上一篇多個留言都談及女律師張昭婷在區域法院庭內照在自己facebook刋出一事, 當然是劣評如潮, 她最終會不會被檢控, 律師會又會不會採取紀律處分, 都是後話。不論誰是拍攝者, 張律師拍攝時的表情, 以及在facebook的描述, 以後怎樣去解釋, 都開脫不了這使專業蒙羞的行為。對一個執業多年的律師來講, 上庭其實有甚麼使人亢奮雀躍之處而搞到拍照, 我真百思不得其解。唯一可以想得到的, 就只有因為近年這些social media興盛, 以手機拍照即時上載極方便, 勝過千言萬語的描述。到了那裡看到風景美麗, 非筆墨所能形容, 一幅照片就省了唇舌。律師也只是普通人一個, 把相片、selfie上載與朋友分享, 也是很平常的事。但作為一個律師, 應清楚明白法律的界限, 不論你上庭怎樣英姿颯颯, 也不能在法庭裏取景來吹噓。早前何君堯在法庭大堂拍selfie已引起公眾的責難, 怎會有律師做更愚蠢的事, 竟在庭內拍攝, 除非精神有點問題。早前那在街上打人兇人的海關督察就是一例。雖然不能如此類推, 卻雖不中亦不遠矣。
在多個留言引述的不同媒體報導, 使我最震撼的是《巴士的報》這一篇:「出位女律師 庭外百變愛黑唇妝」。我用震撼來描述, 一點也沒有誇張。Wow!有無搞錯, 是我看完那些照片的反應。但想深一層, 一個不顧專業形象的律師的私生活也應受到尊重。《巴士的報》把報導重點放了在貶斥這女律師的私人照方面, 而不是針對在庭上拍照事件。值得這樣報導嗎? 她畢竟沒有穿奇裝異服上庭, 其他「豔」照,又何必展示出來, 吸引公眾批判。除了在庭上發生, 屬知法犯法的情況外, 沒有人有興趣知道這女人的其他事, 尤其是會使人夢魘的事。有的selfie都好self destructive, 我年紀大了, 想看喜劇, 不想看恐怖片。
在多個留言引述的不同媒體報導, 使我最震撼的是《巴士的報》這一篇:「出位女律師 庭外百變愛黑唇妝」。我用震撼來描述, 一點也沒有誇張。Wow!有無搞錯, 是我看完那些照片的反應。但想深一層, 一個不顧專業形象的律師的私生活也應受到尊重。《巴士的報》把報導重點放了在貶斥這女律師的私人照方面, 而不是針對在庭上拍照事件。值得這樣報導嗎? 她畢竟沒有穿奇裝異服上庭, 其他「豔」照,又何必展示出來, 吸引公眾批判。除了在庭上發生, 屬知法犯法的情況外, 沒有人有興趣知道這女人的其他事, 尤其是會使人夢魘的事。有的selfie都好self destructive, 我年紀大了, 想看喜劇, 不想看恐怖片。
這句“有的selfie都好self destructive, 我年紀大了, 想看喜劇, 不想看恐怖片”用得真妙，標少你好嘢！thumbs up
回覆刪除在生活逼人的香港, 活於輕鬆幽默中。
刪除根本女律師就好像精神有問題.
回覆刪除Yes! 嚴重自戀到無哂self control...
