Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration
| Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong |
| Full case name | Lau Kong Yung, an infant, suing by his father and next friend Lau Yi To and 16 others v. Director of Immigration |
| Decided | 1999-12-03 |
| Citation(s) | [1999] 3 HKLRD 778, [1999] 4 HKC 731 |
| Transcript(s) | FACV 10/1999 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) |
Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration, HCAL 20/1999, [1999] 2 HKLRD 58 Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration, CACV 108–109/1999, [1999] 2 HKLRD 516 |
Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration was a 1999 right of abode case in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal following closely on the heels of the landmark Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration decision earlier that year. After Ng and the two prior actions in Lau, but before the case came before the CFA, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of the People's Republic of China issued an interpretation of the Basic Law which affected the rights of Lau and his fellow applicants. Lau thus became the first case in which the CFA had to take into account an NPCSC interpretation in applying the Basic Law.
Lau Kong Yung (劉港榕) and his 16 fellow applicants were mainland Chinese-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents and on that basis claimed to be entitled to the right of abode. The Director of Immigration made removal orders against them on the grounds that they had arrived in Hong Kong on two-way permits and subsequently breached their limits of stay, and did not hold certificates of entitlement to demonstrate their right of abode (which would include the right not to be subject to a removal order). They sued the Director in the Court of First Instance to quash the removal orders, stating that the Director had acted unlawfully in refusing to consider other evidence that they had the right of abode.
Mr Justice Wally Yeung of the CFI ruled for the Director on 30 March 1999. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the CFI on 11 June 1999. Then, on 26 June 1999, the NPCSC responded to a request of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and issued an interpretation of BL 24(2)(3) which effectively overturned the CFA's decision in Ng. The Director of Immigration, represented by Geoffrey Ma (later to become chief justice), then appealed the CA's decision in Lau to the CFA. The short-term effect of the NPCSC interpretation was that Lau and his 16 fellow applicants were found not entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong at that time; the more far-reaching effect was that the CFA ruled that the NPCSC's exercise of interpretation power was not dependent upon referral by the judiciary.
...
Wikipedia