DOCSLIB.ORG

Hong Kong Bar Association Circular No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hong Kong Bar Association Circular No Hong Kong Bar Association Circular No. 245/19 To : All Members & Mess Members of the Bar Association From : Jonathan Chang – Honorary Secretary Date : 3 December 2019 PRACTICE NOTE : NEW PRACTICE WHERE FLAGRANT INCOMPETENCE IS ADVANCED AS A GROUND OF APPEAL Members’ attention is drawn to the Court of Appeal judgment in HKSAR v Apelete [2019] HKCA 1189 whereby a new practice is imposed by the Court where flagrant incompetence of legal representative(s) at trial is advanced as a ground of appeal: 1. An appellate counsel has a duty to satisfy himself that the ground is properly arguable, i.e. there is a palpably sound basis for such allegations to be made, failing which such allegations must never be advanced: see also HKSAR v Li Xiaoxiang (2018) 21 HKCFAR 272 at [31]. 2. In making that assessment, the appellate counsel must look for independent and objective evidence to support the complaint and, save where there are good and compelling reasons not to do so, make full and proper enquiries of the previous legal representatives at trial in relation to the complaint before articulating it as a ground of appeal. The appellate counsel must then add an appropriate certificate in the grounds of appeal that he has complied with this duty when relying on such a ground. 3. Further, a signed waiver of LPP from the applicant in respect of the trial legal representatives and an affirmation in support of the complaint must be filed at the same time as the ground of appeal. 4. If subsequent material comes to light casting doubt on the applicant’s claims, there is a continuing duty on the appellate counsel to evaluate the propriety of the grounds of the complaint. 5. The above duties also apply to any ground of appeal which seeks to assert that something happened or did not happen at trial, which should or should not have occurred, even though in respect of which no allegation of flagrant incompetence is made. The appellate counsel must make enquiries of the previous legal representatives as to what was done or not done, and why, and must certify in the grounds of appeal that they have complied with this duty. The appellate counsel should advise the applicant of the consequences of the Court ordering “loss of time” if it is found that there is no merit in the allegation, bearing in mind in particular the significant time, effort and inconvenience, and anxiety, that will have been caused to the trial legal representatives in having to deal with very serious imputations against their professionalism, honesty and competence: Practice Note (Crime: Loss of Time) [2013] 6 HKC 300; HKSAR v Apelete (No 2) [2019] HKCA 1320 at [124] and [127]. A copy of the Court of Appeal judgment in HKSAR v Apelete [2019] HKCA 1189 and HKSAR v Apelete (No 2) [2019] HKCA 1320 is attached to this Circular. A A B CACC 176/2017 B [2019] HKCA 1189 C C IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D COURT OF APPEAL E E CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 176 OF 2017 F (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 74 OF 2016) F G G BETWEEN H H HKSAR Respondent and I I 古晉希 Applicant APELETE Kokou Afla ( ) J J K K Before: Hon Macrae VP, McWalters JA and Zervos JA in Court Dates of Hearing: 18 September 2019 & 23 October 2019 L L Dates of Written Submissions (on quantum): 9 October 2019 M (Mr McGowan); 10 October 2019 (Mr Mohnani); 26 September & M 18 October 2019 (Mr Lai) N Date of Judgment on Wasted Costs: 23 October 2019 N O O JUDGMENT ON WASTED COSTS P P Q Hon Macrae VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): Q R R A. Introduction and chronology of events S S 1. On 16 May 2017, the applicant was convicted before Toh J T and a jury of one count of indecent assault, contrary to section 122(1) of T the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 and another count of rape, contrary to U U V V A - 2 - A B section 118(1) of the same Ordinance. He was sentenced on the B following day to an overall term of 9 years‟ imprisonment. C C 2. On 14 June 2017, the applicant filed a Notice of D D Application for leave to appeal (Form XI) in respect of conviction only. E E On 4 September 2017, his application for Legal Aid was refused by the Director of Legal Aid. F F G 3. On 24 November 2017, Messrs Mohnani & Associates G (“the solicitors”), who had been retained by the applicant