tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post2533581889276776956..comments2024-03-28T16:48:55.464+11:00Comments on 標少札記: 陳振聰上訴庭上交鋒標少http://www.blogger.com/profile/09140798187543833983noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-61896777893362648932015-09-24T20:51:05.820+10:002015-09-24T20:51:05.820+10:00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。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。標少https://www.blogger.com/profile/09140798187543833983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-25865484641286925852015-09-24T20:28:25.499+10:002015-09-24T20:28:25.499+10:00看來對陳不利啊看來對陳不利啊Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-85423308577966171282015-09-22T23:58:54.377+10:002015-09-22T23:58:54.377+10:00I feel pity for Kan as well, David Perry did say ...I feel pity for Kan as well, David Perry did say something for him today. The news heading was hard to comprehend.<br /><br />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<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-68802420973363649402015-09-22T23:50:36.646+10:002015-09-22T23:50:36.646+10:00Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant to say....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. 標少https://www.blogger.com/profile/09140798187543833983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-73779971498025957892015-09-22T23:40:24.685+10:002015-09-22T23:40:24.685+10:00That was my point, I was referring to why they did...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-26212251568781012462015-09-22T22:09:10.621+10:002015-09-22T22:09:10.621+10:00Sorry mate. Andrew Kan died of heart attack last m...Sorry mate. Andrew Kan died of heart attack last month.標少https://www.blogger.com/profile/09140798187543833983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-80890829139185193342015-09-22T21:12:27.986+10:002015-09-22T21:12:27.986+10:00Tony Chan was represented by M.K. Wong at lower co...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />ADAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-45257100196147059572015-09-22T21:04:02.845+10:002015-09-22T21:04:02.845+10:00"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..."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?"<br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />ADAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-87770921746615454502015-09-22T16:38:38.117+10:002015-09-22T16:38:38.117+10:00http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20140712/00176...http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20140712/00176_003.html - What made Sidney Siu change his mind?<br /><br />曾想做證人 蕭炎坤怕被指二五仔<br /><br />【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。<br /><br />擔心個人安全 指陳人見人憎<br />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。<br /><br />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。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-45075163607505128132015-09-21T23:45:48.287+10:002015-09-21T23:45:48.287+10:00same, I do think that is truthsame, I do think that is truthAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-92084992020195250152015-09-21T20:35:55.330+10:002015-09-21T20:35:55.330+10:00很明顯陳雖然是CROOK, 但偽造遺囑的罪行卻沒有犯。 很明顯陳雖然是CROOK, 但偽造遺囑的罪行卻沒有犯。 Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-79372252483292455262015-09-21T00:26:32.572+10:002015-09-21T00:26:32.572+10:00Same guy as this one? http://orientaldaily.on.cc/c...Same guy as this one? http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20140320/00176_081.html<br /><br />法庭:蕭炎坤做擔保恐失500萬<br /><br />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。<br /><br />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。<br /><br />與另一擔保人下月再訊<br /><br />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。<br /><br />趙端誠趙端誠<br /><br />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。<br /><br />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!」<br /><br />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。<br /><br />案件編號:TWCC 1217/2013Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-25506379651244010912015-09-21T00:08:10.091+10:002015-09-21T00:08:10.091+10:00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?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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-30630076650442342272015-09-20T23:12:17.657+10:002015-09-20T23:12:17.657+10:00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。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。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com