Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma of Olympia Chambers is Disgusting! He Stole a Woman’s Bra! 馬浩輝大律師好變態囉！女人胸圍都偷！

https://gettingjusticeinhongkong.blogspot.com/2019/03/hong-kong-lawyer-counsel-barrister-stanley-kilian-h-f-ma-of-olympia-chambers-stole-a-bra.html

馬浩輝大律師好變態囉！女人胸圍都偷！Hong Kong Lawyer Counsel Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma of Olympia Chambers is Disgusting! He Stole a Woman’s Bra!

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20130323/mobile/odn-20130323-0323_00176_061.html

偷胸圍罪成 大狀馬浩輝釘牌30月

【本報訊】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。

案發於一○年五月三日，馬浩輝在坪州好景台永利街一號地下外，偷竊一個價值三百六十元的白底紅邊胸圍，屬一名羅姓女子的財產，經法庭審訊後同年十一月被裁定偷竊罪成，罰款三千元。

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal Complaint Against Barrister Sakinah Sat (薩忻琪大律師) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K.

Formal Complaint Against Barrister Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K. I am lodging a formal complaint, as a member of the public, against Hong Kong Barrister Ms Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC), 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K., for her blatant breach of  paragraphs 10.29 & 10.30 of the Bar Code , in that she has failed to act with candour and independence in the interests of justice, and  knowingly deceived or misled the Court , in her ex parte Court Application before David Lok J on 22 August 2020 (Saturday).   The material facts had been set out in  [2020] HKCFI 2288 (HCMP 1282/2020)  -  https://legalref. judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ search/search_result_detail_ frame.jsp?DIS=130716&QS=%2B& TP=JU  - where Linda Chan J said these about Hong Kong Barrister Ms Sakinah Sat ( 薩忻琪大律師 ) of Des Voeux Chambers: -   12.  Indeed, although the contemporaneous documents referred to i
Read more

Convicted Criminal Candy Fong (the Barrister) Lost Her Appeal - 已被定罪罪犯方也方大律師上訴失敗

Convicted Criminal Candy Fong (the Barrister) Lost Her Appeal - 已被定罪罪犯方也方大律師上訴失敗 HKSAR v. FONG E-FONG CANDY -  HCMA 108/2020 - ​[2020] HKCFI 3133 //The appellant was convicted after trial of one charge of Common Assault and fined HK$3,000.  The appellant appeals against her conviction.// //On appeal, the appellant made this court sit through repeated viewing of the CCTV footage alleging that she had been kicked.  I could not see that she was kicked.// //... my observation from having viewed the CCTV footage many times was that it can be seen from the footage that the appellant had intentionally grabbed hold of PW2 by putting her arm around the neck of PW2 in order to stop the wheelchair from moving and in order to get close to him in order to speak to him.  I therefore find that the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and therefore the appeal is dismissed.// https://legalref.judiciary.hk/ doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/ 2020/HCMA000108_2020.doc 方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格 - Barrister Can
Read more

Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction - 方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格

方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格 - Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20081222/egn200812223579.pdf In accordance with section 37A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Chapter 159), I hereby give notice that on 15 April 2008 a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found FONG E-fong, Candy (‘the Barrister’) guilty of 3 complaints of misconduct, namely:— (i) engaging in conduct which brought the profession of barristers into disrepute contrary to paragraph 6(b) of the Bar Code; (ii) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice contrary to paragraph 6(b) of the Bar Code; (iii) acting without due courtesy to the Court. The Tribunal ordered, amongst others, that the Barrister be suspended from practising as a barrister for 9 months, 6 months and 3 months for the respective complaints, to run concurrently. The Tribunal also ordered that such period of suspension should commence after the appeal period, which appeal period was to run from 29 Ap
Read more