on a private H H basis, filed a Notice to Act on behalf of the applicant. On 29 January I 2018, Mr McGowan of counsel, having been briefed by the solicitors on a I private basis to advise, filed perfected grounds of appeal on behalf of the J J applicant. There were five substantive grounds of appeal, Ground 5 of K which was drafted in the following terms: K L “5. The conduct of the Applicant‟s Defence was such as to L amount to “Incompetence of Counsel”. This included, but was not limited to:- M M a) A lack of direct communication between his lawyers and the Applicant; N N b) A failure to take written instructions before trial; O c) The general inexperience of his privately instructed O Counsel; P d) Advising him that he should not and need not give P evidence despite the nature of the case.” Q Q 4. In view of the terms and nature of Ground 5, and in R accordance with the current practice where such grounds of appeal are R averred, Master Cheung, the Registrar of Criminal Appeals S S (“the Master”), gave written directions on 7 February 2018, which were T T incorporated in a formal letter dated 9 February 2018 from the Registrar of the High Court, that the solicitors were to file a waiver of legal U U V V A - 3 - A B professional privilege (“LPP”) by the applicant within 14 days, and an B affirmation in support of his complaint of counsel‟s incompetence within C C 28 days of the letter. D D 5. Nothing thereafter was received from the solicitors and, on E E 23 March 2018, the Master issued a reminder to the solicitors to comply with her directions. F F G 6. There was still no response and, on 4 May 2018, the Master G wrote again to the solicitors, with a copy being sent to Mr McGowan, H H noting that neither the waiver of LPP nor the affirmation in support had I yet been received, and giving the solicitors 7 days to confirm in writing I whether they were still pursuing Ground 5. The solicitors were further J J warned that if they failed to file the documents concerned, they would not K be able to pursue Ground 5 at the application for leave to appeal. K L L 7. On 10 May 2018, Mr McGowan wrote to the Registrar of the M High Court acknowledging the reminder of 4 May 2018 and apologising M for the delay. He said that, although drafting of the affirmation had N N begun, he and the solicitors had made arrangements to see the applicant O in order to continue with the affirmation and obtain his formal waiver of O LPP on 21 April 2018, but were unable to do so before prison visits P P ended for the day. No separate letter was sent by the solicitors to the Q Registrar. Q R R 8. On 14 May 2018, in response to Mr McGowan‟s letter, the Master granted an extension of 21 days from the date of her letter for the S S applicant to file the required documents in respect of Ground 5. T T U U V V A - 4 - A B 9. However, the documents were still not forthcoming and, on B 11 June 2018, the solicitors wrote to the Registrar, for the attention of the C C Master, requesting a further extension of 21 days in order to file them. D In that letter, it was asserted that “there have, unfortunately, been funding D issues which has hindered us taking [the applicant‟s] matter forward”. E E This letter was copied to Mr McGowan. F F 10. On 26 June 2018, the Master granted the extension sought G G and directed that the documents were to be filed “on or before 9 July 2018”. H H I 11. Meanwhile, on 17 August 2018, Legal Aid was granted to I the applicant; Mr McGowan being on the same day assigned to be the J J applicant‟s counsel at the appeal, and Mr Mohnani his instructing K solicitor. K L L 12. Since there had been no compliance with the directions of M 26 June 2018, the Master wrote again to the solicitors on 5 September in M the following trenchant terms: N N “The Applicant‟s solicitors are to file within 7 days from today a written explanation of their blatant disregard of the Court‟s O O directions regarding the filing of the Applicant‟s waiver of LPP and affirmation in support of the flagrant incompetence of P counsel ground.” P Q 13. This letter prompted a response from the solicitors, by letter Q of 10 September 2018, to the effect that there had, again, been “funding R R issues which has hindered us taking [the applicant‟s] matter forward”, S and requesting yet another extension of 21 days to complete and file the S documents concerned.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sentencing Conference Held by DOJ *********************************