刪除佢應該幻想緊自己仲係十八廿二，想做隨手upload幾張嘟嘴高炒自拍照都有幾百like嘅ig女神。
刪除Somehow she reminded me of a particular character in 倩女幽魂…
回覆刪除倩女幽魂的姥姥
刪除哈哈我無講呀…
刪除「除了在庭上發生, 屬知法犯法的情況外, 沒有人有興趣知道這女人的其他事」
回覆刪除當然沒有興趣知道這人的其他事，但為了嘗試理解佢為何做出那些行為，小弟深入蜘蛛洞，為求探過究竟，看過他臉書的posts。此奇人為馬拉「妹」，看來非常關心馬國嘅單身無業男遊民，佢指old uncles, 佢會無私奉獻一些食品捐錢給old uncles 們。心哋都好善良吓。佢係唇膏嘅專家，唇膏係佢用來殺人於無形嘅兇器。看過佢臉書嘅留言，我估佢係非常熱愛生活，要開心的每一天嘅人。一樣米百樣人。我們都遇到過有些十分亢奮嘅人。所以估計佢在內庭拍照，都只係佢平日一般亢奮生活嘅延續而已。小弟還看看佢頸部是否有大頸泡的病狀，看看佢嘅亢奮是否因為甲狀腺素分泌旺盛所引致。
在臉書的一輪尋根究底嘅過程中，小弟不慎看到佢在沙灘上披上白抱、酥胸半露嘅照片。噢！媽的呀！嚇到小弟我要叫魂！這也解釋小弟點解凌晨兩點都唔瞓 嘅原因 - 好驚呀！一閉上眼就是見到佢張照片，唉，點瞓呀！活該!
Terry
我都覺得你抵死, 我都話係恐怖片, 你仲要睇。好彩我瞓醒先睇到你咁抵死嘅留言,笑到我嘈醒埋老婆。你下次撞到這行家咪掛住同佢診症, 佢以為你係sugar daddy你就大鑊。
刪除不過, 放過佢喇。
如果有資格，我去做sugar baby 都不錯呀。只怕到時奇人話要做sugar mummy! 惡夢！
刪除Terry
Mr. Terry你都好夠薑，居然夠膽睇佢FB啲相！簡直有guts過Ghostbusters！我自愧不如，睇兩眼已經頂唔順...你好勁呀！
刪除都係想理解事情因由嘅死鬼動力所推動。但代價不少啊！佢還有多張半吐丁香舌及姣婆藍咀唇照片，姣婆藍個張真係睇到個心離一離。唔講啦，否則植入腦內成為長期記憶就唔使過埋下半生了。
刪除Terry
“…否則植入腦內成為長期記憶就唔使過埋下半生…”～應該係會影響下半生同下半身…
刪除離題一問求解答
回覆刪除各位法律界大賢，請問某啲人成立一個基金，收受市民捐款，用嚟幫涉嫌犯刑事法嘅疑犯打官司，或者幫被法庭裁定敗訴嘅人去上訴，算唔算係獨犯maintenance and champerty法例呢？
Peter,
刪除The simple answer is "no". The follow paragraphs cited from WINNIE LO AND HKSAR FACC No. 2 of 2011 best answer your question.
"Ingredients of maintenance and champerty
10. In the fairly recent case of Unruh v. Seeberger (2007) 10 HKCFAR 31 this Court held that maintenance and champerty, whether sued upon as torts or prosecuted as crimes, were still a part of the law of Hong Kong. Both as crimes and as torts, maintenance and champerty have been abolished in England and Wales. In Massai Aviation Services v. Attorney General of Bahamas [2007] UKPC 12 at para.12 the Privy Council referred to the Law Commission’s recommendations leading to such abolition. The Law Commission defined maintenance as “the giving of assistance or encouragement to one of the parties to an action by a person who has neither an interest in the action nor any other motive recognised by the law as justifying his interference” and champerty as “a particular kind of maintenance, namely maintenance of an action in consideration of a promise to give to the maintainer a share of the subject matter or proceeds thereof, if the action succeeds”.
11. Those definitions are consistent with the meanings which Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ gave in Unruh v. Seeberger. I will proceed on those meanings. Champerty is maintenance for a share in the proceeds of litigation. What champerty involves will therefore become clear if and when what maintenance involves is made clear.
12. There are several ways in which to approach the question of whether the ingredients of the offence of maintenance (and those of the tort of maintenance, too) are sufficiently certain to be constitutional. One is to consider how a jury might be directed thereon.
13. The jury could be told that the first question is this. Has the defendant officiously intermeddled with someone else’s litigation? In other words, has he interfered with litigation which is no concern of his? If “No”, then maintenance has not taken place. But if “Yes”, then was the defendant’s motive charitable? If it was, then what he did would not be maintenance. But if his motive was other than charitable, what he did could be maintenance.
