Gurung Kesh Bahadur v. Director of Immigration
Read the full judgment text of CACV 216/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 December 2001.
1. We will give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal but, in doing so, I make it perfectly clear that, for my part, I do not think the questions are the appropriate questions. The matter may well have repercussions and involve approximately one million people who are non-permanent residents of Hong Kong. The questions of the right to leave Hong Kong and the right to travel, and the proper interpretation of the right to travel, are, in my view, very important questions, and for those reas
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
CACV000216A/2000 CACV 216/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2000 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 11/2000) _______________________
_______________________ Coram: Hon. Rogers VP, Le Pichon, JA and Chung, J in Court Date of Hearing: 5 December 2001 Date of Judgment: 5 December 2001 _________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Hon. Rogers VP: 1.We will give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal but, in doing so, I make it perfectly clear that, for my part, I do not think the questions are the appropriate questions. The matter may well have repercussions and involve approximately one million people who are non-permanent residents of Hong Kong. The questions of the right to leave Hong Kong and the right to travel, and the proper interpretation of the right to travel, are, in my view, very important questions, and for those reasons I am prepared to give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, making it clear that I do not consider that the questions as framed are necessarily the correct questions. Be that as it may, this Court gives leave. 2.As regards the application for stay of proceedings, I cannot see how this would work and, in any event, it is, in my view, totally unnecessary. If the two decisions which this Court has quashed are restored by the Court of Final Appeal, so be it. That will be the end of the matter. I do not see that, in the meantime, it puts the Director of Immigration in any difficulties at all. 3.For those reasons, the application for a stay pending the appeal is refused. Hon. Le Pichon JA: 4.I agree. Hon. Chung J: 5.I agree.
Representation: Mr Paul Harris, instructed by Messrs Jal N Karbhari & Co., for the Applicant/Respondent Mr William R Marshall, SC, and Mr Lee Tin Yan, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondent/Applicant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 216/2000