Prem Singh v. Director of Immigration
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 3/2002 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 16 May 2002 before Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ.
1. The question of whether the applicant should be treated as having applied on the 24 October 1998 for Hong Kong permanent resident status is a question worthy of the Court of Final Appeal's consideration. That raises the question of the constitutionality of para. 1(5)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance, and it is common ground that that question is an arguable constitutional question.
Legal issues: Constitutionality of paragraph 1(5)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance · Imprisonment argument
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted to the Court of Final Appeal on the question of the constitutionality of paragraph 1(5)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance and on the imprisonment argument.
|
FAMV000003/2002 FAMV No. 3 of 2002 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3 OF 2002 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL _____________________
_____________________ Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ Date of Hearing: 16 May 2002 Date of Determination: 16 May 2002 ____________________________ DETERMINATION ____________________________ Mr Justice Bokhary PJ: 1.The question of whether the applicant should be treated as having applied on the 24 October 1998 for Hong Kong permanent resident status is a question worthy of the Court of Final Appeal's consideration. That raises the question of the constitutionality of para. 1(5)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance, and it is common ground that that question is an arguable constitutional question. 2.Turning to the question of imprisonment, a number of sub-questions may be said to arise. These are: (1) does de minimis apply? (2) if so, is two weeks de minimis? (3) failing (1) and/or (2), must the imprisonment be substantial? and (4) if so, is two weeks substantial in this context? 3.The broad question of imprisonment has to be considered by the Court of Final Appeal, and we do not by identifying those sub-questions mean to confine the way in which the broad question is to be approached. We merely state them to give some indication of the nature of the question and the arguments thereon as foreshadowed in the course of this leave application. 4.In the result, we grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the question of the constitutionality or otherwise of para. 1(5)(b) and on the imprisonment argument.
Representation: Ms Audrey Eu SC and Mr Kwok Sui Hay (instructed by Messrs Barnes & Daly and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the applicant Mr Joseph Fok SC and Mr Daniel HT Wan (instructed by the Department of Justice) for the respondent |