Judicial review in Hong Kong

Last updated

Judicial review in Hong Kong is conducted according to the Constitutional and Administrative Law List (Practice Direction 26.1). [1] It comprises two different aspects: firstly, judicial review of domestic ordinances as to their compatibility with the Basic Law ("constitutional review"); secondly, judicial review of administrative decisions under administrative law ("administrative review").

Contents

Constitutional review

In Hong Kong, constitutional review came into existence at the dawn of the British era, when the Legislative Council was created under the Hong Kong Letters Patent in 1843. From that time onwards, the position has been one in which, as the judiciary stated in R v Ibrahim (1913) 8 HKLR 1 at 18, our legislature is supreme "subject to its constitution" and any enactment beyond the legislative power provided by the constitution would be pronounced bad.

The legislative power provided by the Letters Patent was to make laws for "peace, order and good government". The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at the judicial apex of Hong Kong has always held that those words confer the widest possible law-making power. Therefore, until the advent of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance in 1991 there was for all practical purposes little, if any, real scope for constitutional review in Hong Kong. [2]

Under the Basic Law, the court of Hong Kong is also delegated with the power to interpret the Basic Law. Thus, it is recognised by the Hong Kong courts that they have jurisdiction to check whether the executive or legislature are working within the boundaries of the Basic Law. Similar to the United States, Hong Kong courts have held that they may review as to whether legislation passed by the legislature is in compliance with the Basic Law. This is different from the situation in the UK where the court may have no such jurisdiction under the traditional doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. The Hong Kong courts observed that reviewing legislation is possible because the legislature in Hong Kong is not, unlike its UK counterpart, supreme.

Article 39 of the Basic Law entrenches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as a core constitutional document for Hong Kong. No legal restrictions on the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents may contravene the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong. The ICCPR applies to Hong Kong primarily through the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (BORO), which was enacted in 1991. In fact, the BORO was the subject of many cases of judicial review before 1997. In particular, R v Sin Yau Ming, a 1992 case involving the presumption of innocence in the BORO, set the stage for future judicial review. With the advent of the Bill of Rights, which came into operation on 8 June 1991, the courts of Hong Kong embarked upon an era of meaningful constitutional review. The courts of Hong Kong produced a valuable if not very large body of human rights jurisprudence and gained a useful six years of pre-handover experience of meaningful constitutional review before the Basic Law came into force. [3]

Administrative review

The Basic Law provides that the previous law in force in Hong Kong, including Common Law, will be preserved. Thus, administrative review, as part of the Common Law, is also preserved. The basis of administrative review is sometimes said to be Article 35 of the Basic Law, which reads:

Hong Kong residents shall have the right to institute legal proceedings in the courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel.

There is, however, debate on this. Hong Kong's administrative law has procedural and substantive similarities with English administrative law, but with various differences. [4]

Procedure

Leave to apply for judicial review

Before applying for judicial review, a person must first obtain the leave of the Court of First Instance of the High Court by filing Form 86 (together with an affidavit verifying the relevant facts and the filing fee of HK$1,045). [5] [6] [7] [8] As explained by the Court of Final Appeal, the requirement to obtain leave to apply for judicial review serves as 'an important filter ... to prevent public authorities from being unduly vexed with unarguable challenges'. [9] An applicant must exhaust all revenues of appeal or alternative remedies before applying for leave for judicial review unless there are exceptional circumstances. [10]

In Form 86, the grounds of judicial review must be set out 'clearly, succinctly and in a few numbered paragraphs' addressing the 'real issues in the case', together with the relevant facts. [11] It is the duty of the applicant to include in Form 86 and the accompanying affidavit all material facts of which he/she is aware (even though such facts may be adverse to his/her case), as well as potential legal answers to his/her claim. If leave is granted, but the applicant has failed to comply with this duty of full and frank disclosure, it is viewed as a 'serious matter' by the Court (even if it is an 'inadvertent' oversight) [12] and leave may be set aside. [13] [14] In addition, a legally-aided applicant may be ordered to personally bear all of his/her own legal costs, as well as the respondent's legal costs. [15]

Form 86 must generally be filed promptly and in any event no later than 3 months from the date of the decision which is being challenged. [16] [17] If this deadline is missed, a Judge of the Court of First Instance may exercise his/her discretion to grant an extension of time if there is a 'good reason'. [18] [19] [20] [21]

