CHEE FEE MING v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AND ANOTHER
Section 104A(1)(b), as applied to banners displayed with a degree of permanence and habitual regularity at demonstrators' sites, failed the 'prescribed by law' requirement because the statute contains no criteria or accessible legal guidance limiting the Director's discretion and thus did not afford adequate protection against arbitrary interference with freedoms of expression, assembly and demonstration; accordingly decisions taken under s104C(1) premised on s104A were quashed. The proportionality challenge was not decided on the merits given evidential gaps and the successful legal certainty ground.
- Citation
- [2018] HKCFI 2031
- Parties
- Applicant: Chee Fee Ming (substituted by Pun Lin Fa); Applicant: Hung Shui Fung; 1st Respondent: Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene; 2nd Respondent: Secretary for Justice; Interested Party: Lands Department
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 31 August 2018
- Case Number
- HCAL73/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review — Constitutional and Administrative Law (conjoined HCAL 73/2013 & HCAL 110/2013) / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review Following Court of Appeal Leave on Limited Grounds
- Outcome
- Judgment for applicants on legal certainty ground; challenged enforcement decisions quashed
- Legal Topics
- Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Demonstration, Statutory Interpretation, Legal Certainty (prescribed by Law), Prior Restraint, Content Screening, Delegation of Powers, Administrative Guidance (management Scheme)
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chee Fee Ming (substituted by Pun Lin Fa)
Applicant
Hung Shui Fung
Applicant
Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene
1st Respondent
Secretary for Justice
2nd Respondent
Lands Department
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Constitutional and Administrative Law (conjoined HCAL 73/2013 & HCAL 110/2013) / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review Following Court of Appeal Leave on Limited Grounds
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s104A(1)(b) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance is 'prescribed by law' (legal certainty) as applied to demonstrators' banners
- 2 Whether the statutory scheme permits impermissibly unfettered content‑based discretion in granting or refusing permission under s104A
- 3 Whether prior approval requirement in s104A is disproportionate (proportionality) — limited by scope of leave
Ratio Decidendi
Section 104A(1)(b), as applied to banners displayed with a degree of permanence and habitual regularity at demonstrators' sites, failed the 'prescribed by law' requirement because the statute contains no criteria or accessible legal guidance limiting the Director's discretion and thus did not afford adequate protection against arbitrary interference with freedoms of expression, assembly and demonstration; accordingly decisions taken under s104C(1) premised on s104A were quashed. The proportionality challenge was not decided on the merits given evidential gaps and the successful legal certainty ground.
Court Disposition
Judgment for applicants on legal certainty ground; challenged enforcement decisions quashed
Orders
- Certiorari to quash the Decisions taken under s104C(1) to remove and confiscate banners, placards and portable frames from the applicants' demonstration sites
- Order nisi that the respondents pay the applicants' costs with a certificate for two counsel and that the applicants' own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment