2015年8月15日星期六

悼Andrew Kan

大 狀 接 連 去 世 陳 振 聰 上 訴 受 影 響


簡 定 濤 ( 右 ) 曾 是 陳 振 聰 ( 左 ) 十 分 倚 重 的 大 狀 。 。

  (星島日報報道)二○一三年為陳振聰打偽造遺囑案的執業大律師簡定濤(Andrew Kan),周二深夜在錦綉花園寓所內暈倒,送入博愛醫院搶救延至昨日清晨六時許因心臟衰竭不治,終年五十七歲。這是今年第二位曾為陳振聰打官司的大律師病逝,有關方面正評估對原定下月開審的陳振聰上訴案的影響。

  有法律界中人對於簡大狀突然死亡事件感到十分震驚之餘,亦表示事件「好邪」,認為這筆涉及逾八百三十億元的遺產,彷彿被人下了「詛咒」般,多人企圖佔據或觸碰官司都似乎會落得不好下場。

  今年二月十三日,曾為陳振聰打偽造遺囑案初期提訊的資深大狀金力生(Alexander King),亦因腦癌去世。
............

(13/8/2015 星島日報)

寫上一篇關於Andrew Chan的任命時,好友whatsapp我,問我知不知到Andrew Kan的死訊。我一向沒有看星島,所以不知。上一次見到Andrew簡是兩年前在東區法院的門口,我剛巧跟舊同事在法院附近吃完午飯,Andrew也吃完飯返去繼續下午的審訊,大家寒喧幾句,匆匆而别。當時的Andrew比以前稍廋,不再是「肥簡」了。生命轉瞬而逝,豈不使人欷歔。Andrew一向研究紫微斗數,九七時叫我賣樓,他說樓價會大跌,我沒聽他的。他知我移民時叫我讀書和注意健康,讀書我沒聽他的,因為我不是那種料子,注意健康我就不用聽他,我一向都注意,但身體的毛病也避不了。

Andrew曾經想度我升仙,帶我去買一兩本紫微斗數的入門書來看,我卻看不入腦,束之高閣,那是很多年前的事。我從不相信鬼神玄妙,人改不了自然的定率,或者叫宿命,那就由他去吧。我也想度他升仙,帶他去茶庄品茶,最後他也沒有愛上喝茶。陳振聰的天圖佈局也不能算到自己的下場,Andrew代表他可能因為大家有點共通語言。陳振聰在玄學方面豈能跟Andrew比,陳在作供時已承認不懂風水,無疑他在呃神騙鬼。Andrew在行内卻是玄學知名的。

不知Andrew對自己起了個怎樣的命盤,fugacious life,  perpetual soul,生命轉瞬即逝,靈魂長存不滅。


5 則留言:

  1. I don't know Barrister Andrew Kan but what do you think of this?

    http://www.scmp.com/article/140110/judiciary-admits-lapse

    THE Judiciary had no idea barrister Andrew Kan was facing allegations of professional misconduct when they appointed him as a temporary magistrate, it says.


    Chief Magistrate Anthony To said Mr Kan would not have been given the magistrate's post if it had been known that such accusations were hanging over his head.


    He said: 'We knew nothing about this. Certainly, it would have affected his appointment. We expect high judicial standards.


    'We have a case here where there are allegations of professional negligence.' But he admitted Mr Kan had been allowed to continue hearing cases in magistrates' courts after the situation had become known.


    This was because the accusations, which are denied, had not been tested in court and because Mr Kan had performed well as a magistrate.


    Mr To said he had not known that Mr Kan had considered himself to be 'at a crossroads in his life' and was considering leaving his job, or that he had not collected mail from his chambers for 15 months.


    The Chief Magistrate said he was informed by the Supreme Court Registrar that a court order had been made calling on Mr Kan to answer allegations of incompetence relating to a trial in which he had acted as defence counsel.


    Mr To said he only became aware of this near the end of Mr Kan's contract as a temporary magistrate in September.


    This was shortly before Mr Kan was served with a witness summons, while presiding over court proceedings at Western, demanding he appear before Appeal Court judges to answer the allegations against him.


    Mr To said he spoke to Mr Kan about the matter. He was allowed to complete his contract as a temporary magistrate. But the contract was not extended further.


    'Of course, seeing that he had this particular matter hanging over him we would not wish to consider extending his contract,' Mr To said.


    There was no complaint to be made about Mr Kan's performance as a magistrate. He had been very helpful and his court had been run efficiently.


    Temporary magistrates do not usually sit for longer than six months at a time.


    Mr Kan was given a two-month contract in March and then a four-month term to take him up to September.


    Former policeman Wong Chi-yun is appealing against his convictions on serious conspiracy charges which resulted in him being jailed for 18 years.


    He claims Mr Kan, his barrister during the March 1994 trial, acted incompetently in his conduct of the case and pursued a course contrary to his instructions.


    Mr Kan told the court he had not acted improperly.


    The barrister is believed to be the first member of the legal profession to be summoned to give evidence in an appeal of this kind.


    He said he had not answered 19 letters relating to the appeal because he had been considering leaving his job and had not collected mail for 15 months.

    回覆刪除