Read the full judgment text of FACV 000020/2000 on BabelCite. This FACV judgment was delivered on 20 July 2001 before Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ.
Constitutional law – Basic Law – interpretation – right of abode – permanent residents – art. 24(2)(3) – adopted children – whether Chinese citizens born outside Hong Kong and adopted by Hong Kong permanent residents under Mainland law are within art. 24(2)(3) – NPC Standing Committee Interpretation of arts 22(4) and 24(2)(3) adopted 26 June 1999 – time of birth requirement – Hong Kong Bill of Rights art. 19(1) – ICCPR – family unity – Adoption Ordinance, Cap. 290 – effect of overseas adoption – whether the Interpretation contains an interpretation of art. 24(2)(3) in relation to adopted children – whether art. 24(2)(3) is an excluded provision under art. 158(3) requiring judicial reference to the Standing Committee – proper interpretation of art. 24(2)(3) in relation to adopted children – whether language 'born ... of' is ambiguous – Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 Schedule 1 para. 1(2)(c) – counsel: Ms Gladys Li SC and Ms Margaret Ng for appellants in FACV 20 of 2000; Mr Patrick Szeto for appellant in FACV 21 of 2000; Mr Joseph Fok SC and Mr Jat Sew-tong for the respondent – Held, by majority (Bokhary PJ dissenting), dismissing the appeals with no order as to costs: the Interpretation did not address adopted children and contains no implication as to their status – art. 24(2)(3) is not an excluded provision under art. 158(3) and no judicial reference to the Standing Committee is required – the phrase 'born ... of' refers only to natural parent and child relationship and is incapable of sustaining an interpretation that includes adopted children – the time of birth requirement reinforces this conclusion – art. 19(1) of the Bill of Rights and the Adoption Ordinance are part of the context but do not override the clear natural meaning of the language – order for taxation of appellants' costs under the Legal Aid Ordinance and Regulations.
Legal issues: Whether the NPC Standing Committee Interpretation interprets art. 24(2)(3) in relation to adopted children · Whether art. 24(2)(3) is an excluded provision under art. 158(3) requiring a judicial reference · Proper interpretation of art. 24(2)(3) in relation to adopted children
Outcome: Appeals dismissed by majority (Mr Justice Bokhary PJ dissenting); the Court of Appeal's decision in favour of the Director of Immigration is upheld.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case