HKSAR v . WAN THOMAS AND OTHERS

HKSAR v . WAN THOMAS AND OTHERS

Although the questions raised were of great and general importance, the appellants failed to show that those points were reasonably arguable; the court applied the proportionality test and concluded the appellants' submissions were rejected on the merits and therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.

Citation
HKSAR v . WAN THOMAS AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Appellant: WAN THOMAS; 2nd Appellant: GUAN QIAOYONG; 4th Appellant: DENG ZHIHONG; 5th Appellant: POON TING-KEI; Respondent: HKSAR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2017
Case Number
HCMA700/2013
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (magistracy Appeal No 700 of 2013; on Appeal From KTCC 2097 of 2013) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under Section 32(2) of Cap 484 (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Prison Rules Cap 234 a, Visitation Rights, Meaning of "visitors" and "friends", Proportionality Test, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 6(2)(a) and 14, Leave to Appeal to CFA
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Prison Law Administrative Law Human Rights Prison Rules Cap 234 a Visitation Rights Meaning of "visitors" and "friends" +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAN THOMAS

1st Appellant

GUAN QIAOYONG

2nd Appellant

DENG ZHIHONG

4th Appellant

POON TING-KEI

5th Appellant

HKSAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (magistracy Appeal No 700 of 2013; on Appeal From KTCC 2097 of 2013) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under Section 32(2) of Cap 484 (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning of "visitors" in the Prison Rules Cap 234A?
  2. 2 Whether "friends" in Rule 203/Rule 48 means "personal friends"
  3. 3 Whether Rule 203 is compatible with article 6(2)(a) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights

Ratio Decidendi

Although the questions raised were of great and general importance, the appellants failed to show that those points were reasonably arguable; the court applied the proportionality test and concluded the appellants' submissions were rejected on the merits and therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused

Orders

  • Notices of Motion dated 24 October 2016 dismissed
  • No leave granted to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal