UBAMAKA EDWARD WILSON v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

UBAMAKA EDWARD WILSON v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

s.11 of HKBORO is constitutionally valid but must be construed in light of s.5 so that non-derogable and absolute rights under BOR Art 3 are not displaced by s.11; BOR Art 11(6) double jeopardy protection does not avail the appellant (s.11 excludes it and it is territorial); on the facts appellant failed to establish the minimum severity and real/substantial risk required for Art 3 protection so the deportation order stands; appeal dismissed.

Citation
UBAMAKA EDWARD WILSON v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant (appellant): UBAMAKA EDWARD WILSON; 1st Respondent: Secretary for Security; 2nd Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Case Number
FACV15/2011
Procedural Posture
Final Appeal (civil) / Final Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 11 HKBORO Interpretation, Non Derogable and Absolute Rights, Refoulement, Double Jeopardy, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Public International Law Section 11 HKBORO Interpretation Non Derogable and Absolute Rights Refoulement +2 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UBAMAKA EDWARD WILSON

Applicant (appellant)

Secretary for Security

1st Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Appeal (civil) / Final Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is HKBORO s.11 constitutionally valid and what is its scope?
  2. 2 Whether s.11 displaces reliance on Bill of Rights Art 3 (prohibition of torture/CIDTP) in immigration cases
  3. 3 Whether BOR Art 11(6) protection against double jeopardy applies transnationally to bar deportation

Ratio Decidendi

s.11 of HKBORO is constitutionally valid but must be construed in light of s.5 so that non-derogable and absolute rights under BOR Art 3 are not displaced by s.11; BOR Art 11(6) double jeopardy protection does not avail the appellant (s.11 excludes it and it is territorial); on the facts appellant failed to establish the minimum severity and real/substantial risk required for Art 3 protection so the deportation order stands; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi: no order as to costs; parties to lodge written submissions on costs within 14 days; in default the order nisi shall stand as an absolute order