郭卓堅 v. 律政司司長袁國強

Case No.HCAL 530/2017[2018] HKCFI 142

Court

High Court CFI

Date24 Jan 2018

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL530/2017

[2018] HKCFI 142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 530 of 2017

BETWEEN
	郭卓堅	Applicant
	and
	律政司司長袁國強	Putative Respondent

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant or counsel [ ] in open court;

Order by the Honourable Mr Justice Chow:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed on the ground the application is not reasonably arguable. Whether the Secretary for Justice should provide legal assistance or representation to the former Chief Executive in judicial review proceedings brought by the Applicant in HCAL 201/2016 relating to the validity of the Chief Executive Oath taken by the former Chief Executive was generally a matter to be decided by the Secretary for Justice. On the other hand, it is plain that the Secretary for Justice was under no duty, nor would it have been appropriate for the Secretary for Justice, to provide legal assistance or representation to the six members-elect of the Legislative Council in legal proceedings initiated by (inter alia) the Secretary for Justice himself relating to the validity of the respective Legislative Council Oath taken by them. Subject to meeting the relevant criteria for legal aid, the six members-elect might be entitled to legal assistance or representation provided by the Director of Legal Aid in those proceedings. No proper ground has been disclosed in the Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review dated 21 August 2017 which would justify the court granting any relief by way of judicial review in the present case. Further, the Applicant has no sufficient interest in relation to the matter of legal assistance or representation for the six members-elect of the Legislative Council.

Dated the 24^th day of January 2018.

	(Sunny Ng)
	for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or his solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted(Order 53, rule 4A);	Sent/Handed to the Applicant/ the Applicant’s solicitors on 25/01/2018 郭卓堅 The Applicant	Sent/Handed to the Putative Respondent/ the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 25/01/2018
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and		律政司司長袁國強 The Putative Respondent
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Kwok Cheuk Kin v. Leung Chun Ying

HCAL 201/2016

High Court CFI10 May 2017