HKSAR v. Pasa Danaville Dizon

HCMA 54/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA 54 OF 2010

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 6855/2009)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

1.The Applicant seeks a certificate to refer to the Court of Final Appeal three matters which are suggested to raise points of law of great and general importance.

2.The three questions are in the following terms:

(1)     Whether Section 71(1)(d) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance applies to a decision by an immigration officer made under Section 11 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 for a visitor to leave Hong Kong on or before a certain date which is not longer than 6 days after the decision.

(2)     Whether Section 11 of the Immigration Ordinance evinces a contrary intention sufficient to dis-apply Section 71(1) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.

(3)     Whether the powers under Section 11 of the Immigration Ordinance would be rendered nugatory were a decision under that section to be subject to Section 71(1) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.

3.This application arises as a result of the fact that I dismissed the applicant’s appeal yesterday against her earlier conviction by a Magistrate.  She was convicted of an offence of breach of condition of stay, contrary to s. 41 of the Immigration Ordinance.  The applicant indicated simply today that she relies on her Notice of Motion which she filed yesterday.

4.None of the questions asked, gives rise to a point of law which is of great or of general importance, or of great and general importance as required by s. 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484.

5.I consequently decline to certify any of the questions.

6.I direct that papers in this matter, in case no. HCMA 1019 of 2009 and in HCZZ 48 of 2009, be referred to the Department of Justice, to enable them to consider the conduct of Mr Bullen who appears to have been the adviser to each of the persons involved in all of those actions.

Ms Anthony Chau, SPP of DOJ, for the Respondent

The Appellant, in person