Witness-tampering conviction will ruin lawyer's life, appeal court told
Andrew Lam Ping-cheung's four-year prison sentence was just the start of what promised to be a grim future for the solicitor convicted in a witness-tampering case, the Court of Appeal heard yesterday.
'The penalty on Mr Lam will not cease once he is released from prison,' said barrister Clare Montgomery QC.
'He will never be able to work in his profession again. This will count against him for the rest of his life.'
Her comments came at a hearing to determine whether prison sentences for Lam, 57, and co-defendant Mandy Chui Man-si, 29, who was jailed for 21/2 years, should be reduced.
Prosecutor Martin Wilson QC argued that Lam's sentence should be increased, not reduced, given the seriousness of his offence.
Lam and Chui, who also received a concurrent one-year term for perjury, were charged in a case that shocked the legal profession, and resulted in the conviction of prominent barrister Kevin Egan.
Mr Egan's conviction for breaking witness protection laws was overturned on appeal in February.
But the Court of Appeal dismissed similar appeals by Lam and Chui.
Fugitive businessman Derek Wong Chong-kwong, 41, former head of Semtech International Holdings, was also convicted in the case.
All four were accused of conspiring in July 2004 to prevent Wong's secretary from testifying against her former boss, who faced allegations that he tried to manipulate Semtech's share price.
Although Lam's trial judge, and later the Appeal Court, ruled that he masterminded the witness tampering, Wong's former secretary was not directly threatened, Ms Montgomery said yesterday. Lam's role did not involve extensive planning either.
It was a 'spur of the hour' decision after Chui contacted him at the request of her lover, Derek Wong.
She compared the case with that of solicitor Alick Au Shui- yuen - convicted of helping disgraced ex-government lawyer Warwick Reid flee Hong Kong in the early '90s - which also drew a four-year sentence, even though she said Lam's actions were less serious.
Mr Wilson countered that Au had not abused his role as a lawyer.
'In the case of Mr Lam, the fact that he was a solicitor was fundamental to the case,' he said.
Meanwhile, there was no evidence that Chui did anything beyond sending a text message to Wong's secretary to see if she was all right following her arrest, Jonathan Caplan QC said.
The court - Mr Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, Mr Justice Robert Tang Ching and Mr Justice Alan Wright - reserved its decision.
