HKSAR v. KULEMESIN YURIY AND OTHERS (CACC19/2010)
Before: Hon Stock VP, Lunn JA and Saw J
Date of Judgment: 14 December 2011
Hon Stock VP:
496. I wish to add some words of my own – with which the other members of the Court concur – about the conduct of the proceedings in the court below...
509. The question pressed by Mr Westbrook [Senior Counsel Simon Westbrook of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC) (德輔大律師事務所)] was not a question; it was a comment. But more significantly, the remark to the witness “I’m not interested in your explanation” was rudeness itself delivered by counsel clothed with the authority of his professional robes to a person in a wholly unequal position. The judge should not have permitted it. The witness should have been allowed to explain himself then and there; and the objection that prosecuting counsel was hectoring and simply upsetting the witness was an objection well-founded.
510. Cross-examination of the type displayed in the passages I have reproduced, apart from constituting poor advocacy, is never permissible. It is not permissible in respect of any witness, let alone of a defendant facing a charge which, if proved, might deprive him of his liberty and ruin his career; let alone of a 62-year-old man of previous good character providing evidence in difficult circumstances and doing so in a perfectly courteous manner; a man who simply had to take the rudeness dished out to him. This should never happen. It is distasteful.
(Source: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=79504&QS=%28The%2Bquestion%2Bpressed%2Bby%2BMr%2BWestbrook%2Bwas%2Bnot%2Ba%2Bquestion%29&TP=JU)
2014年1月11日 星期六
Lawyer and Senior Counsel Daniel Fung SC Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 馮華健資深大律師專業失當罪成
馮華健資深大律師專業失當罪成 - Lawyer and Senior Counsel Daniel Fung SC Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct
Barrister Daniel Fung SC (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), was found guilty of professional misconduct on February 1 by the tribunal, chaired by Peter Ng Kar-fai SC. On June 2, he was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000.
He was found guilty of failing to inform the Court of Appeal in 2005 about clauses of a legislative provision that were unfavourable to his client, Hong Kong Island Development, in a tenancy lawsuit. The firm is a unit of New World Development Group. According to a note on the tribunal's judgment, Fung's failure to draw the court's attention to the point was contrary to the Bar's Code of Conduct. The full judgment has not been made public and the Bar Association says it is not its practice to do so.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719003/daniel-fung-panel-took-three-years-form)
We wish to clarify the timing with the following chronology.
The report concerned disciplinary proceedings against Barrister and Lawyer Daniel Fung Wah Kin (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), which arose from a Court of Appeal hearing in 2005.
Barrister and Lawyer Daniel Fung Wah Kin (資深大律師馮華健), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), received a letter from the Bar Association dated October 27, 2006, informing him the Bar Council had decided the matter be inquired into by a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal, and that it would be submitted to the tribunal convenor.
On May 2, 2007, Tong was requested by the Bar Association to set up the tribunal. He sent Daniel Fung SC (資深大律師馮華健) a notice dated June 5, 2007, informing him that a tribunal had been constituted, providing names of panel members including Peter Ng Kar-fai SC, who sat as its chairman.
On September 12, 2007, a directions hearing was held before the tribunal and the substantive hearing began on April 24, 2008.
Barrister and Lawyer Daniel Fung Wah Kin (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), was found guilty of professional misconduct (專業失當罪成) by the tribunal on February 1, this year. He was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000 on June 2.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719306/corrections-clarifications)
Barrister Daniel Fung SC (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), was found guilty of professional misconduct on February 1 by the tribunal, chaired by Peter Ng Kar-fai SC. On June 2, he was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000.
He was found guilty of failing to inform the Court of Appeal in 2005 about clauses of a legislative provision that were unfavourable to his client, Hong Kong Island Development, in a tenancy lawsuit. The firm is a unit of New World Development Group. According to a note on the tribunal's judgment, Fung's failure to draw the court's attention to the point was contrary to the Bar's Code of Conduct. The full judgment has not been made public and the Bar Association says it is not its practice to do so.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719003/daniel-fung-panel-took-three-years-form)
We wish to clarify the timing with the following chronology.
The report concerned disciplinary proceedings against Barrister and Lawyer Daniel Fung Wah Kin (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), which arose from a Court of Appeal hearing in 2005.
Barrister and Lawyer Daniel Fung Wah Kin (資深大律師馮華健), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), received a letter from the Bar Association dated October 27, 2006, informing him the Bar Council had decided the matter be inquired into by a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal, and that it would be submitted to the tribunal convenor.
On May 2, 2007, Tong was requested by the Bar Association to set up the tribunal. He sent Daniel Fung SC (資深大律師馮華健) a notice dated June 5, 2007, informing him that a tribunal had been constituted, providing names of panel members including Peter Ng Kar-fai SC, who sat as its chairman.
On September 12, 2007, a directions hearing was held before the tribunal and the substantive hearing began on April 24, 2008.
Barrister and Lawyer Daniel Fung Wah Kin (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel from Des Voeux Chambers (DVC - 德輔大律師事務所), was found guilty of professional misconduct (專業失當罪成) by the tribunal on February 1, this year. He was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000 on June 2.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719306/corrections-clarifications)
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)