Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Hksar v Stephen Daryl Barnes

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date28 June 2000
Year2000
Citation[2000] 2 HKLRD 495
Judgement NumberHCMA124/2000
Subject MatterMagistracy Appeal
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCMA000124/2000 HKSAR v. STEPHEN DARYL BARNES

HCMA000124/2000

HCMA124/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.124 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM SPS NOS.2285-7 OF 1999)

-------------------------

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
STEPHEN DARYL BARNES Appellant

----------------

Coram: Hon Gall J in Court

Date of Hearing: 7 June 2000

Date of Judgment: 28 June 2000

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. The appellant was, on 15 November 1999, convicted of three charges pursuant to section 46(1) of the Legal Practitioner's Ordinance, Cap.159. The charges were that he being an unqualified person did wilfully pretend to be recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor by means of an advertisement inserted in the Hong Kong Post; further, that he did wilfully pretend to be recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor by means of a second advertisement in the Hong Kong Post; and thirdly, that he did wilfully use a description on a name card, namely, 'lawyer' implying that he was qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor. He was convicted after trial and fined the sum of $3,000 in respect of each charge and appealed both conviction and sentence.

2. On 14 February 2000, the appeal against sentence was abandoned and was dismissed upon receipt of notice.

3. The appellant was a director and the principal shareholder in a corporation listed in Hong Kong known as LLB Consultancy Limited. The appellant obtained in London a degree in law and passed the Laws Society Solicitors' Final Examination for England and Wales in 1993. At the suggestion of a Japanese friend, he did some work on companies' documentation and in 1993, he started the business in Hong Kong aimed at the Japanese segment of the community. No one in his business is qualified to practise as a solicitor or barrister in Hong Kong.

4. On 19 September 1997, the appellant caused to be published in a Japanese language newspaper called the Hong Kong Post an advertisement in the Japanese language advertising the services of his company and calling it a law firm. Further, on 3 July 1998, he caused to be published in the same Japanese language publication a further advertisement in the Japanese language of the services of his company. In or about February 1998, in the course of dealing with one Mr Kazuto Hayashi, he handed to that person a name card which was double-sided, one side in English the other in Japanese. On the English side, the appellant was described as a 'lawyer'. It is these two advertisements and the description on the name card upon which the proceedings are brought. There was no disagreement between the parties that the company was incorporated, that the advertisements were prepared and placed in the newspaper on the respective dates, nor that the name card was handed to Mr Kazuto Hayashi and contained the description 'lawyer'.

5. The evidence of the appellant was that on coming to Hong Kong, he studied the Legal Practitioner's Ordinance to see which legal services he could lawfully provide in Hong Kong. He discovered that there were areas of law which were not exclusively reserved for solicitors and aimed his company at that market. He testified that he had never been involved in legal work that was reserved for solicitors. When any clients required legal assistance in those areas, he would refer them to solicitors. He said that in the preparation of the advertisement, he gave repeated and strict instructions that the advertisement was to hold him out neither as a solicitor nor the company as a solicitors' firm. He was of the view that the advertisement, as read to him, did not directly or indirectly refer to him as a solicitor or his company as a solicitors' firm.

6. It was his evidence that initially when he started up the company, he used on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Stephen Daryl Barnes v Hksar
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • September 14, 2000
    ...Precautions to counteract that risk were inadequate to negate recklessness. 3. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (reported at [2000] 2 HKLRD 495), Gall J upheld the magistrate's decision. He held that in the context, "wilful" meant "deliberate and intentional" but that it also encomp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT