Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice

Last updated
Sham Tsz Kit v. Secretary for Justice
Regional Emblem of Hong Kong.svg
CourtCourt of Final Appeal
Decided5 September 2023
Citation(s)[2023] HKCFA 28

Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice [2023] HKCFA 28 is a landmark Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal case which ruled that the right to form registered partnerships is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the right to privacy under Article 14 of the Bill of Rights.

Contents

By a 3–2 decision, the court directed the government to establish an alternative framework for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, with equivalent rights and obligations to marriage, within two years of the ruling. However, the court also ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry.

The Court of Final Appeal delivered its judgment on 5 September 2023, following an appeal hearing held on 28 to 29 June 2023. [1] Prior to this decision, the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal each dismissed the judicial review. [2]

The government has not yet implemented the decision in legislation.

Background

Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit is a Hong Kong permanent resident and a political activist presently jailed for alleged subversion under the National Security Law. He is gay, and has had a stable same-sex partner since 2011, who is also a Hong Kong permanent resident. Because Hong Kong law does not permit same-sex marriages or civil partnerships, Sham married his partner in New York. [2]

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held: [3]

Right to marry

BL37 provides that the freedom of marriage of Hong Kong residents and their right to raise a family freely shall be protected by law. On a purposive interpretation, the historical context supports the interpretation that BL37 only extends to heterosexual marriages. Although the Court accepted that fundamental rights should be generously interpreted, a proper interpretation requires these fundamental rights to be read together with other provisions of BL as a coherent whole. Lex specialis prevails over lex generalis.

BL37 is the lex specialis on the right to marry and prefers heterosexual marriage, whereas BL25, BOR22, and BOR14 are general provisions which do not specify a right to marry. Therefore, BL25, BOR22, and BOR14 are not engaged and the question of justification did not arise.

Civil partnerships

On a proper interpretation, BOR14 does not impose a duty to recognise civil partnerships, locally or overseas.

Court of Final Appeal

On 10 November 2022, the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the following certified questions of law: [4]

  1. Does the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage constitute a violation of the right to equality enshrined in Article 22 of the Bill of Rights ("BOR22") and Article 25 of the Basic Law ("BL25")?
  2. Do the laws of Hong Kong, insofar as they do not allow same-sex marriage or provide any alternative means of legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, constitute a violation of the right to privacy under BOR14 and/or the right to equality enshrined in BOR22 and BL25?
  3. Do the laws of Hong Kong, insofar as they do not recognise foreign same-sex marriage, constitute a violation of the right to equality enshrined in BOR22 and BL25?

On 5 September 2023, the Court of Final appeal ruled in that while the exclusion of same-sex couples in the city's marriage laws did not violate the right to equality under the Basic Law (BL25 / BOR22), the government's lack of recognition of same-sex partnerships violated the right to privacy (i.e. Right to privacy under BOR14, being provisions equivalent to Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. BOR14 is part of the Basic Law as a result of BL39, which applied the said International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The ruling is suspended for two years in order to give the government time to comply with the decision. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in New Jersey since October 21, 2013, the effective date of a trial court ruling invalidating the state's restriction of marriage to persons of different sexes. In September 2013, Mary C. Jacobson, Assignment Judge of the Mercer Vicinage of the Superior Court, ruled that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, the Constitution of New Jersey requires the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The Windsor decision held that the federal government was required to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples who were married under state law as to other married couples. Therefore, the state court reasoned in Garden State Equality v. Dow that, because same-sex couples in New Jersey were limited to civil unions, which are not recognized as marriages under federal law, the state must permit civil marriage for same-sex couples. This ruling, in turn, relied on the 2006 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris that the state was constitutionally required to afford the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court had ordered the New Jersey Legislature to correct the constitutional violation, by permitting either same-sex marriage or civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage, within 180 days. In response, the Legislature passed a bill to legalize civil unions on December 21, 2006, which became effective on February 19, 2007.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the District of Columbia since March 3, 2010. On December 18, 2009, Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a bill passed by the D.C. Council on December 15 legalizing same-sex marriage. Following the signing, the measure entered a mandatory congressional review of 30 work days. Marriage licenses became available on March 3, and marriages began on March 9, 2010. The District of Columbia was the first jurisdiction in the United States below the Mason–Dixon line to allow same-sex couples to marry.

