Garden Chambers Barrister Dorothy Cheung Disgusting! 投訴香港大律師張曉惠!
Garden Chambers Barrister Dorothy Cheung Disgusting! 投訴香港大律師張曉惠!
This is a formal complaint against Hong Kong Barrister Dorothy Cheung (張曉惠大律師) of Garden Chambers, 15/F, Printing House, Central, Hong Kong, for she had dishonestly or otherwise knowingly given false evidence under oath before Barnes J in HCCC 312/2017 [2018] HKCFI 2711, resulting in her being disbelieved by Barnes J. Hong Kong Barrister Dorothy Cheung had thereby acted in breach of paragraph 4.1(b) of the Bar Code.
This public judgment says it all: -
1. The applicant Ma Ka Kin was originally jointly charged with one Hung Chi Him (“Ah Him”) with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (1,185 grammes of cocaine). The charge was amended, leaving the applicant facing the charge alone. The applicant pleaded guilty on 28 August 2017 to the amended charge before a Magistrate and was committed to the CFI of the High Court for sentence.2. When the applicant appeared before DHCJ Saw on 21 November 2017 for sentence, he indicated that he wished to withdraw his plea. The case was then adjourned for the applicant to make his application formally. Directions were also given for affirmations to be filed for the hearing.3. Both the applicant and his father Ma Chi Keung (“MCK”) filed affirmations. A solicitor’s clerk Paul Chan (“PC”) and a barrister Ms Dorothy Cheung (“DC”) also filed affirmations in response to the allegations made against them.4. On 9, 12 and 27 November 2018, I heard evidence from the applicant, his father MCK, PC and DC.33. Firstly, I do not accept DC’s evidence that the written instruction written by the applicant at Pik Uk Correctional Institute on 9 March were words solely from the applicant. According to the applicant, he was given a piece of paper with writings to copy. One only has to look at the preamble: “I, Ma Ka Kin, after the explanation given by your esteemed firm and by the barrister responsible for my case…” to see that they are not the kind of words coming from a lay client without any suggestion or prompting, particularly one as unsophisticated and young as the applicant.34. The second matter was the reason for amending the Summary of Facts to delete the name of Hung Chi-him and substituted that with Ah Him. According to DC, it was the applicant’s idea to change it. The reason given by the applicant was that leaving Hung Chi-him in the Summary of Facts would make him “look like a liar”. According to the applicant, the suggestion came from PC and since he had already decided to plead guilty, he did not care whether the full name of Hung Chi-him appeared or not.35. As the Summary of Facts only related what the applicant had said during the Video-recorded Interview, whether the name of Hung Chi-him or Ah Him appears, it still remains a fact that the applicant had said someone else had asked him to collect the parcel. Leaving the name of Hung Chi-him in the Summary of Facts would not make the applicant any less a liar. I accept the applicant’s version of the event. Again, changing the full name of Hung Chi-him to Ah Him is to the benefit of Hung Chi-him rather than to the applicant. It makes no difference to the applicant’s case.
You may also read these:
https://orientaldaily.on.cc/
I am sure Hong Kong Barristers are not supposed to give false evidence under oath inside a Hong Kong Court Room in the manner as Dorothy Cheung (張曉惠大律師) clearly did. Even the Court of Appeal had in [2021] HKCA 1188 questioned why nothing was done by the two professional bodies about this. Please prosecute Hong Kong Barrister Dorothy Cheung (張曉惠大律師) for professional misconduct accordingly.
Comments
Post a Comment