本報得悉，東區裁判法院暫委特委裁判官何麗明在農曆年三十晚(二月四日)根據《裁判官條例》簽發拘捕令，通緝執業大律師梁耀祥（Kelvin）歸案，有關通緝手令踏入豬年前送到律政司刑事檢控科，至今尚未執行手令拉人。據知，何官去年底審理一宗行人疏忽過馬路的案件，梁耀祥代表被告抗辯，該案原屬簡單案件，卻打了超過兩個月仍未完結。梁大狀在審訊期間更不斷與何官針鋒相對，甚至公然在庭上質問何官：「Are you insane？」（你係唔係癲咗?）直至上周一，梁大狀沒有出庭，透過律師知會何官，指他再收不到被告的指示，故決定撤出本案，何官認為他不尊重法庭及她本人，即時簽出通緝令，成為本港司法史上首宗裁判官緝拿大狀歸案的事件。
當裁判官在執行任何裁判官職責時，如任何人向裁判官，或在裁判官席前作出任何侮辱性的行為，或使用任何威脅或侮辱性的詞句，或如有人作出涉及裁判官的侮辱性行為或使用涉及裁判官的侮辱性詞句，則裁判官可循簡易程序判處罪犯第3級罰款及監禁6個月
如果梁大狀對何麗朋講: Are you insane? 當時即時引用第99條來處理這侮辱性的言詞, 尚且有些門檻要過, 不是罵你一句就立即判監判罰款的, 何況大狀不到庭也有事務律師頂上, 極其量只能說梁大狀禮貌不週, 又怎能引用第99條?
從本案審訊引發的司法覆核看到的審訊過程, 已看出大狀和法官的針鋒相對, 行為並不專業, 尤其是何官, 被告審訊期間遲到, 代表律師在庭上, 根本無需為此多生事端, 以前上訴庭已為此作了裁決, 特委裁判官盧恆福(Polly Lo)及裁判官羅麗娟(Eda Loh)以前的判決引發的上訴, 已為此定了局: 簡易程序罪行, 被告由律師代表上庭審訊, 被告可以不出席。
行人罔顧安全過馬路的小案, 最高可處罰2000元(不是500元), 又何以勞民傷財, 正審未了結, 已經歷了兩次司法覆核及一次對司法覆核的上訴, 為的不單是日後民事索償責任的爭論(被告被指胡亂過馬路被的士撞到), 而是鬥氣。
何官在大狀一句"Are you insane"的時候, 為甚麼不即時運用第99條來處理, 新聞沒有講。她選擇在大狀不到庭後發出拘捕令, 這行為下單止濫權, 而是越權, 這回可謂令司法機構蒙羞。不過也很無奈, 因為何官由暫委特委裁判官做到獲聘為特委裁判官(special magistrate), 也試過讓她做暫委裁判官(deputy permenant magistrate), 最後連特委裁判官也不續約而去職, 這種情況也屬少見。特委裁判官在3個3年合約內不能升為裁判官, 就不會再續約, 她兩個合約之後已不獲續聘, 也許說明了一切, 其他事情我不講了。My blog is not a tabloid. 何官現在是以暫委特委裁判官的身分來續審落任之前未審完的案件, 除此之外就不會再被委任了。
律政司應該向何官申請覆核, 撤銷有關拘捕令, 把傷害減到最低。何官可以向總裁判官轉介大律師公會作投訴。
又是judicial temperament......
回覆刪除Judicial temperament是艱深的修為, 不是每個有斷案能力的律師都適合做官的。
刪除Judicial activism? Referring to 何官.
刪除It is plainly a jurisdiction issue, namely, ultra vires.
刪除https://www.bastillepost.com/hongkong/article/3958775-金牙大狀-疏忽過馬路的案件審40日-揭裁判官通緝大
回覆刪除Paragraph 5 has a proposed explanation why the magistrate did not use s99 to deal with this issue immediately. Also, "最後刑事檢控科會否拉人，將反映誰是誰非的判斷", does it imply that DoJ can decide whether to execute the warrant or not?
Even so, which section in the magistrate ordinance empowers the magistrate to issue warrant of arrest in this scenario? S.99 provides a summary sentencing power of the person insulting the magistrate. The magistrate should ask the counsel to apologise or make submission as why his language did not amount to be an insult.
刪除If the magistrate obviously acted outside her jurisdiction, DoJ does not need to accede to her request. That is why I suggest that DoJ should apply for review and withdrawal of the arrest warrant. Can anyone point out to me under which section was this arrest warrant issued? I am afraid no one can.
"Paragraph 5 has a proposed explanation why the magistrate did not use s99 to deal with this issue immediately".
