http://m.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20160921/s00001/1474437928303
"大律師Mark Richard Charlton Sutherland涉與其妻子，威普管理諮詢顧問前亞洲區總監伍珮瑩在住所內互毆，案件今提堂。裁判官將案件押後至11月2日再訊，兩人離庭時一同乘的士離去。
Mark Richard Charlton Sutherland被控一項普通襲擊罪，伍珮瑩則被控一項襲擊造成身體傷害罪。裁判官接納控方申請將案件押後，待索取法律意見。兩被告獲准以1000元現金保釋外出，其間不得與對方討論案情，而伍亦需搬離住所。據悉，兩人為夫妻。根據控罪，伍珮瑩於9月20日，在貝山沙道住所內襲擊Mark Richard Charlton Sutherland，造成其身體傷害。而Mark Richard Charlton Sutherland亦被控於同日在該住所內襲擊伍珮瑩。"
Apparently this disgusting disgraceful lawyer counsel barrister Mark Sutherland, apart from wasting judicial resources, also assaults his wife. What do you think his sentence will be if he's convicted?
昨日在明報即時新聞看到這件事, 我不打算評論, 兩公婆都是律師, 搞到大打出手, 實在無奈, 但講到尾夫妻搞成咁, 何必幸災樂禍, 所以我看完也沒有評論。在司法機構工作的朋友也把星島的報導whatsapp我, 我相信是因為Sutherland聲名狼藉, 我前些時也寫文批評過他。我一直在等待他被判罰虛耗訟費案的上訴結果, 反而對他的家事興趣不大。我對上一篇寫Sutherland是這一篇: 神/妖的訟辯, 如果你忘了就溫下書喇。我熱切期待上訴庭「炳」佢一鑊甘, 然後大律師公會開紀律聆訊懲罰下敗類。
想問一下，如果兩位都唔想被定罪，咁兩位都拒絕以受害人身份上庭作証，咁可唔可行？
回覆刪除視乎他們有沒有錄取證人口供, 沒有錄取當然可以, 錄取了就不能。作證當然有古惑方法。
刪除即管睇下如何收場。兩公婆攪到咁，的確可惜。
回覆刪除Given their "prestigious" background, it'll probably be either charges withdrawn or ONE B/O. Btw, heard that Sutherland is still receiving cases from legal aid and duty lawyer.
回覆刪除I suppose until there is disciplinary proceeding resulting in his suspension, he is still eligible to queue for work.
刪除One thing is unusual about the case. Why did they appear in court so hastily? It happened on Sep 20 and they appeared in court on Sep 21. If there is problem with the evidence, do you think they are willing to be bound over? On seeing the news, CY Leung probably sneered, his signatory contemptuous twitch of his facial muscle.
刪除One can be disqualified to take up legal aid or duty lawyer work without being struck off, what strikes me is that despite complaints from the bench nothing is (yet) done.
刪除Agree that it's unusual. I wonder if it's because of the "charge'em all" mentality when both remained silent, just like that when you talked about fight in p.p.
If these people are bold enough, they can just blacklist him.
刪除http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2013/431.html
回覆刪除Para 12 [Talking about Barrister Mark Sutherland, Counsel for the Appellant] Presenting entirely unmeritorious appeals or applications in this fashion is unacceptable. It does nothing to further the interests of an accused person; the interests of justice; the interests of the courts; the interests of the community as a whole. That these proceedings have been funded by the general public via either the Duty Lawyer Scheme at trial or the Department of Legal Aid in respect of the appeal and of this application is a matter for real concern. I direct that a copy of this decision be referred to the Director of Legal Aid.
(A R Wright)
Deputy High Court Judge
Barrister Mark Sutherland is an idiot who shamelessly waste public resources doing things that are wrong by all standards. Whenever I came to realize that my tax money gets wasted by this asshole I want to vomit. He is a bad apple of the Bar and should be removed.
Haha, I can understand how you feel. That is why I wrote about his misdeed.
刪除Thank you. The whole world needs to see Barrister Mark Sutherland as he truly is - "an idiot who shamelessly waste public resources doing things that are wrong by all standards" as the person above put it - so that he can be stopped. I hope the Barrister Disciplinary Tribunal will convict Barrister Mark Sutherland and give him a harsh sentence (and thus a harsh lesson).
刪除丈夫高妻子一個頭都被打到 AOABH，這位妻子真不簡單。不過前排看了 Viu TV 的女子 MMA 真人 Show，女人出手原來可以好狠，分分鐘可以打到對方變豬頭。
回覆刪除- Candle
或者讓賽,始終是男人不能打女人嘛!
刪除可唔可以免起訴，擔保守行為呢？
回覆刪除Ron
有可能, 要視乎案情。上面1:46匿名已說了ONE/ BO(offer no evidence/ bind over).
刪除Spouse 是否 not compellable, 即不能強逼一人作證指證另一方？如是則更可能沒有證人了。
回覆刪除You have to read S.6 Cap 8 in conjunction with S.57 Cap 221. Assault is a specified offence rendering the spouse compellable to testify.
刪除Looks like they have settled out of court and the police is not pursuing.
回覆刪除http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=210959&story_id=50042399&con_type=1&d_str=20190823&sid=4
回覆刪除Incompetent Hong Kong Barrister Mark Sutherland Convicted of Misconduct and Suspended for 3 Years!
https://barristermarksutherland.blogspot.com/2019/08/incompetent-hong-kong-barrister-mark-sutherland-convicted-of-misconduct-and-suspended-for-3-years.html
http://www.hklii.org/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2019/939.html
THE BAR COUNCIL v. MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND [2019] HKCA 939; CACV 365/2019 (15 August 2019)
4. On 9 July 2018, the Bar Council laid complaints of misconduct against the respondent. The substantive hearing of the disciplinary proceedings was held on various days between September and November 2018. The respondent applied to the Tribunal repeatedly to adjourn the proceedings. All his applications were turned down. We will return to this topic.
5. On 2 April 2019, the Tribunal handed down its statement of findings, finding the respondent guilty of the five complaints laid by the Bar Council. In summary, these complaints were:
Complaint 1
This alleged that the respondent asked questions and made statements during the Trial, which were intended to insult and/or annoy the witness or any other person or otherwise were an abuse of counsel’s function, contrary to para 131 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar (“the Bar Code”).
Complaint 2
This alleged that the respondent failed to use his best endeavours during the Trial to avoid unnecessary expense and wasting the court’s time by his questioning of witnesses, contrary to para 133 of the Bar Code.
Complaint 3
This alleged that the respondent knowingly misled the court in relation to various procedural matters which arose during the Trial and engaged in conduct in the pursuit of his profession, which is dishonest or which may otherwise bring the profession of barrister into disrepute, contrary to paras 130 and 6(b) of the Bar Code.
Complaint 4
This alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct during the Trial which was discourteous to the court, and/or which may bring the profession of barrister into disrepute and/or failing to observe the ethics and etiquette of his profession, contrary to paras 133, 6(b) and (c) of the Bar Code.
Complaint 5
This alleged that the respondent had engaged in conduct in court during the Trial which may bring the profession of barrister into disrepute and which was prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to defend his client competently in accordance with his instructions, contrary to paras 6(b) and (d) of the Bar Code.
6. On 18 July 2019, the Tribunal gave its reasons for sentence and ordered the respondent be suspended from practising as a barrister for a total of 36 months and to pay the Bar Council costs of the proceedings and of any prior inquiry on a full indemnity basis. The Tribunal also made orders for the publication of the statement of findings and reasons for sentence.