http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150126/53373253
警司黃冠豪被指在2011年，出任灣仔分區指揮官期間，收受區內一間未領有酒牌的火鍋店提供4,000元飲食折扣及威士忌，被裁定公職人員行為失當罪成，判囚一年。黃今提上訴，指原審時代表他的大狀陸偉雄 (Lawyer Albert Luk) 出錯，例如錯誤同意帳單內容、未有就帳單盤問證人等。
原審時代表黃的大律師陸偉雄 (Barrister Albert Luk) 今出庭接受盤問，指當時是與控方同意有關帳單的檢取及呈堂，但並不是同意帳單的內容，承認在此有進步的空間。主審上訴的暫委法官則指應有很大的進步空間。
陸偉雄又解釋，沒有就帳單盤問證人，是怕證人的答應太負面，故安排由黃自辯時交代有關情況，並指盤問的問題不是由他一人作主，黃、黃的友人及律師均有份擬定問題。但胡法官則指，若不盤問證人，便不能指證人說謊，這令原審法官在判刑時認為案情嚴重，會陷法官於不義.
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150126/bkn-20150126134655264-0126_00822_001.html
前灣仔分區指揮官、警司黃冠豪被指明知相熟火鍋店未領酒牌，仍拉大隊光顧，並接受對方折扣及贈酒，早前於東區法院被裁定公職人員行為失當罪成，判監1年。
今日黃就定罪及刑罰向原訟法庭上訴，上午先就定罪上訴中，指其原審大狀陸偉雄失職的指控，傳召陸到庭作供。黃的代表律師指，陸在審訊時，不應同意讓涉案帳單呈堂，並任由控方就單上的手寫內容發問。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150127/19017973
上訴一方的重點是，陸偉雄大律師 (Counsel Albert Luk) 應就涉案賬單真確性盤問證人，也不能承認賬單真確，但陸偉雄大律師 (Lawyer Albert Luk) 不但沒盤問證人，也以控辯雙方同意案情的書面形式，接納賬單真確；而賬單上有「酬謝黃司飯宴」手寫字句，屬不能呈堂的傳聞證供，陸偉雄大律師 (Barrister Albert Luk) 又沒提出反對，結果原審裁判官判刑時，便基於賬單上的字句，重囚黃冠豪。陸偉雄大律師 (Counsel Albert Luk)解釋，不時與事務律師、黃冠豪及黃的友人開會，經商討後按黃冠豪指示行事，沒有自把自為，「佢唔係普通人，好多意見，熟悉法律程序」。
陸偉雄大律師 (Lawyer Albert Luk) 指辯方的立場一直是不承認賬單真確，只是承認賬單被撿取及呈堂，但審訊時事出倉促，沒在文件上清楚寫明，陸坦言「有進步空間」，暫委法官胡國興則揶揄「好大進步空間」。胡官認為，辯方若不挑戰賬單真確性，「一半唔使打」，「讀到三年班都知道，大數減細數就係折扣」。
案件編號：HCMA 366 / 2013
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.