刪除大狀這樣在庭上罵法官insane，法官已可即時指大狀藐視法庭，並建議律政司起訴，但這樣做會有副作用，就是原來的審訊會中止，因被告沒有了大狀做代表，可能不能繼續審案。
學下野, 論點是否正確?
其實在現實審訊中, 審審下被告炒大狀魷魚, 咁點? 咪睇下instructing solicitor會唔會頂上, 或者畀被告申請押後請第二個。此案有看司法覆核判詞, 都會知大狀曾要求法官換人(recusal)而被拒, 副乜作用? 大狀可以收回那句侮辱性說話和道歉, 咪繼續審囉。你以為鬧個官一句就叫contempt, 問過上訴庭係咪咁睇先。楊振權大老爺有次在法官會議媽义一眾小吏, 人哋問候你娘, 咪下下用第九十九條。
刪除乜原來咁大件事。。。律政司要做D野振聲望了...
刪除//因被告沒有了大狀做代表，可能不能繼續審案
刪除可能姐, 無理由假設全世界停晒手, 不解決.
BBTW
標少 11:06 "Can anyone point out to me under which section was this arrest warrant issued? I am afraid no one can."
刪除As my 上午4:36, right, not specified. *eyes rolled*
BBTW
裁棍
回覆刪除唉 苯蛋 點解唔講 "this is insane" 咁咪無事咯 但效果一樣. 香港法律界就是多此等MORON
回覆刪除邊有阿兔哥你咁醒
刪除https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E5%BA%AD%E4%B8%8A%E8%A2%AB%E5%95%8F%E6%98%AF%E5%90%A6-insane-%E8%A3%81%E5%88%A4%E5%AE%98%E9%A6%96%E7%99%BC%E6%8B%98%E6%8D%95%E4%BB%A4%E7%B7%9D%E5%A4%A7%E7%8B%80-091520466.html
回覆刪除個大狀出來回應了
廢話。
刪除標準回應,大狀立場唔係咁會點?冇話廢話唔廢話,
刪除反而報稱狀兔就真係要乞先乞到句人話來供奉。
我打完波寫一篇解釋點解是廢話。
刪除不如解釋完先定論,唔急
刪除大家思考方法不同, 我一看就有定論, 頇已登了一篇解釋這定論。
刪除唔係關於思考,"一看就有定論"未必是好事!
刪除茶客都是定論行先!!
係表達的合理性,有幾多人真係信一隻手掌拍嚮一場鬧劇?
未必每一件事一看就有定論, 這一次我下定論, 隨之解釋了, 你可把你的定論提出來說服我。
刪除先睇標少緊隨定論之後解釋,說服了大家幾多!
刪除通緝令只可以基於兩個原因 :
回覆刪除1. 藐視法庭;
2. 頭條日報說的99條.
但報導文字是「不尊重法庭及她本人」, 不清楚具體是1是2.
也不清楚「不尊重」是指下面的3 OR 4.
3. 一直的舊怨, 便用99條, 但問題是過秒, 也如標少分析, 不可用;
4. 現時的「再收不到被告的指示，故決定撤出本案」是假話, 另有內情.
若是4, 裁官需要很聰明, 有預知能力. 我唔會信, 係就不會與律師嘈.
所以表面看, 裁官的通緝令是做錯的「了怨手法」,
BBTW
https://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/article/20190213/s00002/1549996618558/%E9%A0%82%E6%92%9E%E8%A3%81%E5%88%A4%E5%AE%98%E3%80%8C%E8%A2%AB%E9%80%9A%E7%B7%9D%E3%80%8D-%E5%A4%A7%E7%8B%80-%E5%82%B7%E5%BF%83%E6%86%82%E6%85%AE
回覆刪除"律政司回覆本報查詢時表示，沒有收到該通緝令，而且律政司亦沒有權力執行通緝令。"
"該宗行人疏忽過馬路案發生於2016年4月25日，泰國籍被告Thapa Kamala在大潭道美國會附近的一輛的士後方橫過馬路，遭對面線的士撞倒，事後遭票控。案件審訊逾40天，其間辯方大律師曾問到何官「Are you insane?（你是否瘋了？）」至本月4日（農曆年三十），何官在梁不在審訊期間，在庭上指會向他發通緝令。"
"梁耀祥昨回覆本報查詢稱，暫未接獲有關的通緝令，對事件感到傷心及憂慮，稱沒有想過執業多年會遇上這樣的事，強調被拘捕是一件很嚴重事件，反問「你想唔想畀人落手銬？」"
"何官在梁不在審訊期間，在庭上指會向他發通緝令。"...睇黎果陣應該未發,個官分分鐘只係"講下"咋喎...(分分鐘有機會係有人提醒個官佢無權咁做喎)
兩邊都爭唔落，廢柴同盟，浪費公帑。
回覆刪除OT 一問：
回覆刪除https://www.hk01.com/%E7%AA%81%E7%99%BC/293986/%E6%8B%96%E7%AF%8B%E6%A3%84%E5%B1%8D-%E6%B8%AF%E5%BA%9C%E5%80%A1%E4%B8%80%E6%AC%A1%E6%80%A7%E7%A7%BB%E4%BA%A4%E7%96%91%E7%8A%AF-%E7%89%B9%E9%A6%96%E5%8F%AF%E7%99%BC%E8%AD%89%E6%98%8E%E6%9B%B8%E8%99%95%E7%90%86%E7%A7%BB%E4%BA%A4%E8%AB%8B%E6%B1%82
律政司打算修例，令拖篋棄屍個犯可以移交台灣。
但個犯係台灣犯既罪有可能判死，而香港已無死刑，就算修例成功，個犯又是否真係移交到？
是保安局, 不是律政司.