<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">LGBT rights in Singapore</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Singapore have evolved over the decades. Same-sex sexual activity is legal for both males and females; for men it was officially legalised in 2022 after being de facto decriminalised since 2007, and for women it was always legal. Prior to 2022, same-sex sexual activity between males was de jure illegal under the British colonial-era Section 377A of the Penal Code. The law had been de facto unenforced for decades. In February 2022, the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court reaffirmed that 377A cannot be used to prosecute men for having sex with other men, and that it is "unenforceable in its entirety". Transgender rights in the country are also progressive in the region, which included Singapore being the first country in Asia to legalise sex reassignment surgery in 1973.

China does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. Since 1 October 2017, couples have been able to enter into guardianship agreements, offering partners some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care, death and funeral, property management, and maintenance of rights and interests. Attempts to legalise same-sex marriage in 2020 were unsuccessful, but public opinion polls show that support for same-sex marriage is rising in 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.

Same-sex marriages are not performed in Aruba, Curaçao, or Sint Maarten, which are constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The islands were obliged after several court rulings to register any marriage registered in the Kingdom, but this primarily considers residency rights, and they do not have to give same-sex marriages the same legal effect as opposite-sex marriages. Marriage in the European territory of the Netherlands, as well as in the Caribbean municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, is open to any two people irrespective of sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Hong Kong</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Hong Kong may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe</span> Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Europe

Debate has occurred throughout Europe over proposals to legalise same-sex marriage as well as same-sex civil unions. Currently 33 of the 50 countries and the 8 dependent territories in Europe recognise some type of same-sex union, among them most members of the European Union (24/27). Nearly 43% of the European population lives in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal.

Judicial review in Hong Kong is conducted according to the Constitutional and Administrative Law List. It comprises two different aspects: firstly, judicial review of domestic ordinances as to their compatibility with the Basic Law ; secondly, judicial review of administrative decisions under administrative law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in New Jersey</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in New Jersey have the same legal rights as non-LGBT people. LGBT persons in New Jersey enjoy strong protections from discrimination, and have had the right to marry since October 21, 2013.

<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.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the following countries: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. Same-sex marriage is recognized, but not performed in Israel. Furthermore, same-sex marriages performed in the Netherlands are recognized in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten.

<i>W v Registrar of Marriages</i>

W v Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39; FACV 4/2012 is a landmark court case for LGBT rights in Hong Kong. In a 4:1 decision, the Court of Final Appeal gave transgender people the right to marry as their affirmed gender rather than their assigned gender at birth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recognition of same-sex unions in Asia</span>

Debate has occurred throughout Asia over proposals to legalize same-sex marriage as well as civil unions.

Hong Kong does not recognise same-sex marriages or civil unions. However, same-sex couples are afforded limited legal rights as a result of several court decisions, including the right to apply for a spousal visa, spousal benefits for the partners of government employees, and guardianship rights and joint custody of children.

Same-sex marriage is currently not recognised in the Cayman Islands. The island's statutory law limits marriage to different-sex couples. A lawsuit with the Grand Court successfully challenged this ban in March 2019; however, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling in November 2019. Same-sex civil partnerships are legal following the enactment of the Civil Partnership Law, 2020 on 4 September 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jimmy Sham</span> Hong Kong political and human rights activist

Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit is a Hong Kong pro-democracy and LGBT rights activist. He served as a convener for the pro-democracy organisation Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) until October 2020 and serves as a secretary for the LGBT rights organisation Rainbow of Hong Kong. He is a longtime member of the League of Social Democrats. In 2019 he was elected to the Sha Tin District Council by residents of Lek Yuen constituency, but he resigned from this position in July 2021 amidst a government crackdown on pro-democracy councillors.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights taking place in the year 2023.

References

  1. Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice(Court of Final Appeal2023), Text .
  2. 1 2 "SHAM TSZ KIT v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2022] HKCA 1247; [2022] 6 HKC 391; [2022] 4 HKLRD 368; CACV 557/2020 (24 August 2022)". www.hklii.hk. Retrieved 2023-02-19.
  3. "Summary of Judicial Decision: Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice" doj.gov.hk. Retrieved 2023-02-19.
  4. "SHAM TSZ KIT v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2022] HKCA 1690; CACV 557/2020 (10 November 2022)". www.hklii.hk. Retrieved 2023-02-19.
  5. Pang, Jessie (5 September 2023). "Hong Kong's top court urges alternative legal framework for same-sex couples". Reuters. Retrieved 5 September 2023.