    Sentencing conference held by DOJ ********************************* The Prosecutions Division of the Department of Justice today (January 15) held the Sentencing Conference 2012, which was attended by more than 80 participants, including members of the judiciary, prosecutors, criminal law practitioners and scholars. Entitled "A New Sentencing Regime for Hong Kong?", the conference was the first of its kind organised by the Department of Justice to stimulate discussion on the pros and cons of establishing a sentencing council in Hong Kong and reflect upon the existing sentencing regime with reference to the experience of the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council. In delivering the welcoming address, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Kevin Zervos, SC, said: "In the pursuit of upholding the rule of law and in serving the interests of justice and the community, a prosecutor must always act fairly and properly. The fundamental task of a prosecutor is to be a minister of justice." He also emphasised the need to protect the public bearing in mind the important public dimension of sentencing and the need to maintain public confidence and support in our criminal justice system. The keynote speaker at the conference was the Dean of Law at the University of Monash, Professor Arie Freiberg, a leading expert on sentencing law in Australia. He is also the Chairman of the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council. After giving a presentation on the experience of the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council, Professor Freiberg, together with Mr Clive Grossman, SC, Dr Gerard McCoy, SC, Mr Keith Yeung, SC, Mr Stephen Hung and Professor Simon Young, participated in the panel discussion with Mr Zervos, SC, as the moderator.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecutions Division 刑事檢控科工作回顧
    維護法治 UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW 2008 刑事檢控科工作回顧 PROSECUTIONS DIVISION PROSECUTIONS DIVISION 2008 由 刑事檢控專員 提交 律政司司長 A Review by The Director of Public Prosecutions for The Secretary for Justice 律政司刑事檢控科 出版 Published by the Prosecutions Division, Department of Justice 香港特別行政區 中國香港金鐘道66號金鐘道政府合署高座5-7樓 5th to 7th floors, High Block, Queensway Government Offices, 66 Queensway, Hong Kong, China 律政司 傳真號碼 Fax No : 852 2877 0171 Department of Justice 電子郵件 E-mail : [email protected] 互聯網網址 Internet Home Page Address : http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/about/pd.htm Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 目錄 Contents 給律政司司長的信 Letter to the Secretary for Justice .........................................................4 刑事檢控專員 Director of Public Prosecutions 刑事檢控專員的序言 Director's Overview ..................................................................7 現代的檢控機關 A Modern Prosecution Service 2008年檢控政策 Prosecution Policy in 2008 ......................................................11 刑事司法措施 Criminal Justice Initiatives ......................................................14 2007至2012年度策略性發展計劃 Strategic Development Programme 2007-2012 ....................16 檢控人員守則 Code for Prosecutors ..............................................................18 刑事檢控專員諮詢小組 Director's Advisory Group ......................................................20 披露材料常設委員會 Standing Committee on Disclosure .......................................22 國際檢察官聯合會 International Association of Prosecutors ..............................24 近期發展和檢控罪行的工作 Recent Developments and the Prosecution
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Have Been Seen by the Administration)
    立法會 Legislative Council Ref : CB2/PL/AJLS LC Paper No. CB(2)2188/09-10 (These minutes have been seen by the Administration) Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services Minutes of meeting held on Monday, 28 June 2010, at 4:30 pm in Conference Room A of the Legislative Council Building Members : Dr Hon Margaret NG (Chairman) present Hon Albert HO Chun-yan (Deputy Chairman) Hon James TO Kun-sun Hon LAU Kong-wah, JP Hon Emily LAU Wai-hing, JP Hon TAM Yiu-chung, GBS, JP Hon Audrey EU Yuet-mee, SC, JP Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG Mei-fun Hon IP Wai-ming, MH Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung Member : Hon LI Fung-ying, BBS, JP attending Members : Dr Hon Philip WONG Yu-hong, GBS absent Hon Miriam LAU Kin-yee, GBS, JP Hon Timothy FOK Tsun-ting, GBS, JP Hon Paul TSE Wai-chun