Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Human trafficking

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2023

DANG THI MAI THI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 779
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1417/2022

The Board properly accepted the applicant's evidence but lawfully concluded that state protection or internal relocation would avoid the alleged risk; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
10 Jan 2020

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE & 3 OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 53
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/2019

BOR4 does not, on its language and context, prohibit human trafficking generally for exploitation nor does BOR4(3)(a) prohibit trafficking for forced or compulsory labour; BOR4 may cover trafficking for slavery only insofar as traditional concept of slave-trade is engaged, but the separate prohibitions of servitude and forced labour must remain distinct; HKSARG has a positive obligation to provide practical and effective protection under BOR4 but enjoys a wide margin of discretion as to measures and is not under an absolute duty to enact bespoke criminal offences for forced labour or traffick…
8 Jul 2019

RE MASRUROH IMAS ALAM ZAINEB MAHIR

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1582
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL337/2018

The court applied the settled rule that refusal to extend time for judicial review is interlocutory and appellate intervention requires identification of a legal error, reliance on irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters, or that the decision was plainly wrong; absent such a showing the discretionary refusal should not be disturbed.
2 May 2018

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 255
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV14/2017

Application to intervene by Share (Asia Pacific) Limited refused because the proposed intervener would not materially assist the Court: the applicant had already adduced expert evidence and advanced legal submissions covering the relevant issues, SAPL would largely repeat existing arguments and add no substantive new evidence or legal approach sufficient to justify intervention, and intervention would therefore be unhelpful and potentially prejudicial.
23 Dec 2016

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL15/2015

On the evidence the applicant was a victim of trafficking for forced labour and the HKSARG breached Article 4 BOR by failing to identify and investigate his case and by lacking adequate criminalisation and practical measures to protect victims; Article 4 BOR covers trafficking for the purposes of slavery, servitude or forced labour and imposes positive obligations on the HKSARG to enact effective measures and investigate credible suspicions.
11 Dec 2015

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL15/2015

Leave to adduce the expert report of Ms Klara Skrivankova dated 12 October 2015 is granted insofar as it addresses specialist matters (indicia, characteristics and victim identification in human trafficking) that will assist the Court; but the report is inadmissible insofar as it makes primary factual findings or expresses conclusions on the ultimate issue of whether the applicant was a victim of trafficking, because those matters are for the Court to decide.

Hong Kong Case Law

DANG THI MAI THI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE & 3 OTHERS

RE MASRUROH IMAS ALAM ZAINEB MAHIR

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS