Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice
| Leung TC William Roy v. Secretary for Justice |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | Leung TC William Roy v. Secretary for Justice |
| Decided | 20 September 2006 |
| Citation(s) | [2005] 3 HKLRD 657 (CFI), [2006] 4 HKLRD 211 (CA) |
| Transcript(s) |
Text of Judgement, Court of First Instance Text of Judgement, Court of Appeal |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Chief justice Geoffrey Ma Vice-President K H Woo Justice Appeal Robert Tang |
Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice (Chinese: 《梁威廉訴律政司司長》 ) is a leading Hong Kong High Court judicial review case on the equal protection on sexual orientation and the law of standing in Hong Kong. Particularly, the Court sets up a precedent case prohibiting unjustified differential treatments based upon one's sexual orientation.
Prior to this case, the age of consent for homosexual men was 21 but not for heterosexual or lesbian couples, which was 16. Any gay man engaging in buggery with another man under 21 could be sentenced to life imprisonment, based on the provisions contained in the Crimes Ordinance. In 2004, Mr Leung, the applicant, a 20-year-old gay man, applied for leave for judicial review without being arrested or prosecuted. In his application, Mr Leung complained that the Crimes Ordinance discriminated against him based upon his sexual orientation and interfered with his private life by forbidding him to give physical expression to other gay men and, thus, making him unable to develop long-lasting relationships. The consequences were low self-esteem, loneliness, and sense of marginalisation. (Court of First Instance, para. 6)
During the proceedings, Mr Leung challenged four provisions in the Crimes Ordinance infringing his constitutional rights to equality and privacy. After hearing the oral argument in July 2005, the Court of First Instance of the High Court handed down the judgment a month later. Mr Justice Hartmann ruled in favour of the applicant and struck down all four sections of the Crime Ordinance violating the guaranteed legal protections for equality and privacy.
Immediately afterwards, the local religious groups gasped and condemned the result and demanded the Government to appeal. In September 2005, the Government declared its plan to appeal. The hearings for appeal took place in July of the following year. On 20 September 2006, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment and unanimously dismissed the case. The Government accepted the reasoning of the Court and did not appeal further.
...
Wikipedia