Public Officers : Item III attending The Administration Department of Justice Mr Ian Wingfield Solicitor General - 2 - Item IV Judiciary Administration Mr NG Sek-hon Deputy Judiciary Administrator (Operations) Item V The Administration Department of Justice Mr Ian Wingfield Solicitor General Mr Ian McWalters, SC Director of Public Prosecutions Mr David LEUNG Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Attendance by : Item III invitation Hong Kong Bar Association Mr P Y LO Council Member Item V Hong Kong Bar Association Mr Michael Blanchflower, SC Council Member Mr P Y LO Council Member The Law Society of Hong Kong Mr Stephen HUNG Council member and Chairman of the Criminal Law and Procedure Committee - 3 - Mr Kenneth NG Member of the Criminal Law and Procedure Committee Clerk in : Miss Flora TAI attendance Chief Council Secretary (2)3 Staff in : Mr KAU Kin-wah attendance Assistant Legal Adviser 6 Ms Elyssa WONG } Deputy Head } Research and Library Services Division } } For item V only Dr Yuki HUEN } Research Officer 8 } Ms Amy YU Senior Council Secretary (2)3 Ms Wendy LO Council Secretary (2)3 Mrs Fonny TSANG Legislative Assistant (2)3 Action I.
    [Show full text]
  • Sopa-Scoopzhoutarget
    Friday, August 30, 2013 A3 Beam me up LEADING THE NEWS K-pop stars are embracing hologram COMMERCE Oil giants technology to reach a wider audience > L I F E C 7 banned Unwelcome guest Create your dream home Health headache from new Aquino cancels visit to China: Chic, stylish furniture Migraines can cause INVESTMENT TEAMS TO BE REINED IN Beijing says he was never and accessories for permanent brain damage projects invited in the first place discerning buyers and raise risk of strokes Commerce Ministry targets extravagance by delegations sent Foreign direct investment is a Previously, investment jun- key economic indicator used to kets were believed to be immune > LEA D ING T HE N EWS A 3 > 20-PAG E SPE CIA L REP O R T > WORLD A15 to Hong Kong and Macau to seek investment for their regions gauge officials’ performance, and from the campaign against offi- Beijing makes state ................................................ dozens of delegations from local cial extravagance. overstated the number of partici- His remarks followed the flag- governments flock to Hong Kong The The People’s Daily said busi- energy companies pay Daniel Ren pants and the value of deals ship newspaper’s harsh criticism every year to seek such invest- ness delegations stayed in five- [email protected] phenomenon the price for failing to signed during their promotional on Monday of investment dele- ments. star hotels and invited business- activities. gations travelling to Hong Kong. Yao admitted that the delega- reflects a severe men to expensive restaurants, meet pollution targets The Ministry of Commerce has “They were desperate to get This was the first time that a tions played a positive role in level of spending as much as 1,000 yuan pledged to rein in extravagance abig number of foreign business- Communist Party mouthpiece spurring the nation’s economic (HK$1,260) per head for a break- ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Yearly Review Shows Increase of Prosecution Workload in 2009 *********************************************************
    Yearly Review shows increase of prosecution workload in 2009 ********************************************************* The Prosecutions Division of the Department of Justice saw an increase in workload in 2009, according to statistics published in its Yearly Review today (October 29). Criminal prosecutions and appeals conducted in court increased both in terms of the number of cases and the number of court days. The total number of cases was 5,455 in 2009, as compared to 4,981 in the previous year, representing an increase of 9.5%. The total number of court days went up 14% from 8,388 in 2008 to 9,564 in 2009. As a result, the total number of court days undertaken by in-house counsel has increased from 3,564 in 2008 to 4,299 in 2009, an increase of 20.6%. The court work undertaken by solicitors or barristers prosecuting for the division on fiat also increased, from 4,825 days in 2008 to 5,266 days in 2009, an increase of 9.1%. In terms of court level, the majority of appeals and Court of First Instance cases were conducted by in-house counsel, while fiat counsel were mainly called upon to prosecute cases at District and Magistrates Courts. Legal advice provided to law enforcement