刪除個人認為, 依報導文字, 這次保安局不能深思熟慮, 比較草率, 甚至流於天真.
BBTW
James TO's concern is quite right. The proposed amendments would open the gate to surrender of fugitive to Mainland under certain circumstances.
刪除https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20190212/59252324
回覆刪除//梁起初強調報道失實，沒有侮罵何官，「對佢好禮貌，with respect」，後來才承認說過「Are you insane」此話，但澄清只是「關心」何官，並指何官亦時常「關心」其精神狀況，當中他最記得的一句，是何官曾問他：「I care about your health whether you’re mentally okay（我關心你的健康，不知你的精神狀況是否有問題）」。//
//梁大狀又透露，案件雖非全年每天都在審訊，但實際審訊日子已長達40天。為何一宗簡單的交通案件會審這麼久？梁稱：「感覺何官事事挑剔，唔想個客繼續打」，並笑言「你自己去聽下三個鐘你就知」。//
看到這留言時, 已發表了一篇評論。
刪除Section 99 is simply a provision enabling the magistrate to impose sentence on a person behaving improperly in court summarily. I can't see how a warrant could be issued under section 99. There is for sure no such warrant under Cap. 227C. It is also strange that the warrant was sent to DoJ as a standard warrant in Cap. 227C addresses "all police officers". DoJ has no power to execute the warrant, nor any power to direct the police. This whole saga really shows the quality of the "learned" magistrate and no wonder she could not get her appointment.
回覆刪除According to media report, this case was handled by fiat counsel. I believe when the warrant of arrest was issued, the fiat counsel alerted DoJ and the police were advised to put it on hold. DoJ has no power to execute the arrest warrant but DoJ can advise the police as to the legality of the warrant.
刪除thank you for the enlightenment. strange to instruct a fiat counsel to prosecute such a case...anyway, thanks for your sharing that I have learned so many judgment of misconduct by members of the Bar.
刪除I don't think fiat counsel was instructed because of any special nature of this case. It should be just a normal briefing out when there was not enough manpower.
刪除By a Decision dated 21st September 2011, a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found four (4) charges of misconduct against Mr. Leung Yiu Cheung (also known as Kelvin Y.C. Leung) (“Leung”). Subsequently, by a Decision on Sentence dated 20th December 2011, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered inter alia that Leung be suspended from practice for a total period of 3 months.
回覆刪除On the 9th January 2012, Leung appealed against the suspension order. On 21st November 2012, the Court of Appeal dismissed Leung’s appeal. As a consequence of the dismissal of appeal, the suspension ordered by the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal takes effect from 21st December 2012 to 20th March 2013 (both dates inclusive).
Charge 6: -
In May 2008, Barrister Leung Yiu Cheung (also known as Kelvin Y C Leung) of Counsel (梁耀祥大律師) acted or attempted to act in the dual capacities of counsel and witness in the same matter (namely a litigation in the High Court between Right Star Investment Company Limited and Grand Palace Limited), which is prejudicial to the administration of justice and contrary to the ethics and etiquette of his profession, contrary to paragraphs 6(b) and 6(c) of the Code of Conduct of the Bar.
Paragraph 9: -
"We consider that the facts of this case are rather serious, particularly because as a result of [the conduct of Barrister Leung Yiu Cheung (also known as Kelvin Y C Leung) of Counsel (梁耀祥大律師)] and the gentle reminder letter from the Court of Appeal, the Respondent's client was forced to engage another barrister for the case on very short notice."