2015年9月20日星期日

陳振聰上訴庭上交鋒

..........

考慮加原審律師失職為理據

Wood稱龔的遺產當時估計約450億元,陳若接納和解方案,可獲約157億元,認為若陳是偽造遺囑者,他不可能拒絕如此豐厚的金錢。

Wood又稱,簡定濤在原審盤問遺囑見證人之一律師王永祥時,遭控方及法官叫停提問後便沒有追問。上訴庭副庭長倫明高問是否指簡失職,Wood回應將在周末考慮是否申請許可,加入簡失職為上訴理據之一。

律政司代表、御用大律師David Perry回應稱,原審代表陳的律師及另一大律師,均參與本上訴;陳一方如提出申請,須向自己的律師團錄取證人供辭。

陳一方下周一續審時將決定是否提出申請,又指博愛醫院前總理蕭炎坤已為上訴案撰寫證人供辭,待法庭決定是否批准呈堂。

(19/9/2015明報節錄)

我不知寫過多少篇評論陳振聰案的文,他在刑事案開審前,因為鋪天蓋地的傳媒公審,他根本很難找到對他不存偏見的陪審團,理應以此為理由申請永久終止聆訊,可是他没有這樣做。當案件審結後,原審法官才頒布預審過程的判詞,我從而得悉原因,便寫了陳振聰案的遐想之三一文。原本預留20天作審前法律爭議(假設是申請永久終止聆訊),後來放棄了,因為陳振聰嫌原本打算聘請的資深大律師胡漢清收費太貴。

從本上訴的報導看,理由包括審前傳媒廣泛負面報導,陳不可能獲公平審訊,法官不應容許控方呈上爭產案的證據,簡定濤沒有追問王永祥等等。可見,在諸多理由中,上訴一方從來都沒有指責簡定濤失職,直到上訴庭副庭長Michael Lunn跟James Wood口舌交鋒後才挑起這理由。有點兒戲吧!代表陳振聰上訴的是重量級人物,Wood這倫敦大炮外,還有退休後私人執業的前副刑事檢控專員Robert Lee。Robert一向仔細,如果簡定濤失職,一開始就會列作上訴理由,有可能等到上庭陳述時才想到嗎?據預審判詞講,簡定濤一開始就反對控方呈上爭產案的證據,但遭法官駁回,盤問王永祥也被阻止,不申請永久終止聆訊是被告嫌律師費昂貴下的決定,無可能把這些賬算到簡定濤的頭上。下星期本案續審,如果把簡定濤失職新加入為上訴理由,我會覺得兒戲和荒謬。整個過程因上訴庭法官與上訴一方火併而引致不必要的發展,實屬不幸,還要把已故的簡定濤捲進去,對他還有公義嗎?

14 則留言:

  1. 陳振聰是有罪的。陪審團的裁決是正確的。陳振聰如果有錢剩應該捐俾無國界醫生。績番啲陰德。

    回覆刪除
  2. 博愛醫院前總理蕭炎坤係邊位?點解審訊嘅時候唔係證人依家想做?

    回覆刪除
  3. Same guy as this one? http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20140320/00176_081.html

    法庭:蕭炎坤做擔保恐失500萬

    持雙程證來港的內地女子趙丹娜捲入涉嫌洗黑錢一百億元案,她早前向高院申請以現金三千萬元及人事一千萬元擔保外出獲批准,但結果她棄保潛逃。這亦牽連兩名替她做人事擔保、各為她提供五百萬元擔保金的男子,其中一人是博愛醫院永遠顧問蕭炎坤,昨日需為擔保金一事到荃灣法院應訊。裁判官指其擔保金可能全數充公,要他先聘律師索取意見,將案押後四月七日再訊。

    擔保人蕭炎坤並無律師代表,裁判官耐心向他解釋,由於他未能確保涉案女被告趙丹娜(廿二歲)如期應訊,故考慮充公其五百萬元人事擔保金,如不繳交更將會以監禁替代。蕭聞悉後顯得憂慮,急問:「如果我盡咗一定責任,有冇可能只罰一半?」裁判官遂建議他聘律師商議為佳,將案押後下月再訊。

    與另一擔保人下月再訊

    而早前已到庭應訊的另一名人事擔保趙端誠(譯音),亦因需要聘請律師代表,亦同於該日一併處理。

    趙端誠趙端誠

    蕭炎坤在庭外透露,被告趙丹娜的丈夫張永安是一名內地建築發展商,擔任另一人事擔保人的被告堂叔趙端誠,則經營體育用品生意,蕭和張、趙二人早已認識,因此亦視被告為世姪女。當被告就案件被控及遭羈押後,張及趙認為他具名氣有愛心,於是託蕭擔任被告的人事擔保。

