詐騙等罪成立及判囚；其中一名總經理潘志明被判囚廿二個月，他在服刑十四個月後於高院上訴得直，撤銷定罪後重返中原工作。他昨日入稟高院民事指控在原審時代表他的資深大律師郭棟明及律師行失職、疏忽及違反聘約，要求對方賠償他損失，但未有透露金額。
原告潘志明（四十九歲），事發時是中原（工商舖）商舖部總經理，現時擔任中原（工商舖）營運總監；三名被告依次是翁宗榮律師行、資深大律師郭棟明及大律師何慧嫻。
上訴庭：令原告得不到公平審訊
原告於○八年受審時，控方指他涉嫌在兩宗物業交易中詐騙中原，指其私人公司是交易介紹人，向中原申領約六十萬元介紹費後，將錢交予買家羅家寶的職員作回佣。惟上訴庭判他脫罪時指，羅家寶曾向廉署錄口供指其職員毋須批准便收取回佣；另外，中原集團主席施永青亦曾供稱，指若知收回佣者是獲僱主同意，就算同事填報的介紹人是虛假也會照批介紹費，不認為這是詐騙。
雖然原審法官在判決時批評中原此種做法，是鼓勵貪污風氣及對旗下員工的監察未夠嚴謹；惟上訴庭指，原審時若原告律師有向施永青提出羅家寶的供詞，便會成為原告沒有詐騙的有力證據；但原告律師並沒這樣做，這屬嚴重失職令原告得不到公平審訊，因此撤銷原告的定罪。
原告在入稟狀指，原審時控方在案件開審前大半年，已表明有羅家寶的供詞但不會呈堂；但被告一方卻告訴原告，羅家寶的供詞「無足輕重」而無向控方索取。另外在施永青作供後，被告一方亦無向原告解釋施的供詞對其抗辯有關鍵幫助，亦無傳召羅做辯方證人等，原告認為被告此舉屬失職。
案件編號： HCA 2221/2013
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1358092/centaline-property-agent-sues-law-firm-barristers-who-represented-him
A property agency manager has sued a law firm and two of its barristers (Senior Counsel Eric Kwok SC and Barrister Vivian Ho), claiming they failed in their duty to defend him against allegations that he paid kickbacks to secure a deal.
Poon Chi-ming, formerly a general manager at Centaline Commercial, was convicted in June 2008 of two counts of conspiracy to defraud in the District Court and jailed for 22 months.
The ruling was overturned on appeal and he was released after spending 14 months in jail.
Poon, now chief operating officer of Centaline Commercial, filed the High Court writ on Friday against the law firm, Simon C.W. Yung & Co, and the barristers, Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho.
Poon and two other agents were found guilty of conspiring to deceive Centaline into paying HK$600,000 in kickbacks to a private company in two transactions between 2005 and 2006. They had claimed the money was paid as referral fees to an employee of a company buying a commercial property.
Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho represented Poon in the District Court trial.
Poon hired another legal team to represent him on appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled in his favour and quashed his conviction in March 2010. Poon was released after spending 14 months in jail.
The appeal court judges found that the Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had failed to make good use of a witness statement, meaning Poon missed out on a fair trial.
The statement was made by billionaire Law Kar-po, the boss of the company which was buying the property. Law told the Independent Commission Against Corruption that he had known about the deal and allowed his employee to accept the referral fees from the property agent.
The statement had been given to Poon's lawyers before the trial.
The appeal court found the defence counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho had failed to use the statement when questioning Centaline chairman Shih Wing-ching. Shih was a witness in the trial and testified that if he knew the firm had agreed to the employee receiving referral fees, it would have paid the commission and not felt it had been deceived.
In the writ, Poon claims that Lawyers Counsel Barristers Eric Kwok SC and Vivian Ho, and the law firm Simon C Y Yung & Co Solicitors, failed to appreciate that Law's statement contained crucial evidence.
He also says they failed to instruct Poon to call Law and other related parties as defence witnesses.
--------------------------------------------------
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131117/18511708
中原工商舖營運總監潘志明，因涉提供非法回佣，08年被判監22個月。潘其後就定罪提出上訴，上訴庭當時批評原審辯方律師嚴重失職，故判他上訴得直推翻定罪，但潘已白坐冤獄14個月。潘志明指控原審時代表他的資深大律師等律師團疏忽失職，日前入稟高等法院向他們索償。
涉疏忽失職累事主判囚
於案發時任職中原工商舖總經理的潘志明（50歲），昨表示案件已進入法律程序，不便作出回應。而三名被告則為翁宗榮律師行、資深大律師郭棟明，及大律師何慧嫻。郭昨表示不予回應。
入稟狀指，三名被告代表潘志明在該宗串謀詐騙案進行辯護，但他們疏忽失職，未有留意證人羅家寶的供詞，對潘的辯護起關鍵作用，在審訊中沒有引用羅的供詞，或傳召羅作辯方證人。
潘志明涉嫌在兩宗物業交易中，騙取中原向買家代表發放60多萬元佣金。
上訴庭曾指，辯方代表律師嚴重失職，未有提及買家代表的僱主羅家寶，曾表示准許員工收取回佣的證供，即收回佣行為是合法的。而中原主席施永青，在原審時亦表示只要是對公司有利，而買家的僱主是容許收回佣，亦不算詐騙中原。
案件編號：HCA2221/13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)