Ng Siu Tung and Others v. The Director of Immigration

FACV No. 1 of 2001

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2001 (CIVIL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 415 OF 2000)

_________________

Between

____________________

Court: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ

Date of Hearing: 17 November 2005

Date of Judgment: 13 February 2006

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ:

1.In light of the letter dated 11 January 2006 from Messrs Barnes & Daly to the Court after the handing down of our judgment on 5 January 2006, it is necessary to deal further with the position of Applicant 3983, Mr Wu Chun Choi.  The parties are agreed that this can be done on the written submissions already before the Court and without any further submissions.

2.Mr Wu alleged that he had made a claim for right of abode in a letter which he said he had posted on 13 June 1998 to the Immigration Department addressed to “Mr Ambrose Lee”.  A copy of that letter was produced to substantiate his allegations.  On the other hand, the Director had no record of such a letter.  However, it is clear from paragraphs 684 to 710 of Hartmann J’s Report that the judge rejected the evidence of Mr Wu and that of his younger brother holding that Mr Wu’s case was highly contrived, and adding that “In the light of all the evidence, I am satisfied that its artifice was an invention, a fairly thorough invention but an invention nevertheless.”  As an example of invention, the judge pointed out in particular that contrary to what was alleged by Mr Wu, the addressee of his letter “Mr Ambrose Lee” was not even the Director at the relevant time. 

3.The judge had carefully considered the evidence adduced by Mr Wu.  There is nothing to show that the judge was wrong in assessing the evidence or had misdirected himself in reaching his conclusion.  There is no justification in interfering with his finding that Mr Wu had not made any claim and that the Director has no record of any claim.  These are the reasons why Mr Wu’s appeal has to be dismissed.

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

4.I have nothing to add to what I said on 5 January 2006.

Ms Gladys Li SC, Mr Kwok Sui Hay and Mr Sean H J Fang (instructed by Messrs Barnes & Daly and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the applicants/appellants

Mr Joseph Fok SC and Mr Daniel Wan (instructed by the Department of Justice) for the respondent

Applicant 720, Cheung Shuk Ching, in person, absent

Applicant 1922, Lau Kiu Fan, in person, absent

Applicant 3382, Tsoi Chak Kong, in person, absent

Applicant 3822, Wong Siu Ching, in person, absent