Read the full judgment text of CACV 145/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 April 1994 before Nazareth JA, Mortimer JA, Godfrey JA.
Immigration – judicial review – leave to apply for judicial review of removal orders – illegal immigrants from China – close family members in Hong Kong with right of abode – whether s.11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance precludes family members from invoking their rights under the Bill to challenge removal decisions – construction of s.11 BORO – plain and ordinary meaning rule – statute not ambiguous – extrinsic aids (ICCPR, Siracusa Principles) not admissible – section 11 is a general limitation following the UK reservation to the ICCPR – absurdity of allowing less affected family members to invoke Bill when the person most affected cannot – international immigration pressures context – family rights under Bill not absolute – Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Lee Kwong-Kut [1993] AC 951 followed – Chan Heung Mui v. Director of Immigration, CA 168/1992 cited – Immigration Ordinance Cap.115 ss.13, 19, 53(a) – Hong Kong Letters Patent 1991 (No.2) – leave to Rhind J and Jones J refusing judicial review upheld – both appeals dismissed – renewed call for legislative amendment of the Immigration Ordinance to provide a limited right of appeal in exceptional humanitarian cases.
Legal issues: Construction of s.11 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and its effect on family members · Effect of the Bill of Rights absent s.11 on family separation
Outcome: Both appeals dismissed.