第一部分：唐炜臻案件陈述

唐炜臻

1.申请人，唐炜臻于2012年10月30日被控以欺诈罪名，并在法官和陪审团前被定罪。

2.申请人在初步聆讯，审讯或上诉法庭中都没有律师，仅就定罪问题向上诉法院的当值律师服务。

- 见申请人的誓章

3.申请人在整个过程中申请了国家资助的律师，但他被拒绝了这一请求。

- 见申请人的誓章。

4.初步审讯记录表明，申请人一再提出他需要律师的问题，因为他不知道如何提问，没有法律知识。

- 见申请人的誓章

5.申请人承诺审判，并在审判中由法庭之友不得力的协助。

- 见申请人的誓章。

6.申请人称，法庭之友是无能和无效的，并且对案件的这一方面进行了详细论述。 法庭之友错过了很多建议申请人提出一些关键的动议和申请的机会;Amicus没有掌握辩方的理论或证据; 法庭之友没有质疑监控官的专家的资格，尽管申请人告知专家，该专家最多只是个会计师，但不是什么法律会计专家，如果他即使是法律会计专家，他不是金融投资专家;法庭之友不鼓励，事实上告诉申请人不要称呼自己是好人的证人; 法庭之友的结案呈词没有充分探讨被告有没有犯罪动机的问题和其他许多不作为的问题。

- 申请人的誓章。

7.申诉人指称，没有人看过他的初步审查的记录，其中披露了他未能在没有任命律师的情况下进行审判，上诉法院假定他没有经过充分的盘问证人（如果不是这样）法官假设他故意不挑战专家证人的资格。

- 申请人的誓章。

8.申请人正在申请上诉许可，并就此许可申请提出新的证据。

9.申请人还申请法庭任命律师以完善此允许上诉的申请。

10.申请人还要求法院命令在本许可申请中提供上诉法院记录。

- 申请人的誓章。

10.申请人是依靠社会福利生活，不能保留律师或支付誊本。

- 申请人的誓章。

11.申请人在申请许可上诉时自我介绍提供新的证据，还是没有律师。

PART I :    STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1.               TheApplicant,  Weizhen Tang was charged withfraud and convicted before judge and jury on October 30th, 2012.2.               TheApplicant had no counsel at the preliminary hearing, trial or in the Court ofAppeal, serve for Duty Counsel at the Court of Appeal on the issue ofconviction alone.                  -           Affidavit of Applicant3.               The   applicant had applied for state fundedcounsel throughout the process but he was denied this request.                  -           Affidavit of the Applicant.4.               Thetranscript of  the preliminary hearingdiscloses that the Applicant repeatedly raised the issue that he needed alawyer as he did not know how to ask questions and did not have legalknowledge.                  -           Affidavit of Applicant5.               TheApplicant was committed for trial and was from time to time assisted by AmicusCuriea at trial.                  -           Affidavit of Applicant.6.               TheApplicant alleges that Amicus Curiea was incompetent and ineffective as welland deals at length with this aspect of the case. The Amicus missed theopportunity to advise the applicant to bring a number of crucial motions andapplications; Amicus did not fully grasp the theory or evidence of the defence;the Amicus did not challenge the qualifications of the crown expert despitebeing informed by the Applicant that the expert was at best a mere accountantbut not a forensic expert, if he was a forensic expert, he was still not anfinancial investment expert; the Amicus discouraged, in fact advised theApplicant not to call character witnesses; the closing address did not fullyexplore the issue of mens rea andmany other omissions or commissions.                  -           Affidavit of the Applicant.7.               Theapplicant alleges that no one seems to have read the preliminary hearingtranscript which disclosed that he could not do the trial competently withoutthe appointment of counsel, courts above assumed he had competentlycross-examined witnesses when that was not the case or courts assumed hedeliberately did not challenge the qualifications of the expert witness.                  -           Affidavit of the Applicant.8.               TheApplicant is seeking leave to introduce new evidence on this leave application.9.               TheApplicant also seeks the appointment of counsel to perfect this leaveapplication.10.              The Applicant also seeks an orderfrom the court for the provision of the Court of Appeal Record in this leaveapplication.                   -           Affidavit of Applicant.10.             TheApplicant is on welfare and cannot afford to retain counsel or pay for thetranscripts.                  -           Affidavit of Applicant.11.             TheApplicant is self represented on this leave to introduce fresh evidence.