Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discrimination based on sexual orientation

Legal area

Court

25 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. YEUNG HO NAM

Citation

[2019] HKCA 384
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC361/2018

Section 118C as worded discriminated against male homosexuals and was read down by the court to align maximum penalties with section 124 (life where victim under 13; 5 years where victim aged 13–15). Sentencing for s118C must be gender-neutral and follow existing sentencing principles for underage sexual offences. On the facts (consensual liaison, victim an instigator involved in compensated dating, use of condoms, no grooming or injury, genuine remorse) the appropriate starting point was 12 months per count, reduced by one-third for plea to 8 months per count with 2 months of the second coun…
19 Oct 2017

LEUNG CHUN KWONG v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG CHUN KWONG v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL258/2015

The Benefits Decision unlawfully discriminated against the applicant based on sexual orientation; the appropriate relief is declarations in precise terms identifying the discrimination and entitling the applicant and Mr Scott Paul Adams to the benefits provided to married civil servants of the same employment terms, and an order of mandamus is unnecessary because the declaration provides the required practical effect; costs for the dispute over the form of order are awarded against the applicant.
8 May 2008

CHO MAN KIT v. BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

Citation

CHO MAN KIT v. BROADCASTING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL69/2007

The court quashed the Authority's determination insofar as it found the RTHK programme breached impartiality because that finding rested on a misinterpretation of the code and was materially influenced by discriminatory reasoning targeting homosexuality; the court upheld that the Authority's conclusion that the programme was unsuitable for family viewing hours was lawfully open to it; the Authority acted pursuant to the memorandum of understanding (not ultra vires) and it was wrong to assert it was functus and incapable of revisiting its determinations.
20 Sept 2006

LEUNG T C WILLIAM ROY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

LEUNG T C WILLIAM ROY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV317/2005

The Court of Appeal held that it had discretion to entertain an otherwise hypothetical constitutional challenge where exceptional circumstances and sufficient interest existed; section 118C of the Crimes Ordinance (buggery with/by man under 21) discriminated against homosexual men by denying them the only form of sexual intercourse available to them until age 21 and no adequate justification was demonstrated under the proportionality test, so section 118C is inconsistent with the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and is unconstitutional.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. YEUNG HO NAM

LEUNG CHUN KWONG v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTHER

CHO MAN KIT v. BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

LEUNG T C WILLIAM ROY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE