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
I can’t imagine focusing long enough to research; much less write this kind of article. You’ve outdone yourself with this material. This is great content. lemon law attorneys los angeles
ReplyDelete
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.