STEWART MARCUS JONATHAN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

STEWART MARCUS JONATHAN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Leave to apply for judicial review granted solely on the arguable point that the interaction of s11 of the BORO, BOR 19 and s2AAA of the Immigration Ordinance may require a proportionality assessment of interference with family life when considering a deportation order; all other grounds were not reasonably arguable and are refused.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 595
Parties
Applicant: Stewart Marcus Jonathan; 1st Putative Respondent: Secretary for Security; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 February 2025
Case Number
HCAL256/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Constitutional and Administrative Law / Leave Application Decided; Directions for Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Grant of leave to apply for judicial review limited to the ground concerning interaction of s11 BORO, BOR 19 and s2AAA; otherwise leave refused; directions for substantive hearing and appointment of amicus curiae; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Deportation Order, Right to Land, Right of Abode, Proportionality, Family Life (bor 19), Judicial Review Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Deportation Order Right to Land Right of Abode Proportionality Family Life (bor 19) +1 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stewart Marcus Jonathan

Applicant

Secretary for Security

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Constitutional and Administrative Law / Leave Application Decided; Directions for Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Deportation Order under Immigration Ordinance s20(1)(a) was lawfully made against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, having right to land under s2AAA, can rely on Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 19 given s11 of the BORO
  3. 3 Whether the decision-maker was required to perform a proportionality analysis balancing family life rights against public interest in deportation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review granted solely on the arguable point that the interaction of s11 of the BORO, BOR 19 and s2AAA of the Immigration Ordinance may require a proportionality assessment of interference with family life when considering a deportation order; all other grounds were not reasonably arguable and are refused.

Court Disposition

Grant of leave to apply for judicial review limited to the ground concerning interaction of s11 BORO, BOR 19 and s2AAA; otherwise leave refused; directions for substantive hearing and appointment of amicus curiae; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Respondents to file evidence in opposition by 28 February 2025
  • Applicant to file evidence in reply, if any, by 21 March 2025