朱經緯今天向終審法院申請上訴許可被拒, 刑事上訴完結了, 這筆錢花得寃枉, 其實一開始就花了冤枉錢, 我以前講得太多, 不想重複。若果不是原審律師跋扈, 那3個月監未必要坐, 等上訴才找Charlotte Draycott, SC, 已經太遲了。Ms Draycott一定不會像Pannu那樣「無大無細」, 害死個客仔。我以前都提供過一個上訴理由, 就是要大狀自認衰仔, 自認態度拙劣, 觸怒原審法官, 導致被告不能獲得公平審訊。別以為我開玩笑, 大家大概記得我以前寫過大狀Mark Sutherland代表非禮案的被告, 無恥地拖延審訊, 不單被告被定罪, 大狀也因為無理拖延而被罰訟費18萬, 最後上訴庭因為大狀的表現有違專業操守而撤銷了定罪, 從未見過上訴法庭用那麼多貶斥字眼來罵一個律師, 我用一個字來總結, 就是一個「賤」字。 

我另一理由提Sutherland, 就是這賤人為了被罰訟費向上訴庭申請逾時上訴至終審法院(逾時15個月), 上訴庭頒佈的判詞今天上載了, 拒絕批出證書, 我放長雙眼, 看下此人會不會去終院申請。上訴庭今天的判詞連結在此: HKSAR and MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND。我相信他會進一步提出申請, 我懷疑是為了拖延紀律聆訊才有此舉措。Sutherland的表現, 是非禮案被告上訴得直的唯一理由, 最無辜的是該案的受害人, 我也寫過一篇為她抱不平: 誰為非禮受害人討回公道? 

不用擔心我罵律師賤人會惹上麻煩, 上訴庭罵他的判詞是我的後盾。我只是用了一個賤子來總結上訴庭的十幾個字, 上訴庭的原文在此: 

271.  We have already described MS’s cross-examination of PW1 earlier in our judgment, regrettably finding it necessary to resort to strong language, as, among other epithets, obtuse, pointless, irrelevant, ludicrous, badgering, bullying, obdurate, relentless, remorseless, indiscriminate, repetitious, prolix and displaying neither skill, restraint nor sensitivity; in short, an egregious example of how cross-examination should not be conducted.  Given the scale and strength of those criticisms, we cannot accept the argument of Mr Harris that MS conducted himself in good faith.  But even if we were to have accepted a measure of good faith (however misguided) on MS’s part, it would not provide any justification for conduct as egregious as this.