    蕭指由於大家均是潮州人,鄉親情厚,遂義不容辭答允;而他在農曆新年前還跟獲准保釋的被告飲茶,豈料如今被告突然「走佬」不知所終,令他感到很無辜。問及蕭炎坤會否擔心擔保金全數被充公,他笑言:「我都退休啦,幾百萬對我嚟講係好重要!」

    涉案被告趙丹娜被控在前年十二月六至廿一日間,處理一筆八百萬元「黑錢」,案件本年初提訊時,控方透露她將面對八項控罪,涉款共達一百億港元,但她之後棄保缺席應訊。

    案件編號:TWCC 1217/2013

    回覆刪除
  4. 很明顯陳雖然是CROOK, 但偽造遺囑的罪行卻沒有犯。

    回覆刪除
  5. same, I do think that is truth

    回覆刪除
  6. http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20140712/00176_003.html - What made Sidney Siu change his mind?

    曾想做證人 蕭炎坤怕被指二五仔

    【本報訊】雙方證供顯示,蕭炎坤曾經考慮過在龔如心遺產案中為陳振聰作證,但蕭亦擔心個人安全和害怕被人指為「二五仔」,陳振聰陣營最後不用蕭出庭作供。辯方陳詞時否認陳佩君是為了保護蕭炎坤而故意指曾華山是「爆料人」,陳佩君作供時表示,是陳振聰的律師在庭上說錯「爆料人」的名字。

    擔心個人安全 指陳人見人憎
    原告曾華山的律師昨在庭上披露,蕭炎坤曾主動要求為陳振聰作證,但蕭擔心個人安全,加上蕭看到曾華山被誤指是「爆料人」後遭人斥責為「二五仔」,而陳振聰又是一個人見人憎的人,蕭因此希望倣效龔如心生前好友何惠德的方式出庭作證。何當年是由法官簽發證人傳票而才成為爭產案的證人。

    陳佩君昨在庭上稱,在爭產案中代表陳振聰的英國御用大律師Ian Mill,於○九年五月廿一日在法庭上指曾華山是「爆料人」後,她於翌日立即打長途電話給在幕後向陳振聰提供法律意見的英國御用大律師John McDonnell,投訴Ian Mill在法庭說錯是曾華山。陳佩君又表示,曾華山和她在這次事件上都受了好大的壓力和精神困擾。

    回覆刪除
  7. "Robert一向仔細,如果簡定濤失職,一開始就會列作上訴理由,有可能等到上庭陳述時才想到嗎?"
    Kan was one of the counsels for Chan's appeal, I could not imagine how they could accuse Kan at one time and work with Kan at other time. Besides, whether or not choosing Kan in the appeal was not the decision of his co-counsel. Putting personal emotion aside, Michael Lunn must have taken these into consideration otherwise he would not have allowed them to think for a weekend. I am not in the position to comment whether Kan was negligent but using negligence of counsel as a ground of appeal usually results in failure.

    On the other hand, I saw a nowTV news title showing that "Chan said lies are not evidence".Many people criticised this blindly which I think people simply do not understand Lucas Direction and lie per se does not represent guilt. Sometimes I simply do not like journalists that deliberately make news more controversial.

    AD

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Sorry mate. Andrew Kan died of heart attack last month.

      刪除
    2. That was my point, I was referring to why they did not raise that ground of appeal earlier, if the QC and Robert Lee did think Andrew Kan had any negligence, as he was in the team they could not use that as a ground. As he died, there is no such concern but only concern from people like Bill for moral standard, so they try to use that as a ground. It is not common for judges to accept newly-raised grounds which are not included in affidavit, I think Michael Lunn did not doubt Chan's team because of the fact that Andrew has died. I do not think they deliberately make use of Kan's death as what you are talking here, but I do not think that the court will accept that as a ground either.

      刪除
    3. Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant to say. Reading from what the media reported, it gave me the impression that this possible new ground of appeal was farcical.

      刪除
    4. I feel pity for Kan as well, David Perry did say something for him today. The news heading was hard to comprehend.

      http://toronto.singtao.ca/351721/2015-09-22/post-陳振聰案%E3%80%80控方反陳代表律師批評不公/?variant=zh-hk

      刪除
  8. Tony Chan was represented by M.K. Wong at lower court for this criminal case. After his application for a London silk to represent him was rejected, he chose not to be represented by a senior counsel, I seriously doubted that whether he really could not afford other local or London silks, his assets could probably be in anywhere but not in his account.

    Just wonder should there be any retrial, he will be more vulnerable with his previous convictions of deception being disclosed in the original trial. The whole Nina Kung and Tony Chan case is a mystery, I think one day there will be a movie about this.

    AD

    回覆刪除
  9. 看來對陳不利啊

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 此案基本是案情事實的裁斷,唔死都幾難。尤其是佢神憎鬼厭,好難對佢無徧見。

      刪除