agencies also recorded an increase of 7.6% from 15,356 in 2008 to 16,520 in 2009. In the overview of the Division's Yearly Review, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mr Ian McWalters, described 2009 as a year of transition. Upon assumption of office in October 2009, the new DPP felt that the time was right to review the division's structure to see whether changes should be made, having regard to the following goals: * Whatever structure was in place, it must be able to maximise the efficient use of counsel in the division; * Each part of the structure should be focused on servicing its core responsibilities; and * To improve the advocacy capacity of the Division by developing the advocacy skills of counsel and increasing the representation of the Division's prosecutors in all level of courts in Hong Kong.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Corruption Conference the Un Convention Against Corruption Implementation & Enforcement: Meeting the Challenges
    COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT & CHATHAM HOUSE ANTI-CORRUPTION CONFERENCE THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION IMPLEMENTATION & ENFORCEMENT: MEETING THE CHALLENGES CHATHAM HOUSE · LONDON · 24 TO 25 APRIL 2006 Commonwealth Secretariat COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT & CHATHAM HOUSE ANTI-CORRUPTION CONFERENCE THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION IMPLEMENTATION & ENFORCEMENT: MEETING THE CHALLENGES CHATHAM HOUSE · LONDON · 24 TO 25 APRIL 2006 Commonwealth Secretariat EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1 The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) came into force on 14 December 2005 and as prescribed by this convention, the Conference of State Parties will be held later this year in order to promote and review implementation. The convening of this conference was organised with a view to taking forward the imple- mentation of UNCAC among those States that have signed to it. The presentations focused on key topics with time allocated for discussion on the issues arising out of those presentations. The objectives of the conference included: G addressing the problems faced in monitoring implementation by smaller, developing States by identifying those problems and highlighting the lessons from developed States; G encouraging effective international cooperation; G assisting participants to identify training and technical assistance needs; and G for Commonwealth States to take forward the Recommendations of the Commonwealth Expert Working Group on Asset Repatriation as mandated by the Heads of Government at the 2005 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Those Recommendations include: putting in place comprehensive legis- lation and procedures for both conviction and non conviction-based confiscation, MLA on the basis of the Harare Scheme and direct enforcement of restraint and con- fiscation in response to a foreign request. OVERVIEW OF THE SESSIONS SESSION ONE UN CONVENTION & COMMONWEALTH INITIATIVES Speakers: Martin Polaine & Stuart Gilman G Disappointment was expressed at the number of discretionary provisions within the preventive chapter of UNCAC.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecutions Hong Kong 2018
    PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018 香港刑事檢控 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018 律政司司長 鄭若驊資深大律師 鄭司長： 謹呈上刑事檢控科 2018 年的工作回顧。 本科在 2018 年事務紛繁，科內檢控人員整年在“秉行公義者”的崗位上 盡忠職守，持正獨立進行檢控。儘管社會曾有聲音質疑若干檢控決定，我們 的檢控人員一如既往根據法律、可接納的證據所證明的事實及適用的政策或 指引，獨立理智地行事。在庭上，我們竭力協助法庭，以公正客觀的態度依 法秉公行義。 我們致力促進本科工作的透明度和問責性，讓公眾可全面恰當了解刑事 司法工作，但也緊記不能為求在人前彰顯公義，致使公義無法施行。我們會 繼續孜孜不怠促進市民認識本科工作。 縱使考驗頻仍，本科的檢控和支援人員一直全力以赴，成果驕人。謹向 科內全體同事致以謝忱。 刑事檢控專員 梁卓然資深大律師 2019 年 10 月 23 日 The Hon Teresa CHENG Yeuk-wah, GBS, SC, JP Secretary for Justice 23 October 2019 Dear Secretary for Justice, I am pleased to submit to you the Yearly Review of the Prosecutions Division for 2018. 