Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Registration of persons

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2023

Q v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 4
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2022

The Court held the Commissioner’s Policy requiring completion of full SRS as a necessary condition to amend HKID gender markers unjustifiably and disproportionately infringes BOR 14 privacy rights; full SRS is not the only workable, objective or necessary criterion, the claimed administrative and reversibility justifications fail, and the Policy places an unacceptable burden on individuals, thus the Policy and the Commissioner’s refusals were unconstitutional and were quashed.
26 Jan 2022

TSE HENRY EDWARD v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION

Citation

[2022] HKCA 172
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV184/2019

The Court held the Policy is lawful: in the statutory registration context the Policy pursues a legitimate aim and full SRS is a rational, objective, irreversible and proportionate criterion (satisfying the no-more-than-necessary scrutiny) to ensure correctness of identity card particulars; the Policy strikes a reasonable balance between public interests and applicants' privacy rights under BOR 14; BOR 3 is not engaged because the Policy does not inflict treatment reaching the high severity threshold nor vitiate voluntary informed consent; and the indirect discrimination claim under SDO s5(1)…
12 May 2021

SHAHZADI ANEELA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1344
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1585/2020

The applicant's limit of stay expired on 4 July 2015 and her presence from 5 July 2015 until the grant of fresh permission on 1 November 2017 was without right or permission; such presence cannot constitute ordinary residence under s 2(4)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Ordinance, therefore the Director's, Commissioner's and ROPT's decisions rejecting entitlement to permanent residence were legally correct and the leave application is not reasonably arguable.
4 Mar 2015

COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL11/2013

The court allowed judicial review on grounds 1–3, holding that the Tribunal erred in law by treating the Old HKPIC as prima facie evidence of entitlement under the post‑1997 statutory regime, by disapplying Article 5 of the Chinese Nationality Law without an evidential or legal basis under Article 17, and by wrongly allocating the burden to the Commissioner to prove parents were 'settled' abroad. The Tribunal's Decision was quashed and the appeal remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.
12 Jun 2014

CHEUNG KIN HO AND OTHERS v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL

Citation

CHEUNG KIN HO AND OTHERS v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2/2014

Leave was refused because the legitimate expectation argued by applicants was not reasonably arguable: the expectation would require the decision‑maker to act contrary to the clear statutory prohibition in s 2(4)(a)(i) of the Immigration Ordinance, and the subsidiary regulations cited (reg 3D(1) and reg 5(1A)) do not empower the registration officer to validate or issue HKPICs to persons who do not have the right of abode.
22 Jun 2007

SOMPORN YOOTHIP v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

SOMPORN YOOTHIP v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV276/2006

Where materials before a registration officer (including answers on ROP1) disclose potential eligibility for permanent resident status the registration officer has a duty to refer the matter to the Director for verification; failure to give clear direction to a person appearing prima facie eligible is a breach of the duty to act fairly and justifies judicial intervention and the remedial orders granted by the court.
13 May 2005

HKSAR v. BODOMO, MARISSA FLORES

Citation

HKSAR v. BODOMO, MARISSA FLORES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA343/2005

For making false representations to immigration officers where no forged travel document is involved (notably where the accused held valid travel documents and was a foreign domestic helper), the appropriate starting point is 6 months and an appropriate sentence after plea is 4 months; the magistrate erred in adopting a higher starting point derived from forged‑document authorities but, applying totality, the effective sentence is adjusted by substituting concurrent and consecutive terms to produce an 8‑month total.
20 Dec 1999

COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL95/1999

The Tribunal was wrong as a matter of law to treat periods of unlawful presence as counting towards 'ordinary residence'; lawful ordinary residence began only when the Director's authority to stay was in effect (5 January 1976), and therefore the respondent did not satisfy the statutory seven years' continuous ordinary residence and was not entitled to a Hong Kong permanent identity card.
20 Oct 1995

THE QUEEN v. DENNIS LAI ALIAS DANNY LI ALIAS LAI TAK-MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. DENNIS LAI ALIAS DANNY LI ALIAS LAI TAK-MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA184/1995

The court held that the appellant committed the offence because the registration from 1970 remained effective notwithstanding invalidation of the physical card, the 1992 applications were second applications made with the intention to obtain distinct identity cards with different particulars, and the claimed mistake or excuse was unreasonable; accordingly the convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
21 Mar 1991

HAROLD ALBERT NORCROSS v. REGISTRAR OF THE SUPERME COURT

Citation

HAROLD ALBERT NORCROSS v. REGISTRAR OF THE SUPERME COURT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3606/1990

Applicant is resident within the meaning of s.4 of the Jury Ordinance despite not being exclusively resident; the Registrar was correct to refuse removal under s.12, but the Court has power under s.28(1)(b) to grant general exemption where jury service would cause inordinate inconvenience — on the facts the applicant's pattern of residence and travel constituted such cause, so general exemption and removal from the common jurors list are warranted.