陳家昇大律師 (Barrister Chan Ka Sing) 件案嘅上訴人律師費
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20111124/00176_040.html
陳家昇大律師 (Barrister Chan Ka Sing) 件案嘅上訴人律師費
警方於二○○六年派臥底滲入黑幫蒐證，於○九年結束行動，先後有廿二人被控，其中十六人在九龍城法院受審，包括提出今次上訴的兩名上訴人唐坤慈和蘇永棠，餘下六人在區域法院受審。唐、蘇兩名上訴人經審訊後，各被裁定一項聲稱是三合會社團成員罪成。
兩名上訴人於○九年在九龍城法院受審的第一日，裁判官陳家昇 (Counsel Chan Ka Sing) 看到有被告對法庭不敬，於是向一眾被告表示：「我都唔係第一次做黑社會，我亦都唔係第一次審黑社會，我做大律師嘅時候，我亦都代表過一啲龍頭阿哥，所謂個阿公，我都幫佢代表過，打過官司！」
指被告地位低勿囂張
處理上訴的高院法官湯寶臣指，類似說話絕對不應出自正在審案的裁判官，這種說話會令旁觀者覺得裁判官認為被告是黑社會人士或與黑社會有關，由於被告的地位不及「龍頭阿公或阿哥」，故被告不應在他面前表現囂張。
湯官於今年四月裁定，該番說話顯示裁判官對辯方有偏見，加上區院已裁定臥底證人證供不可靠，控方又錯誤引用案中被告何國柱過往涉及的一宗判例，披露何以往曾因涉及同類罪行而被檢控，故判何國柱及另兩人上訴得直。
兩名上訴人得悉高院當時的判決後，也用相同理由上訴，陳家昇 (Lawyer Chan Ka Sing) 看過高院今年四月的判決書後，也同意應判兩名上訴人上訴得直。但控方反駁指，區院沒有否定臥底的誠信，只是質疑其證供不可靠，但臥底針對兩名上訴人的證供是可靠的，單憑陳家昇曾出言「兇」被告，不足以推翻原判。
湯官昨頒發判決書指裁判官自己也同意應判兩名上訴人得直，雖控方有不同意見，但臥底證供的整體可信性已受法庭質疑，加上裁判官的不恰當表達引起他有偏見的問題，故判兩人上訴得直，撤銷他們的定罪。
案件編號：HCMA 129/2011
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
既然係陳家昇大律師 (Barrister Chan Ka Sing) 衰多口講錯野，跟住被告上訴成功，上訴人有無得攞番用左嘅律師費?
陳家昇大律師失德行為罪成被停牌 - Hong Kong Lawyer Counsel Barrister Chan Ka Sing Guilty of Misconduct and Suspended by the Barristers’ Disciplinary Tribunal
回覆刪除Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal - Mr Chan Ka Sing
By Statement of Findings dated 24 January 2019, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found two (2) complaints of misconduct against Mr Chan, Ka Sing to have been proved. By Order dated 24 January 2019 and Further Order dated 22 February 2019, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that Mr Chan be suspended from practice as a barrister for six weeks for Complaint 1 with effect from 29 January 2019, and be censured for Complaint 2.
THE BAR COUNCIL V. CHAN KA SING
ORDER OF THE BARRISTERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
On 12 November 2018, two Complaints were lodged with the Convenor of the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal (“the BDT”) against Mr. Chan Ka Sing (“Mr. Chan”) concerning his conduct when he was instructed to represent a defendant in High Court Criminal Case No. 145 of 2014 (“the Criminal Case”).
The Complaints are, in summary, as follows:
(i) Complaint 1: Mr. Chan failed his duty as a practising barrister to be competent in all his professional activities when representing the defendant in the Criminal Case in mitigation.
(ii) Complaint 2: Mr. Chan took instructions from the defendant prior to the hearing of the Criminal Case without the presence of the person instructing him or his representatives.
Hong Kong Lawyer Counsel Barrister Mr Chan Ka Sing (陳家昇大律師) admitted to the Complaints in the BDT proceedings.
By a Statement of Findings dated 24 January 2019, the BDT found Mr. Chan guilty of the two Complaints, and ordered that:
(1) On Complaint 1: Mr. Chan be suspended from practice for a period of six weeks.
(2) On Complaints 2: Mr. Chan be censured.
(3) Mr. Chan is to pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings of the BDT and the costs of any prior inquiry or investigations in relation to matters before the BDT, on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
(4) The Statement of Findings and Orders by the BDT be published by way of a Bar Circular and by it being posted on the Bar Association’s website for the period of the suspension; and
(5) The Statement of Findings and Orders by the BDT are to be sent to the Complainant and to the Director of Legal Aid.
By Further Order dated 22 February 2019, the BDT ordered that the date of commencement of Mr. Chan’s suspension from practice is 29 January 2019.