2016年10月29日星期六

貪小失大

Suspended prison sentence for cash-strapped NQ solicitor who altered parking permit with a felt tip pen

His legal career now hangs in the balance

A 26-year-old newly qualified (NQ) solicitor has been handed a suspended prison sentence for changing the date on a parking permit with a felt tip pen.

Steven Barker appeared before Portsmouth Crown Court yesterday facing four counts of obtaining services by deception, fraud, and making an article for use in fraud.

The court heard how Barker had used a felt tip pen to — somewhat crudely — add an extra year onto his parking permit, changing the five in ‘13 July 2015’ to a six.

According to the Mail Online, Barker would leave his vehicle in a carpark in Southsea and travel — via hovercraft — to a firm based on the Isle of Wight, where he was completing his training contract.

The young solicitor — who has since lost his job as an in-house lawyer at insurance outfit Ageas — was caught using the doctored permit (pictured below) on four occasions between October and November last year.

Via Portsmouth City Council

Though Barker admitted the four counts back in September, his counsel, William Mousley QC of London’s 2KBW, claimed he had been suffering from poor health and financial difficulties at the time of the offences. Continuing, he said:

He is ashamed. This was either a gross error of judgement or an act of complete stupidity and he now has a high price to pay and this will remain with him for a significant period.

Sentencing Barker to six months in prison, suspended for two years, Judge Ian Pearson said:

Effectively you are ruined as far as being a solicitor is concerned. It’s highly unlikely you will retain that position. The public expect a higher standard of honesty and integrity from members of the profession and this matter means that you plainly fail to achieve the high standard expected.

Barker — who only qualified in February and is currently unemployed — was also slapped with 150 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay £986 prosecution costs.
(Legal Cheek 27/10/2016)

真的很不明白, 這律師是怎樣訓練出來的, 塗改泊車證, 甘冒犯法的風險, 貪圖小便宜, 帶來嚴重後果, 得益與後果不相稱, 真的是愚蠢型犯法。上一篇那女生想做律師, 條長路遠, 這個新牌仔卻活得不耐煩, 以後還可以執業嗎? 我粗略看了英國的Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, 類似香港法例第297章《罪犯自新條例》, 不過定得較香港寬大, 這律師判緩刑6個月, 因為不超過6個月, 3年後可以洗底, 如果發生在香港, 判監超過3個月就無得洗底, 案底伴隨一世了。那麼不用即時入獄的緩刑又算不算判監呢? 英國我就不清楚, 以香港而言, 答案在法例第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第109B(5)(a)就可找到, 自己去睇。

有些人大小都貪, 大小通吃, 是一種性格, 到頭來一身蟻, 香港嗰個大哥咪有得畀你睇, 仲未審, 有排震。裏面有啲兄弟喺道, 入埋去就難兄難弟聚下舊, 名就唔好開喇, 有gag order, 開名會影響公平審訊, 始終係jury trial。因為publicity會影響公平審訊, 辯方會用這理由申請永久終止聆訊, 個官又多啲嘢做, 多啲嘢要寫。香港始終地方細, 又唔可以飛去第二個州審, 或者從第二個州飛啲陪審員嚟, 所以一有傳媒帶領公眾預審預判, 就產生好多問題。

28 則留言:

  1. https://na.cx/i/MSX53u.jpg

    游議員

    回覆刪除
  2. 標少,法律訓練唔係守法訓練喎,香港教授話違法達義添啊。在香港,法律訓練其實是提升職位、地位和賺(更多)錢! 公平公義?話係咪係囉,係咪好有理想呢?

    晦氣洩氣,
    PHLI

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 師弟, 法律訓練即係違法唔會被發現嘅訓練? 你撈咗無耐, 咁快就睇得咁通透, 已登彼岸, 恭喜。

      刪除
    2. 安得老兄 此言靄昧, 你想做屈元抑或漁父?

      刪除
    3. 屈子雖葬於江魚之腹中
      魚腐也終有落鑊的一天

      刪除
    4. 我不信天理循環, 不俱葬江魚腹中是一種堅持, 不會考慮魚腐會否落鑊。

      刪除
    5. 若是放棄物質以全節,自問還是可以做到;
      捨身取義的話,某真係到時先知,暫且保留「淆底」的權利。

      刪除
    6. 有人殉情, 有人殉節, 個人價值觀是absolute的。捨身取義那種試探畢竟較少出現, 始終捨名捨利都不致於捨身。

      刪除
  3. http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20161029/55843833
    遭警砌生豬肉誣告販毒 技工向警一哥索償400萬元

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 近200万好像是 constitutional damages.

      would like to see the "statement of damages" .

      马鹿

      刪除
  4. 請問香港嗰個大哥脫罪機會大唔大呢?

    Ron

    回覆刪除
  5. 我覺得香港大哥有罪。

    回覆刪除
  6. Another example of "貪小失大": -

    http://www.scmp.com/article/732028/barrister-found-guilty-stealing-hk350-bra

    Barrister Stanley Ma found guilty of stealing a HK$350 bra.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Why pick on him? I used the example to demonstrate the possibility of re-registration after the conviction was spent. Could you be more magnanimous and just let him reform?

      刪除
  7. I could be more magnanimous towards Barrister Stanley Ma if he had stolen a loaf of bread because he was hungry and had no money. But Barrister Stanley Ma stole a used women's bra, and that was indicative of mental issues...

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. If he has a psychological issue, he needs treatment. You should not discriminate against him.

      刪除
    2. then his issue isnt greed or dishonesty. in which case no wonder the bar looked the other way.

      马鹿

      刪除
    3. negative . barely recall the relevant criminal proceedings. not aware of the outcome of bar hearing.

      马鹿

      刪除
    4. M Lee , SC represented him on appeal before Barnes. The appeal was dismissed. The an attempt to go to CFA but leave was not granted. It was a few years back. Then it was last year or early this year, the name appeared in the bar list. There was no disciplinary proceeding because he did not renew his registration after the conviction.

      刪除
    5. That is factually wrong. Barrister Stanley Ma had been convicted of misconduct by the BDT and suspended for 30 months. That was 2013.

      http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20130323/00176_061.html

      案發時家住愉景灣的前執業大律師馬浩輝在坪洲偷取一名女街坊的胸圍罪成,二○一○年十一月遭法庭判罰款了事。大律師公會轄下大律師紀律審裁組上月中裁定馬浩輝行為失當,本月九日起暫時吊銷他的大律師執業資格三十個月,有關命令並於昨日刊憲。馬浩輝同時需分六期支付六萬元事務費。

      憲報昨公布,高等法院司法常務官龍劍雲按照《法律執業者條例》的規定公布,大律師紀律審裁組上月十五日裁定對馬浩輝一項行為失當指控證明屬實,審裁組命令按例暫時吊銷馬浩輝執業資格三十個月。

      需支付六萬元事務費

      至於馬浩輝需支付的六萬元事務費,以分期付款方式分六期支付,每期一萬港元,本月十五日支付第一期款項,餘下五期則在之後每月的十五日支付,審裁組的有關命令已在本月十五日送交司法常務官存檔。

      刪除
    6. just looked up the bar list I see S Ma and another character whom I truly detest decide to make Olympia Chambers their home. looks like the best and brightest have come together. *chuckle*

      馬鹿

      刪除
    7. Anon 1:43

      You must be right. I seldom remember the factual details of such cases.

      刪除