SCMP (14 January 2014)
The Court of Appeal yesterday criticised a law firm (Raymond Kwong & Co Solicitors - 鄺志豪律師事務所) for failing to properly file court documents to inform the court that an action would be abandoned before a hearing, wasting judges' time in preparing for the case.
According to a judgment, law firm Raymond Kwong and Co (鄺志豪律師事務所) had used an outdated form to file a notice of abandonment to tell the court that its client would not seek permission to appeal against his conviction. It also failed to fill in the sentence imposed on its client and as a result the form was rejected by the High Court Registry. The client had decided to give up the action nine days before the scheduled day.
The three judges also criticised barrister Keith Fung (大律師馮振華) for not alerting the court when he knew of the firm's failure in filing the documents two days before the hearing. Fung told the court of his client's intention to pursue only the application for leave to appeal against sentence, but not against conviction, only on the day of the hearing.
"We found it astonishing that a firm of solicitors was unable to properly file a notice of abandonment on behalf of a client, particularly when an unrepresented applicant in custody has no difficulty in filing such a notice via the Correctional Services Department," said Mrs Justice Judianna Barnes Wai-ling. "Valuable judicial time was wasted."
The judgment involved Kamarulzaman Bin Annuar, who was jailed for three years for possessing HK$50 billion worth of fake US dollar bills and a bogus certificate of balance.
(See: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1404859/appeal-court-judges-cross-about-law-firms-failures)
Hon Barnes J (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court):
29. Barrister Mr Keith Fung (馮振華大律師) never sought to amend the grounds of appeal accordingly but merely abandoned ground 4b in his written submission.
30. We made it clear to Barrister Mr Keith Fung (馮振華大律師) that what he had done was NOT ACCEPTABLE. Counsel has a duty to file proper grounds of appeal.
(See: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=91008&currpage=T)
Hon Barnes J (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court):
29. Barrister Mr Keith Fung (馮振華大律師) never sought to amend the grounds of appeal accordingly but merely abandoned ground 4b in his written submission.
30. We made it clear to Barrister Mr Keith Fung (馮振華大律師) that what he had done was NOT ACCEPTABLE. Counsel has a duty to file proper grounds of appeal.
(See: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=91008&currpage=T)
沒有留言:
張貼留言