A Judge of the Court of First Instance will grant leave to apply for judicial review if the judge is persuaded that there is a reasonably arguable claim which has a realistic prospect of success. [9] The Judge will usually make the decision without an oral hearing. [22] If an oral hearing is scheduled, the Judge should not dismiss an application for leave for judicial review on the ground of 'want of prosecution' (i.e. the applicant has no intention to pursue his/her application) merely because of a single failure by the applicant to appear at the oral hearing. The Judge should continue to consider the merits of the application for leave. [23]

The Judge will record on Form CALL-1 whether leave to apply for judicial review has been granted or refused. [24] If leave is refused, the Judge is not required to state elaborate reasons on Form CALL-1. [25] An appeal can be lodged to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the decision of the Court of First Instance to refuse leave. [26] The appellant should file with the Court of Appeal a notice of appeal, Form CALL-1, the order/judgment of the Court of First Instance and all the documents placed before the Judge of the Court of First Instance. If the appellant wishes to make submissions, they should be contained in a skeleton argument (not an affidavit) submitted with the appeal bundle. [27] If the 14-day deadline to lodge an appeal is missed, an application for extension of time can be made directly to the Court of Appeal, which can decide without an oral hearing whether to exercise its discretionary power to extend time to lodge an appeal. [28]

Application for judicial review

If leave to apply for judicial review has been granted, the applicant must, within 14 days, serve the order granting leave and any directions from the Court on the respondent and interested parties. [29] In addition, the applicant must file Form 86A in Court (together with the filing fee of HK$1,045) and serve it on 'all persons directly affected'. [30] [8]

If the respondent intends to use an affidavit at the hearing, it must be filed as soon as practicable and in any event no later than 56 days after the applicant has served Form 86A on it. [31] [32]

An applicant or interested party who proposes to make submissions in support of the application for judicial review must submit a skeleton argument at least 7 clear days before the substantive hearing; a respondent or interested party who proposes to make submissions in opposition to the application for judicial review must submit a skeleton argument at least 3 clear days before the substantive hearing. [33]

An applicant for judicial review should 'put all the cards on the table' by 'exhausting all the grounds and materials the applicant intends to rely upon' at the substantive hearing before the Court of First Instance, as he/she will not be able to raise new grounds and place new materials if an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance is made to the Court of Appeal unless there is a reason of 'exceptional public importance'. [34]

Controversy

On 3 December 2015, Henry Litton, a retired judge who sat on the Court of Final Appeal, caused controversy by his claim that the system of judicial review had been "abused". "Judicial review is not available for challenges to government policy," he said. "That is a fundamental rule in the separation of powers. The court is concerned with law, not policy." Litton also criticized the way judges dealt with judicial review cases. [35]

Shortly afterwards, Winnie Tam, chair of the Bar Association, told the media that not every unsuccessful case of judicial review represented an abuse of the system. [35]

On 14 December, government spokesman Andrew Fung questioned the neutrality of barristers who disagreed with Litton. He suggested that there may be a conflict of interest, since some barristers profit from judicial review cases. He also complained of the costs incurred by delay caused by judicial review. [36]

On the same day, former chief justice Andrew Li wrote in an op-ed that "the pursuit of efficiency must not be at the expense of justice." He believed that Litton's criticism of judges was unjustified. [37]

On 12 January 2016, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying told reporters that while judicial reviews are provided for under Hong Kong's legal system and serve to monitor the Government's work, the judicial review system is sometimes abused. [38]

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma also defended the system against attacks on its inconvenience. "Although there may occasionally be inconveniences, judicial review overall serves the public interest and facilitates the well-being of our society," he said in his speech at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2016. "This status should properly be recognised." [39]

Related Research Articles

Small-claims courts have limited jurisdiction to hear civil cases between private litigants. Courts authorized to try small claims may also have other judicial functions, and go by different names in different jurisdictions. For example, it may be known as a county or magistrate's court. These courts can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Hong Kong</span> Law courts in the special administrative region of China

The Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is the judicial branch of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Under the Basic Law of Hong Kong, it exercises the judicial power of the Region and is independent of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. The courts in Hong Kong hear and adjudicate all prosecutions and civil disputes, including all public and private law matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Hong Kong</span> Judicial system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has its foundation in the English common law system, inherited from being a former British colony and dependent territory. There are several sources of law, the primary ones being statutes enacted by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and case law made by decisions of the courts of Hong Kong.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court (Hong Kong)</span> Superior court of record with unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hong Kong

