Stupid Barrister Roy Chui of Garden Chambers Took Photos in Court! 徐曉峯大律師犯法喺法庭入面影相真弱智!

Stupid Barrister Roy Chui of Garden Chambers Took Photos in Court! 徐曉峯大律師犯法喺法庭入面影相真弱智!


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl2HzL5_Hd8

徐曉峯大律師犯法喺法庭入面影相再放上自己 Facebook 真弱智! Lawyer Counsel Barrister Roy Chui of Garden Chambers committed a crime by taking photos inside court and uploading them to his own Facebook page he’s such an idiot!

http://chuihiufungroytookphotosincourt.blogspot.com/2018/07/university-of-liverpool-law-student-chui-hiu-fung-roy-took-photos-in-court.html?m=1

Arrogant Ignorant Childish Summer Student Roy Chui (Chui Hiu Fung Roy) Took Photos in Court - 張健利大律師行實習生徐曉峯法庭入面影相涉違法超低能! 法庭入面唔俾影相㗎! 弱智嘅人先會喺法庭入面影相然後自己放上網㗎!

https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/daily/article/20130823/18391167

張健利大律師行實習 庭內影相 法律生涉違法

人類總要重複同樣的錯誤。一名19歲法律系學生，本月初開始跟隨張健利大律師行（Denis Chang's Chambers）的大律師當暑期實習，最少兩度在區域法院和高等法院法庭內拍照，涉嫌違法。他卻把照片上載facebook在網上瘋傳。網民嘲諷知法犯法，揶揄「要威就要付出代價」，並稱已報警，可謂「呃like呃出禍」。

涉事暑期實習生徐曉峯（譯音），據其facebook資料顯示，他就讀於英國利物浦大學，本月初加入張健利大律師行成為暑期實習生。高登討論區前天出現一張「打卡」截圖，顯示他當天身處高等法院，照片是法庭內部，桌面放有律師假髮，座椅上放着律師袍，估計是律師座位，圖片還附帶一句「One day I will wear these and do justice（終有一天我會穿起這些，主持公義）」；及後再有網民發現，徐上周已曾在灣仔區域法院拍攝庭內情況，不止一次違法拍照。

大批網民群起攻之，指有人涉違反《簡易程序治罪條例》第228章第7條「禁止在法庭內攝影等」，可被判處罰款250元，並會留有刑事紀錄。

網民：要威就要付出代價

有網民質疑徐「影相擺上網晒命」，又指其「仲話想做律師，連咁簡單既法例都唔識」、「要威就要付出代價」。有人列出抬頭予警務處處長的信函，暗示已報警。警方稱資料不足，未能證實有否報案。

本報獲悉前天事件曝光後，驚動大律師行的管理層為此事開會，資深大律師張健利本人亦已知悉。消息指，徐並非直接受聘於大律師行，只是獨立跟隨阮文躍大律師作暑期實習。消息稱，徐在法庭內拍照是最基本的錯誤，他卻自稱在該大律師行工作，擔心大律師行聲譽受損，管理層屬意將其「踢走」，並勒令其刪除facebook賬號。

有執業大律師指，徐一旦被判罪將有刑事案底，由於犯案性質輕微，相信律政司未必起訴。他指事件已在業內引起討論，但絕非聲討，「只係大家得啖笑」。

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl2HzL5_Hd8

張健利大律師行 Denis Chang's Chambers 實習生徐曉峯咁低能點做律師?

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