2018 is an eventful year for the Division. Throughout the year, prosecutors in the Division upheld their role as “ministers of justice” in pursuance of fair and independent prosecution. Although there have been voices in the community questioning certain prosecutorial decisions, our prosecutors have, as always, acted independently and dispassionately on the basis of the law, the facts provable by admissible evidence and any applicable policy or guidelines. In court, we strived to assist the court to the fullest and to do justice according to the law in a fair and objective manner. We endeavour to promote transparency and accountability in our work so that the public may be fully and properly informed about the administration of criminal justice. We however bear in mind that the benefit of justice being seen to be done must not be allowed to result in justice not being done. We shall continue to work hard to promote public understanding of our work. I wish to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues, both prosecutors and support staff, in the Division for their remarkable efforts and achievements in often challenging circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Income and Asset Disclosure
    Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized DIRECTIONS IN DEVELOPMENT Finance Income and Asset Disclosure Public Disclosure Authorized Case Study Illustrations Public Disclosure Authorized Income and Asset Disclosure Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Series StAR—the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative—is a partnership between the World Bank Group and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) that supports international efforts to end safe havens for corrupt funds. StAR works with developing countries and financial centers to prevent the laundering of the proceeds of corruption and to facilitate more systematic and timely return of stolen assets. The Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Series supports the efforts of StAR and UNODC by providing practitioners with knowledge and policy tools that con- solidate international good practice and wide-ranging practical experience on cutting edge issues related to anticorruption and asset recovery efforts. For more information, visit www.worldbank.org/star. Titles in the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Series Stolen Asset Recovery: A Good Practices Guide for Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture (2009) by Theodore S. Greenberg, Linda M. Samuel, Wingate Grant, and Larissa Gray Politically Exposed Persons: Preventive Measures for the Banking Sector (2010) by Theodore S. Greenberg, Larissa Gray, Delphine Schantz, Carolin Gardner, and Michael Latham Asset Recovery Handbook: A Guide for Practitioners (2011) by Jean-Pierre Brun, Larissa Gray, Clive Scott, and Kevin Stephenson Barriers to Asset Recovery: An Analysis of the Key Barriers and Recommendations for Action (2011) by Kevin Stephenson, Larissa Gray, and Ric Power The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About It (2011) by Emile van der Does de Willebois, J.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prevention and Control of Economic Crime in China
    The Prevention and Control of Economic Crime in China: A Critical Analysis of the Law and its Administration Enze Liu Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute of Advanced Legal Studies School of Advanced Study, University of London September 2017 Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis represents my own work. Where information has been used they have been duly acknowledged. Signature: …………………………. Date: ………………………………. 2 Abstract Economic crime and corruption has been an issue throughout Chinese history. While there may be scope for discussion as to the significance of public confidence in the integrity of a government, in practical terms the government of China has had to focus attention on maintaining confidence in its integrity as an issue for stability. Since the establishment of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its assumption of power and in particular after the ‘Opening’ of the Chinese economy, abusive conduct on the part of those in positions of privilege, primarily in governmental organisations, has arguably reached an unprecedented level. In turn, this is impeding development as far as it undermines public confidence, accelerates jealousy and forges an even wider gap between rich and poor, thereby threatening the stability and security of civil societies. More importantly, these abuses undermine the reputation of the CCP and the government. China naturally consider this as of key significance in attracting foreign investment and assuming its leading role in the world economy. While there have been many attempts to curb economic crime, the traditional capabilities of the law and particularly the criminal justice system have in general terms been found to be inadequate.