14. At this stage, there might arise the question of whether the defendant’s conduct falls outside the scope of maintenance because his conduct comes within one of the categories excluded from such scope. These excluded categories are dealt with in paras 91-98 of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ’s judgment in Unruh v. Seeberger. One of them consists of cases of legitimate common interest. The second consists of cases involving access to justice considerations. And the third is a miscellaneous category of practices which have come to be regarded as lawful, such as the sale and assignment by a trustee in bankruptcy to a purchaser for value of an action commenced in the bankruptcy. Whether it is necessary to go into the question of conduct being within an excluded category depends on whether there is a real possibility that it might. And that depends on the circumstances of the case.
15. Even if every question so far is answered against the defendant, there is still one more question to be answered. On the totality of the circumstances, did the defendant’s conduct pose a genuine risk to the integrity of the court’s process? If “Yes” the jury would be entitled to find the defendant guilty of maintenance. But if “No”, then the defendant must be acquitted.
16. If the charge is of champerty, then the directions would of course have to cover one more ingredient, namely a share of the proceeds of the litigation maintained."
the "following paragraphs"
刪除Thank you very much 標少. Much obliged.
刪除如沒有勝訴報酬協議
回覆刪除我想很難入罪
就算被告成功上訴或
最终不被定罪
而獲得的部份訟費再
捐獻予該基金
也很難構成該罪行。
因為捐獻不能構成一種必然性
而沒有必然性就很難舉證。
Those photos of Solicitor Gina Chong of Chong & Yen Solicitors are disgusting and sick. They amount not only to a horror movie. They amount to a Category III horror movie. I almost vomited after looking at them. They were horrible photos!
回覆刪除haha....
刪除Are we too harsh? After all it is her own choice of how she likes to present herself.
刪除Gina Chong (the Solicitor) can do whatever she wants for as long as she accepts the consequences. I think she'll be prosecuted and disciplined for taking photos inside a court room and then post them on Facebook. She can choose to be prosecuted and choose to be disciplined, yes.
刪除Chong & Yen Solicitors 女律師張昭婷可以自由選擇成為大家嘅笑話。
刪除標少, 其實女律師想 be herself係冇問題嘅。因為呢個世界，差唔多人人都有啲怪癖同埋生得唔靚架啦。
刪除只可惜佢選擇喺社交媒體發放庭內照片。佢咁高調，就唔可以責怪人地上面書睇佢放出黎嘅相同埋對佢評頭品足囉。當然，如果佢咩都冇放上網，但係有人hack佢啲相，我都會認為不能接受。
而家佢嘅玉照招來劣評，我覺得可以用「人怕出名豬怕肥」黎形容呢件事。我咁樣講並唔係有意語帶相關的。
Chong & Yen Solicitors 女律師張昭婷已經成為大家嘅笑話。Solicitor Gina Chong is already a joke.
刪除https://news.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20170708/s00002/1499450441020
回覆刪除"日前已認罪責的7名答辯人本已完成求情，但法官昨向代表7人的駱大狀指出，曾看過警方拍攝的片段及控方案情，發現與7人的誓章內容有所出入。法官要求駱先向答辯人釐清求情內容及考慮清楚是否認責，表示若答辯人選擇認責，答辯應該是明確及毫不含糊的。聆訊下周一續。"
大炮也有失手時...
i dont think he is that good. perhaps age has finally crept up to him. or maybe he simply doesnt care for the defendants as much as he should. in any case he would not be my first choice if I found myself in a jam.
刪除馬鹿
Author @6:22: If you look at paragraph 2 of Ming Pao's article, it was Hector Pun SC who represented 7 respondents and Lok SC represented the remaining 2. Who represented who actually?
刪除Maro: Who would be your first choice then? I guess s/he must be non-Chinese.
Lok, SC, was a very experience lawyer and expansive lawyer
刪除2017年7月9日 下午4:20: 麥高義 for both civil and criminal
刪除馬鹿
oh. Mr. nice guy Pun eh... Lord have mercy on the 7......
刪除馬鹿
Mr Lawrence Lok SC (駱應淦資深大律師) is still one of the best criminal lawyers in Hong Kong.
回覆刪除