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
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.