LAI CHEE YING v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

LAI CHEE YING v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

On ordinary and contextual statutory construction, "specified evidence" in section 1 of Schedule 1 of the Implementation Rules is wide enough to include journalistic material; IGCO Part XII does not automatically apply to the Implementation Rules; magistrates may consider JM in exercising discretion and the magistrate who issued the 2022 Warrant lawfully authorized search and seizure; the judicial review challenge was without realistic prospect of success and leave is refused.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2688
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Lai Chee-Ying; Defendant/putative Respondent: Commissioner of Police
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2022
Case Number
HCMP1218/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (hcal 738/2022) With Ancillary Summons for Directions (hcmp 1218/2020) / Heard on Rolled Up Leave and Substantive JR Application Together With Adjourned Summons; Judgment Refusing Leave and Granting Directions
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; 2022 search warrant remains valid and executable; directions granted to give effect to warrant
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Journalistic Material, Implementation Rules for NSL Article 43, Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance Part XII, Public Interest Immunity, Legal Professional Privilege, Statutory Interpretation, Magistrate Discretion, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
National Security Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Media Law Search Warrants Journalistic Material +8 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lai Chee-Ying

Plaintiff/applicant

Commissioner of Police

Defendant/putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (hcal 738/2022) With Ancillary Summons for Directions (hcmp 1218/2020) / Heard on Rolled Up Leave and Substantive JR Application Together With Adjourned Summons; Judgment Refusing Leave and Granting Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase "specified evidence" in section 1 of Schedule 1 of the NSL Implementation Rules excludes journalistic material (JM)
  2. 2 Whether a magistrate under Schedule 1 has jurisdiction to authorize search and seizure of JM or must be replaced by Part XII IGCO procedures
  3. 3 Whether the principle of legality or need for express wording requires reading IGCO safeguards into the Implementation Rules

Ratio Decidendi

On ordinary and contextual statutory construction, "specified evidence" in section 1 of Schedule 1 of the Implementation Rules is wide enough to include journalistic material; IGCO Part XII does not automatically apply to the Implementation Rules; magistrates may consider JM in exercising discretion and the magistrate who issued the 2022 Warrant lawfully authorized search and seizure; the judicial review challenge was without realistic prospect of success and leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; 2022 search warrant remains valid and executable; directions granted to give effect to warrant

Orders

  • Order in terms of paragraph 1 of the 21 July 2022 summons granting directions to make Digital Contents available to the Police (excluding materials subject to legal professional privilege)
  • Protocol relating to journalistic material claims dispensed with