The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a part of the legal system of Hong Kong. It consists of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance; it deals with criminal and civil cases which have risen beyond the lower courts. It is a superior court of record of unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction. It was named the Supreme Court before 1997. Though previously named the Supreme Court, this Court has long been the local equivalent to the Senior Courts of England and Wales and has never been vested with the power of final adjudication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)</span>

The Court of First Instance is the lower court of the High Court of Hong Kong, the upper court being the Court of Appeal. Formerly the High Court of Justice of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, it was renamed the Court of First Instance by the Basic Law after the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)</span>

The Court of Appeal of the High Court of Hong Kong is the second most senior court in the Hong Kong legal system. It deals with appeals on all civil and criminal cases from the Court of First Instance and the District Court. It is one of two courts that makes up the High Court of Hong Kong. Sometimes criminal appeals from Magistrates' Courts with general public importance are also dealt with in the Court of Appeal, either by referral by a single judge from the Court of First Instance, or upon granting of leave on application for review by the Secretary for Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Hong Kong</span> Rights enjoyed by citizens in China

Human rights protection is enshrined in the Basic Law and its Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). By virtue of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Basic Law Article 39, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is put into effect in Hong Kong. Any local legislation that is inconsistent with the Basic Law can be set aside by the courts. This does not apply to national legislation that applies to Hong Kong, such as the National Security Law, even if it is inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance, ICCPR, or the Basic Law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in most legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

<i>Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice</i>

Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice is a leading Hong Kong High Court judicial review case on the equal protection on sexual orientation and the law of standing in Hong Kong. Particularly, the Court sets up a precedent case prohibiting unjustified differential treatments based upon one's sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore administrative law</span> Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative law in Singapore</span> Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law</span> Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore constitutional law</span>

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

Vallejos and Domingo v. Commissioner of Registration was a court case against the government of Hong Kong by two foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) seeking permanent residence and the right of abode in Hong Kong. Because of its subject matter it was commonly referred to in the media as the FDHs' right of abode case (外傭居港權案). Evangeline Vallejos and Daniel Domingo were two of five applicants who in various groups filed three right of abode lawsuits in 2010; the ruling in Vallejos' case was expected to be a precedent for the other two.

Fateh Muhammad v. Commissioner of Registration and Registration of Persons Tribunal was a 2001 case in the Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong by a Pakistani migrant seeking the right of abode in Hong Kong. The case concerned provisions of the Immigration Ordinance requiring that a non-Chinese national's seven years of "ordinary residence" qualifying him to apply for permanent residence immediately precede his application. The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Kemal Bokhary, ruled that those provisions were not inconsistent with the Hong Kong Basic Law. The ruling in the case temporarily disqualified the appellant from applying for permanent residency, though he was expected to qualify again a few years later.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law</span>

Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law is one of the three broad categories of judicial review, the other two being illegality and irrationality. A public authority commits procedural impropriety if it fails to properly observe either statutory procedural requirements, or common law rules of natural justice and fairness.

Comilang v. Commissioner of Registration was a 2011–2013 case against the Hong Kong Immigration Department by a former foreign domestic helper who is the sole custodial parent of a child who has permanent residence status in Hong Kong. Comilang sought to challenge her own removal from Hong Kong on, inter alia, the grounds that it would effectively force Ahmed to leave Hong Kong and thus deprive her of all of the benefits she should enjoy as a Hong Kong permanent resident. The ruling against the applicants in the Court of First Instance had wider legal significance, as it established that neither the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights nor the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incorporated in Hong Kong law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation</span> Anti-mask law of Hong Kong

The Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation ("PFCR") is a regulation prohibiting the wearing of face coverings in certain circumstances made by Chief Executive in Council under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance due to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. The Court of First Instance heard applications for judicial review from 24 members of the Legislative Council (LegCo) and Leung Kwok-hung, a former LegCo member, submitted in early October. On 18 November, it ruled that both the prohibition on the wearing of masks and related powers granted to the police to enforce it are inconsistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, whilst leaving the question of relief to a future hearing. On 22 November, the court declared the PFCR invalid and of no effect, but suspended the application of that declaration till 29 November 2019. The government appealed the decision on 25 November to the Court of Appeal, which partially allowed the government's appeal. The prohibition of masks at unauthorised assemblies was ruled to be constitutional, but the power to remove masks and the prohibition on wearing masks at authorised assemblies was ruled unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court of Final Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the PFCR in its entirety, including the prohibition on face coverings at authorised assemblies and processions.

