Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freedom of assembly

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴潘連花

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3517
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA264/2022

Given the nature, location and manner of display (four large banners fixed on roadside railings at the Chief Executive's Office area), the duration (about two hours present and active display) and conduct (intentional fixing, remaining and purposeful visibility), the display met the PHR requirement under s.104A(1)(b); FEHD were lawfully exercising removal powers under s.104C once a s.104A breach was established; the appellant was given warnings and nonetheless forcibly resisted for an extended period, thereby wilfully obstructing public officers — convictions for both offences are supported b…
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. LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄) (D4)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2024

The Court declined to follow Ziegler and Abortion Services; it held Hong Kong’s established framework requires rule or decision challenges assessed by the Hysan proportionality inquiry and that no separate operational proportionality assessment of arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence is required where the law and any challenged decision are constitutionally secure; the appellants’ novel proposition failed and the appeals were 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.
12 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. NG NGOI YEE MARGARET (吳靄儀) (D3)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC2/2024

The Court refused to follow Ziegler and Abortion Services for Hong Kong purposes and held that the established Hong Kong framework governs constitutional challenges: courts assess rule and/or decision challenges using the Hysan proportionality test; there is no separate requirement to conduct an "operational proportionality" assessment for arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence where the impugned law and any decision to object/enforce are constitutionally valid; the 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. LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄) (D4)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 4
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC27/2023

Leave to appeal was granted solely on the certified question concerning whether the court should assess operational proportionality before convicting (to specified defendants); all other leave applications were refused as not reasonably arguable, including the HKSAR's attempt to reinstate organising convictions, dispersal-based defences, systemic proportionality challenge to s17A(3), and D4's SGI sentence appeal.
5 Mar 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 4
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC28/2023

Leave to appeal was granted only on the certified question concerning whether the Court should assess operational proportionality before conviction (for specified applicants); all other leave applications including the HKSAR's attempt to reinstate 'organizing' convictions, dispersal/other defenses, systemic proportionality challenges and D4's sentence appeal were refused as not reasonably arguable or not meeting the substantial and grave injustice threshold.
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…