23 Feb 2026
HKSAR v. WONG JI YUET
- Citation
- [2026] HKCA 284
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC263/2024
[2026] HKCA 284
Hong Kong Case Law
Non‑intervention principle
23 Feb 2026
HKSAR v. YEUNG SUET YING CLARISSE AND OTHERS
- Citation
- [2026] HKCA 284
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC253/2024
On a purposive construction informed by NPC legislative materials, "other unlawful means" in NSL 22 encompasses all unlawful means other than force or threat of force and is not restricted to criminal offences; an honest belief in lawfulness is relevant evidence to mens rea but does not negate the specific intent required for NSL 22; the Scheme to obtain a LegCo majority to indiscriminately veto budgets in order to trigger BL50-52 consequences was an unlawful means and a prohibited Course of Conduct under NSL 22(3); LegCo members are bound by BL104 oath and cannot use constitutional powers to…
23 Feb 2026
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU WAI CHUNG
- Citation
- [2026] HKCA 284
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC268/2024
On construction NSL s22's 'other unlawful means' embraces all unlawful means other than force or threat of force and is not confined to criminal acts; genuine belief in lawfulness is evidence but not a standalone defence to specific intent; the Scheme (Project 35+) to obtain a LegCo majority and indiscriminately veto budgets to trigger BL50-52 was an unlawful means and the Course of Conduct was a prohibited act under NSL s22(3) when aimed at subverting the constitutional order; LegCo members' oath under BL104 imposes an overriding duty not to use constitutional powers to subvert the Basic Law…
27 Sept 2021
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄)
- Citation
- [2021] HKCFA 32
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FACC3/2021
Where conduct does not form part of speech or debate, a LegCo member is not immune under BL77 or ss3–4 LCPPO from prosecution for creating a disturbance under s17(c); s17(c) applies to members and the non‑intervention principle does not bar courts from exercising criminal jurisdiction conferred by primary legislation.
14 Sept 2020
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG
- Citation
- [2020] HKCA 758
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA520/2018
The Court refused certification because the questions were not reasonably arguable: properly construed s17(c) LC(PP)O applies to members, LegCo can by statute confer penal jurisdiction on the courts over members for conduct covered by s17(c), s3 does not protect conduct falling within s17(c), and these provisions are constitutional and consistent with separation of powers and the non-intervention principle.
27 May 2020
郭卓堅 v. 立法會主席梁君彥 AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- [2020] HKCFI 919
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL918/2020
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed on the ground that the Applicant lacks the necessary locus under Order 53 rule 3(7); because the Applicant lacked standing the court did not decide the substantive questions about the scope of Rule 92 or the applicability of the non-intervention principle and dismissed the interim relief as overtaken and for lack of standing.
4 Oct 2017
HKSAR v. FONG KWOK SHAN CHRISTINE
- Citation
- HKSAR v. FONG KWOK SHAN CHRISTINE
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FACC2/2017
Freedom of expression is applicable to exercise in the LegCo public gallery and any denial constitutes a restriction that must be justified under BOR16; AI section 11, read in its statutory context and construed purposively, is sufficiently certain to be 'prescribed by law'; AI section 12, properly construed, is not a blanket prohibition but targets intrusive or disorderly displays and is a proportionate restriction necessary to protect the rights of others and ordre public in the legislative setting; accordingly the convictions and fines were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
1 Sept 2017
SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
- Citation
- SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMV10/2017
The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the questions, though of public importance, were not reasonably arguable; the courts are obliged to determine whether BL104 and the Ordinance were complied with, the factual findings that the applicants declined or neglected to take the LegCo oath were unassailable, section 21 operates to disqualify in those circumstances, and the NPCSC Interpretation is binding and does not oust judicial review in this context.
1 Sept 2017
YAU WAI CHING v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
- Citation
- YAU WAI CHING v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE<br>
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMV7/2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the core legal questions, though important, were not reasonably arguable on the uncontested findings of fact that the applicants declined or neglected to take the LegCo oath; the courts must determine compliance with BL104 and the Ordinance; section 21 operates to disqualify automatically where a member has declined or neglected to take the oath; and the NPCSC Interpretation is binding and does not oust judicial review of compliance with constitutional requirements.
1 Sept 2017
YAU WAI CHING v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
- Citation
- YAU WAI CHING v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMV8/2017
Leave to appeal was refused because, although the issues raised are of public importance, there is no reasonably arguable case to disturb the findings below: the courts are obliged to determine compliance with BL104; the factual findings that the applicants declined or neglected to take the oath are unassailable; section 21 operates to disqualify in those circumstances; and the NPCSC Interpretation is binding and consistent with that outcome.