    [Show full text]
  • Text, Cases Commentary Hong Kong Legal System
    TEXT, CASES and COMMENTARY on the HONG KONG LEGAL SYSTEM Michael John Fisher Hong Kong University Press The University of Hong Kong Pokfulam Road Hong Kong www.hkupress.org © 2019 Hong Kong University Press ISBN 978-988-8390-96-0 (Hardback) ISBN 978-988-8390-97-7 (Paperback) All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The copyright in the Judgments HCMP3908/1997 Guido Karl Wenk v Alan Lee Goldstein (16.7.1998) and FACV24/2007 A Solicitor v The Law Society of Hong Kong (13.3.2008) are owned by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Government”). The Judgments published in Text, Cases and Commentary on the Hong Kong Legal System are reproduced from those posted on the Judiciary’s website with the permission of the Government. The Government accepts no liability or responsibility for the accuracy or com- pleteness of any of the Judgements being published in Text, Cases and Commentary on the Hong Kong Legal System. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed and bound by Ocean Printing Co. Ltd., Hong Kong, China Contents Table of Cases vi Table of Legislation xi Introduction xv 1. The Development of the Hong Kong Legal System, 1842–1997 1 2. Sources of Hong Kong Law 59 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Secretary for Justice Speaks About Appointment of DPP *****************************************************
    Secretary for Justice speaks about appointment of DPP ***************************************************** Following is the transcript of remarks by the Secretary for Justice, Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC, and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Designate), Mr Keith Yeung, SC, to the media today (August 1): Secretary for Justice: Dear friends from the media, the purpose of today's meeting is to announce the Government's appointment of Mr Keith Yeung Kar-hung, SC, to succeed Mr Kevin Zervos, SC, as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who will leave the civil service in September. A prosecution service that is fair, just, in accordance with the law and free from political intervention is of fundamental importance in maintaining the rule of law. The Department of Justice (DoJ) has all along placed great emphasis on the quality of our prosecution work. In November 2012, the DoJ conducted a promotion-cum-open recruitment exercise so as to source a suitable candidate for the post of DPP. After the selection process which took more than six months, the Selection Committee chaired by the Secretary for the Civil Service considered Mr Yeung to be the most suitable candidate and decided to appoint him as the next DPP. With over 25 years of experience in the legal profession, Mr Yeung has a wealth of experience and an in-depth knowledge in criminal law and civil law, especially commercial crime and securities-related legal matters. Over the years, Mr Yeung has been actively involved in legal and related services. As the Vice-chairman of the Bar Association as well as in other capacities, he has been involved in different areas of work for promoting the development of legal services and the legal profession.
    [Show full text]
  • LC Paper No. CB(2)2556/05-06(01)
    LC Paper No. CB(2)2556/05-06(01) SB Ref: ICSB 16/06 Bills Committee on Interception of Communications and Surveillance Bill Response to issues raised Clauses 42 to 46 To provide for a mechanism for notifying the subjects of “wrongful” interception or covert surveillance. 1. We have set out in our paper SB Ref. : ICSB 14/06 our proposal for a notification system in specified circumstances. The proposed Committee Stage amendments (CSAs) to reflect that mechanism are as follows – “46A. Notifications to relevant persons (1) If, in the course of performing any of his functions under this Ordinance, the Commissioner considers that there is any case in which any interception or covert surveillance has been carried out by a department without the authority of a prescribed authorization issued or renewed under this Ordinance, subject to subsection (6), the Commissioner shall give notice to the relevant person – (a) stating that there has been such a case and indicating whether the case is one of interception or covert surveillance and the duration of the interception or covert surveillance; and (b) informing the relevant person of his right to apply to the Commissioner for an examination in respect of the interception or covert surveillance. (2) Where the relevant person makes an application for an examination in respect of the interception or covert surveillance within 6 months after receipt of the notice, the Commissioner shall, notwithstanding anything in section 44(1)(a) but subject to the other provisions of section 44, make a determination referred to in section 43(2), and the provisions of this Ordinance are to apply accordingly.
    [Show full text]