Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public order ordinance

Legal area

Court

12 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. LEE CHEUK YAN (李卓人) (D2), HO SAU LAN CYD (何秀蘭) (D5)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC5/2024

Where a law is constitutionally valid and no successful decision challenge to an official action underpinning enforcement is raised, courts in Hong Kong are not required to conduct separate "operational proportionality" assessments of arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence; Ziegler and Abortion Services are not followed to the extent they conflict with Hong Kong's rule/decision challenge framework and remedial regime; appeals dismissed.
12 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. HO CHUN YAN (何俊仁) (D6), LEE CHU MING MARTIN (李柱銘) (D8)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC3/2024

The Court refused to follow Ziegler and Abortion Services; operational proportionality does not mandate separate proportionality assessments of arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence once rule and decision challenges are resolved; constitutional proportionality operates via the established rule/decision framework (Hysan four‑step) and does not permit a collateral after‑the‑event proportionality veto to acquit where offences under constitutionally valid laws are proved; appeals dismissed.
12 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING (黎智英) (D1)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2024

The Court held that Hong Kong should not follow Ziegler or Abortion Services; constitutional challenges must proceed via established rule/decision challenge stages applying the Hysan proportionality test; there is no freestanding requirement to conduct separate operational proportionality assessments of arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence where the underlying law and decisions are constitutionally secure; the defendants' appeals are dismissed.
5 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING (黎智英) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 4
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC24/2023

Leave to appeal was granted only in respect of the certified question(s) concerning whether and in what circumstances the court should carry out an operational proportionality assessment under s17A(3)(a); the HKSAR's attempt to re‑characterise leading a procession as 'organizing' was not reasonably arguable because Flockhart is fact‑specific and 'organize' must be determined on the facts; factual findings that the conduct was a prohibited procession (not a dispersal) were compelling and not reasonably arguable to overturn; systemic proportionality and SGI grounds were refused and D4's sentenc…
5 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. LEE CHEUK YAN (李卓人) (D2), HO SAU LAN CYD (何秀蘭) (D5)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 4
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC25/2023

Leave was granted only on the certified question concerning whether and in what circumstances the Court should conduct an operational proportionality assessment in cases under s17A(3)(a); all other leave applications were refused because (a) Flockhart was factually distinguishable and does not provide a general definition of 'organize'; (b) the trial judge's and Court of Appeal's factual findings that the defendants led and knowingly participated in a prohibited procession were overwhelming and not reasonably arguable; and (c) a systemic proportionality challenge to s17A(3) lacked merit given…
4 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. AU NOK HIN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1137
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC84/2021

Bail pending appeal was refused because the court was not satisfied the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive; the sentencing judge lawfully applied relevant principles including premeditation, scale of disruption, deterrence and contextual latent risk of violence, and Ziegler proportionality factors did not overturn that assessment.
14 Feb 2020

CHEUNG TAK WING v. DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCA 124
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV577/2018

The Court held that the Permission Scheme was prescribed by law and, when assessed against the proportionality test (legitimate aims, rational connection, necessity and fair balance), was no more than reasonably necessary to protect the security and normal operation of the Central Government Offices; the Director did not commit an error of law by formulating the scheme on the basis of proprietary management; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the judicial review dismissed.
16 Jul 2012

“T” v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

“T” v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL102/2011

The court held that the PPEO, properly construed, can apply to open unenclosed public spaces and to political demonstrations that include activities falling within Schedule 1; the licensing requirement is prescribed by law, rationally connected to legitimate aims of public safety and order and is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society, therefore the constitutional challenge to the PPEO fails and the judicial review is dismissed.
6 Jan 2005

LEUNG KWOK HUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

LEUNG KWOK HUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC60/2004

The Court granted leave because the certified questions reduce to a single question—whether the Public Order Ordinance's scheme for notification and control of public processions is constitutional—and that question is of great and general importance warranting the Court of Final Appeal's consideration.
25 Jul 1997

HKSAR v. YANG YOU CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. YANG YOU CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA307/1997

The magistrate accepted credible evidence that a sizable crowd was gathered, the road was blocked, emotions ran high and inciting language was used, creating a real likelihood of breach of the peace; that finding made the arrest lawful and the subsequent convictions for assaulting police acting in the execution of their duties were properly supported by the evidence, so the appeal was dismissed.