<i>Kwok Wing Hang and others v Chief Executive in Council and another</i> Hong Kong case law concerning wearing of masks

Kwok Wing Hang and others v Chief Executive in Council and another is a Hong Kong constitutional case concerning the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (PFCR) and Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO).

<i>Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration</i> Joint appeal of three cases

Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration was a joint appeal of three cases decided in 1999 by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, held that mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents enjoyed the right of abode, regardless of whether one of their parents have acquired Hong Kong permanent residency at the time of birth of the children.

References

  1. ↑ "PRACTICE DIRECTION – 26.1 THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST". HKLII. 1 September 1998. Retrieved 4 May 2010.
  2. ↑ Bokhary, Kemal (2015). Human Rights: Source, Content and Enforcement. Hong Kong: Sweet and Maxwell.
  3. ↑ Bokhary, Kemal (2015). Human Rights: Source, Content and Enforcement. Hong Kong: Sweet and Maxwell.
  4. ↑ (Lawyer), Thomson, Stephen (11 October 2018). Administrative law in Hong Kong. Cambridge [UK]. ISBN   9781108400329. OCLC   1025360202.
  5. ↑ High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4), Section 21K(3)
  6. ↑ Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), Order 53, rule 3
  7. ↑ Practice Direction SL3, paragraphs 12-13
  8. 1 2 High Court Fees Rules (Cap. 4D)
  9. 1 2 Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung, FACV10/2007, reported at (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.
  10. ↑ Re PM, HACL106/2013 , at para. 36, reported at [2014] 6 HKC 256.
  11. ↑ Ho Loy and Anor v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL21/2015 , at para. 141-142
  12. ↑ AM and Others v Director of Immigration, HCAL10/2015 , at para. 39
  13. ↑ TH v Director of Immigration, HCAL114/2014
  14. ↑ Re Leung Kwok Hung, HCAL83/2011 , at para. 35 and 37
  15. ↑ Yau Ka Po v Town Planning Board, HCAL67/2015 , at para. 83
  16. ↑ Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), Order 53, rule 4
  17. ↑ Practice Direction SL3, paragraph 9
  18. ↑ Stephen Thomson, 'Leave Without Delay: The Requirement to Make Prompt Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review' (2015) 45(2) Hong Kong Law Journal 449-468
  19. ↑ Re Thomas Lai, HCAL150/2013, reported at [2014] 6 HKC 1.
  20. ↑ AW v Director of Immigration, CACV63/2015, reported at [2016] 2 HKC 393.
  21. ↑ BI v Director of Immigration, CACV9/2015, reported at [2016] 2 HKLRD 520, at para. 135
  22. ↑ Practice Direction SL3, paragraphs 6-7
  23. ↑ Re Abdus Salam, CACV125/2019, at para. 17-24 and Re Atienza Chona Marasigan, CACV383/2019, at para. 21-22
  24. ↑ Practice Direction SL3, paragraph 8
  25. ↑ Re Zunariyah, CACV195/2017, [2018] HKCA 14, at para. 23
  26. ↑ Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), Order 53, rule 3(4)
  27. ↑ Kwok Luk Ping v Electoral Registration Officer, CACV31/2017, reported at [2017] 6 HKC 293, at para. 27-30
  28. ↑ Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), Order 59, rules 2A and 14A(1)
  29. ↑ Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), Order 53, rule 4A
  30. ↑ Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), Order 53, rule 5
  31. ↑ Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), Order 53, rule 6(1) and (4)
  32. ↑ Practice Direction SL3, paragraph 14
  33. ↑ Practice Direction SL3, paragraph 21
  34. ↑ Tang Shuk Chun v Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene, CACV5/2016 , at para. 1.1
  35. 1 2 "Hong Kong's judicial review system is being abused, says former top judge - Hong Kong Free Press HKFP". 3 December 2015. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  36. ↑ "馮煒光指濫用司法覆核罄竹難書 質疑大律師有利益衝突 (10:47) - 20151214 - 港聞". 即時新聞 instant news. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  37. ↑ "Judicial Review - 20151214 - 觀點 - 觀點". 明報新聞網 - 每日明報 daily news. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  38. ↑ "news.gov.hk - Judicial reviews must not be abused: CE". Hong Kong's Information Services Department. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  39. ↑ "CJ's speech at Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2016 (with photos)". www.info.gov.hk. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.