CFA Said Barrister Philip Wong (Wong Chi Wai) Was Incompetent - 黃志偉大律師被終審庭狠批「無能」
See: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=89271&currpage=T
HKSAR v Wong Chi Wai (FACC No. 10 of 2012, September 23, 2013)
121.
There can be no doubt that Barrister Philip Wong's level of competence as a lawyer was low.
In particular, he had a poor grasp of LPP as a legal doctrine. In cross-examination, Mr Wong stated that he could see no difference between confidentiality and LPP and thought that a court could override them both:
“Q: No, this is confidentiality not LPP?
A: Well I see no difference.
...
Q: No, LPP is different, isn’t it, because LPP the court cannot order that the matters be disclosed if they are coved by privilege, confidentiality the court can, that’s the difference, isn’t it?
A: Well I don’t think so, I don’t think so.”
....
Q: .... there are two things there, confidentiality and privilege, they’re different?
A: Yes, yes different but the effect of a court order is the same. The court, the order can override the privilege as well as the confidentiality, that’s my understanding.”
122. Mr Clive Grossman SC, called as a character witness for Mr Wong described him as “a man of integrity who worked hard for his client, but ... not of the highest intellect.” Another character witness, Mr Philip Dykes SC said he was “a man of integrity whose style was enthusiastic and combative” adding that “he had spoken to [Mr Wong] on occasion and advised [him] to moderate [his] approach”.
123. Stock VP pointed out that:
“One has in a case such as this to take the greatest care to distinguish between misguided professional enthusiasm or even incompetence, on the one hand and, on the other, dishonesty.”
124. His Lordship continued:
“...although it is clear enough that Wong wished, if possible, to avoid a contested argument in court on the issue of privilege, and although I have not had the advantage, as did the trial judge of hearing the evidence, I still retain some doubt if the suggestion be that Wong had no belief at all in the point. That doubt arises from the evidence of Wong’s aggressive tenacity on behalf of his clients and of the evidence which suggests that he is a facts advocate, not much at ease with arguments of law.”
125. The opinion of Mr Dykes SC that Mr Wong was “a competent lawyer, well able to look up the law” does not appear to be borne out by the evidence. Mr Wong does not appear to have done more than look at Blackstone and, when asked by the Judge to produce authority overnight, only managed to re-cycle the case which had been mentioned, with reservations, by Mr Ngai in an earlier note.
126.
The picture that emerges is therefore of a barrister (Barrister Philip Wong also known as Wong Chi Wai) of low competence with a poor understanding of the relevant concepts; doing no effective research; “thrilled” to have discovered the bill of costs, which was regarded as a justification for pursuing the LPP argument; coupled with an aggressive tenacity reflected in the three letters sent to Ms Mak – an unedifying vision, but distinctly more plausible, in my view, than the prosecution’s theory of a barrister well aware of the law but cynically using LPP as a pretext for what in truth was what the Judge had called “a threat simpliciter” aimed at deflecting Ms Mak from her duty.
